.png)
On September 1, 2021, 666 new laws went into effect in the state of Texas. One of those laws is the controversial "cardiac activity" law, which prohibits abortion procedures if a heartbeat is detected in an embryo. Instead of a criminal penalty, however, the new Texas abortion law allows private citizens to file lawsuits against those who assist someone in receiving an abortion.
Underlying anti-abortion laws such as these is the (often religiously-based) belief that an embryo is a "person" (a terribly difficult and ill-defined term). For many so-called "pro-life" activists, if an embryo (or later, a fetus) is in fact a "person," then the child's life ought to be protected by the United States Constitution (specifically, among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment).
But is a fetus' personhood status even relevant to the abortion debate? If it is an accepted fact that an embryo or a fetus is a person, does that mean most abortions ought to be illegal?
The answer to that, like everything to do with abortion, is complicated and may surprise you.
In an article publication entitled, "The Relevance (and Irrelevance) of Questions of Personhood (and Mindedness) to the Abortion Debate," award-winning philosopher, Dr. David Kyle Johnson, argues that the "personhood" issue may not be as relevant as you might think. Published in the peer-reviewed academic journal, Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry (SHERM), the abstract to the article reads:
Disagreements about abortion are often assumed to reduce to disagreements about fetal personhood (and mindedness). If one believes a fetus is a person (or has a mind), then they are “pro-life.” If one believes a fetus is not a person (or is not minded), they are “pro-choice.” The issue, however, is much more complicated. Not only is it not dichotomous—most everyone believes that abortion is permissible in some circumstances (e.g. to save the mother’s life) and not others (e.g. at nine months of a planned pregnancy)—but scholars on both sides of the issue (e.g. Don Marquis and Judith Thomson) have convincingly argued that fetal personhood (and mindedness) are irrelevant to the debate. To determine the extent to which they are right, this article will define “personhood,” its relationship to mindedness, and explore what science has revealed about the mind before exploring the relevance of both to questions of abortion’s morality and legality. In general, this article does not endorse a particular answer to these questions, but the article should enhance the reader’s ability to develop their own answers in a much more informed way.
Not only does Professor Johnson provide readers with a practical and much-needed definition of "personhood," but he also demonstrates just how much nuance is actually necessary in order to engage scientifically, philosophically, and ethically in the abortion debate. As the article reveals, there is more going on than simply shouting "don't kill babies!" and "my body is my choice!"
As part of our commitment to providing you with affordable educational material, the Global Center for Religious Research is offering everyone a free copy of the SHERM article. Simply click the first "Buy Now" button below to download your copy.
Enjoy!