Does it make more sense to debate when personhood begins rather than pro-life vs. pro-choice?
I feel like regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, most abortion debates eventually come back to one fundamental question: when does personhood begin?
A lot of arguments seem to start several steps ahead of this question. For example, saying that abortion is “murder” already assumes that an embryo or fetus has the moral status of a person. On the other hand, I’m personally pro-choice, but I also don’t think it is ethical to have an abortion at a very late stage of pregnancy when there is no serious health risk or medical reason. To me, this suggests that the moral status of a fetus may not necessarily remain the same throughout the entire pregnancy.
That’s why I find many abortion debates frustrating. People argue about whether abortion is justified without first agreeing on, or even discussing, what exactly gives a developing human moral status in the first place.
Being biologically alive, being genetically human, and being a person are not necessarily identical concepts. So rather than immediately debating whether abortion is right or wrong, wouldn’t it make more sense to first debate when a developing human acquires personhood or the kind of moral status that gives it rights?
Otherwise, if two people fundamentally disagree about when personhood begins, it seems like they’re debating pro-life vs. pro-choice from completely different starting points