Is the Unborn Human a Person?

Is the Unborn Human a Person ?


Personhood depends upon the nature of the human being.

We determine the nature of thhuman being by examining his powers and activities.
Human beings have many powers in common with non-human beings.
Both beings show metabolic activity, growth, procreation, ability to feel pain, ability to defend against pain, consciousness of things outside themselves, pleasure from fulfilled desires, capacity for self-movement and a desire for sustenance indicated by hunger.

Powers that humans do not share with non-human animals include the preoccupation of humans with transcendental questions, questions about the absolute, the infinite, the eternal, the unconditional: the perfection of species : questions about their identity, their destiny, their ideals, questions about Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being.
Human progress towards perfection of these human powers is guided by an intrinsic guiding force, referred to as the Soul.

A Person can be defined as a human being who possesses an intrinsic guiding force towards fulfillment towards unconditional, perfect and infinite Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being This is the nature of man. This is human nature.
Since every being - human and non-human - should be treated with a dignity commensurate with its nature, persons should be treated with an unconditional dignity commensurate with their nature, a nature directed towards unconditional Truth, Love, Goodness, Beauty and Being.
Such unconditional dignity acknowledges the intrinsic value of a human being and it is this dignity that is the basis for inalienable rights. This dignity is intrinsic to the person and is not conferable by the State or other outside force. The role of the State is to recognise, protect and promote this dignity and these rights.

Doing harm to persons would violate the Silver Rule which says ‘Do no harm’ and would constitute violation of his unconditional dignity. The greatest harm done to persons in human history has derived from the assumption that certain human beings wers not persons. Examples include slavery, genocide, racism, and totalitarian persecutions. And now abortion and euthanasia.
Abortion proponents had to divorce personhood from human life because they could not deny that a human life existed at conception.
It was clearly a life because it was metabolizing, growing, sub-dividing and surviving : it was clearly a human life because it possessed the complete genetic structure of a unique human being.
With the Roe/Wade ruling and others that followed has come the legal denial of the personhood of all unborn human beings. Unborn human beings are now at the mercy of the choice of their mothers – the choice between the infant’s life and death.

Abortion is not the only consequence of these legal rulings.
Since it was contended by abortion promoters that rights belonged only to ‘persons’ the court took upon itself to define when personhood occurred. Two effects followed. The hitherto accepted objective basis of human personhood was undermined and the courts were able to assume – for the first time - the unprecedented power to decide when personhood and therefore inalienable rights exist.
The objective basis for definition of personhood was now superceded by subjective bases. From now on, personhood and therefore inalienable rights can be defined in arbitrary, subjective ways at the discretion of the State and the legal system. If the State can establish criteria for definition of personhood, it will be free to isolate certain categories of people as non-persons as it has with the right to life of the unborn. It can decide that a person has to possess a certain I.Q. level, have a reasonable degree of independence, a minimum quality of life or be free from certain diseases or disability.

The evil of subjectivising personhood is illustrated by abortion proponents claiming that mothers have the right to custody over their own bodies, that mothers have liberty-rights over the life-rights of their unborn. Here we see an attempt to place liberty-rights at higher level than the right to life. How can this be reasonable when its obvious that without life all other rights are irrelevant. Life has to take precedence. The right to life trumps all other rights.

The subjectivization of personhood and inalienable rights has implications much broader than the facilitation of abortion and euthanasia.
The citizen’s basic, inalienable rights, hitherto taken for granted, are now no longer assured by the legal system and indeed are seen to be under constant attack by powerful totalitarian forces.
What can be done?
The evil of abortion cannot be eradicated unless and until the personhood of the unborn is clearly established legally and constitutionally and unborn human life is once again protected by the 14th Amendment.
We must refuse to subordinate an objective criterion to a subjective criterion.
We must resolve rights conflicts through use of the moral necessity criterion whenever possible.
In times of uncertainty, we should err in favour of according rights and personhood rather than in denying them.

See "Healing the Culture." By Robt Spitzer