Fertilization-Assigned Personhood [FAP]

[Bells]

Most states (41) have LTA restrictions, and in most cases (26 of them) it hews precisely to the Roe v Wade decision. The "line" for viability varies from 20 to 26 weeks.

You failed to factor in the rest of it.. Not surprising really..

Hate to be a woman brought into emergency in Florida after suffering a life threatening injury and requiring treatment that could harm the fetus or who is in the middle of miscarrying a viable fetus that still has a heartbeat.. Because the Bill requires that two doctors certify in writing that a termination is necessary after they are legally required to perform an ultrasound to certify viability and offer her the chance to look at said ultrasound and then offer her an explanation.. In other words, if a doctor simply treats the patient as required without putting it all in writing first and having another doctor also put it in writing, then he or she could face life in prison.

The Bill 'provides a weaker health exemption than required by the Supreme Court'..

After all, it's just the health of the mother. Nothing really important really, is it?

Ask a doctor what they would prefer to be doing if a pregnant woman presents with life threatening injuries. To treat her, or perform an ultrasound to test for viability, then find another doctor and put in writing that they need to treat her and thus, have to terminate, before they can actually treat her?

---

Specious horseshit, nearly in its entirety. I appreciate you running away, however, as it saves me the bother of bothering with you. I supported my position throughout, and your response was to, literally, write in the word "chortle". That is not an argument. That is crap.

You refused, several times, to provide links of a statement you then misrepresented in intent to all appearances. You have attempted to drive this discussion away from a rational and responsible discussion with your links that demonstrate nothing of the point you wish to present. You ask for a demonstration that a proposition untested in the world could not be abused. That is absurd.

When pressed, your newest outrages were accusations that I defended rape and domestic abuse. There are not enough words to express the puerile disingenuousness and outright intellectual disjunction of this.

There were numerous other offenses against forum rules. I assure you, you would not be able to get away with this nonsense except by your position. The end message here is: don't argue against Bells, because she has moderator powers. If I am indeed banned for daring to counter you, then by God, there would be no clearer condemnation of the forum.

You are a child that plays with fire, and I pity those who must know you.

Here endeth the lesson. Good day.

Your final chance to discuss the topic. Either do so or you will be moderated.

---

We're well beyond needing such reminders that this vile person has no scruples or shame, but this is a particularly nasty one.

The sad bit is that there's reason to pity her, but I can't manage it because she's so rotten.

That same warning applies to you.

 

[billvon]

Specious horseshit, nearly in its entirety. I appreciate you running away, however, as it saves me the bother of bothering with you.

At least she conceded defeat in the only way she knows how (threatening to ban you unless you shut up.)

 

[billvon]

You failed to factor in the rest of it.. Not surprising really..

What I posted was a statement of fact that bore on your comment that "Florida recently passed legislation that restricts 3rd trimester abortions." Many other states do, too. For the most part I agree with them. Provided it allows exceptions for the mental or physical health of the mother, then those laws provide a reasonable compromise between the rights of a viable fetus and the rights of the mother who carries it.

 

[Tiassa]

Roe, Roe, Roe Your Boat ....

What I posted was a statement of fact that bore on your comment that "Florida recently passed legislation that restricts 3rd trimester abortions." Many other states do, too. For the most part I agree with them. Provided it allows exceptions for the mental or physical health of the mother, then those laws provide a reasonable compromise between the rights of a viable fetus and the rights of the mother who carries it.

And you're also invoking Roe, which reminds that your argument is still a change of subject.

Meanwhile, though, more to the topic, you noted the idea of a "reasonable compromise between the rights of a viable fetus and the rights of the mother who carries it".

Under Roe the "rights" of the viable fetus are presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition.

The problem of FAP is that an ontological presupposition will be codified into law. Even Wynn can figure out that using law to shape ontology "is just backwards".

Yeah, I get it. There is some happy medium out there that you believe in. That's well and fine. But the question here isn't what happens, or even what is possible, under Roe. It is, instead, what happens under a legislative circumstance intended to erase Roe.

 

[iceaura]

Because the mother is a person, too.

My emphasis. You know, I think this constitutes a breakthrough: “too”. Your own language betrays an appreciation that with two lives in focus, maybe a balance would be preferable to dominance? Too Freudian?

You misread the "too", overlooking the context. The aftermath, like the great majority of your posting in this thread, is irrelevancy conjoined with gratuitous insult - perhaps that cause is effective elsewhere?

Many of those opposed to choice have been drawn in that direction because they believe that legalized abortion cheapens human life. Much of the rhetoric of the "culture of life" has force because there is something disturbing about the idea of treating the fetus as unworthy of respect and consideration. If the two sides could come closer together on this matter, perhaps the disagreements remaining would be less rancorous."—Austin Cline

Ok, sure. Let's start by having the side that thinks legalizing abortion cheapens human life come to the realization of just how dramatically they cheapen the woman's life by banning abortion in the first place - never mind their incredible arguments from presumptions of promiscuity, "convenience", etc.

What are the odds of that happening, think you?

It's hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth.

But fairly easy to maintain that a bestowal of minimum personhood, i.e. early childhood, should happen abruptly at birth - which would of course include birth at 36 weeks by C-section, etc - on the grounds that abrogation of the woman's basic rights is no longer necessary to bestow it.

Why, then, should it be murder to kill an infant the day after it was born but not the day before?

Many intelligent people have asked themselves this question. And that is what Capracus was trying to get at, smart one.

And they have been answered - because the day after, you do not have to abrogate the rights of the woman.

Why is that so easily and glibly overlooked? It's a fairly obvious answer, one would think.

"Abortion: Is it Possible to be both 'Pro-life' and 'Pro-Choice'?" by Carl Sagan and Ann Duran

"We recognize that specifying a precise moment will overlook individual differences. Therefore, if we must draw a line, it ought to be drawn conservatively--that is, on the early side. There are people, who object to having to set some numerical limit, and we share their disquiet; but if there is to be a law on this matter, and it is to affect some useful compromise between the two absolutist positions, it must specify, at least roughly, a time of transition to personhood.

Since, on average, fetal thinking occurs even later than fetal lung development, we find Roe v. Wade to be a good and prudent decision addressing a complex and difficult issue

In the US, as a matter of legal and political reality, legal and formal fetal personhood would invalidate Roe vs Wade.

At least, such is the expectation and declared intent of the people promoting it and pushing for it in the US.

 

[billvon]

Under Roe the "rights" of the viable fetus are presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition.

No, they are presupposed based on viability. From the decision:

=============
The State . . .has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
==============

Nothing about aesthetics and tradition there. Just an understanding that the law must represent a compromise between protecting the mother and protecting the life of a viable fetus.

Yeah, I get it. There is some happy medium out there that you believe in. That's well and fine. But the question here isn't what happens, or even what is possible, under Roe. It is, instead, what happens under a legislative circumstance intended to erase Roe.

Or under a legislative circumstance that wants to go too far in the other direction, and assign zero rights to any fetus until after birth. Both are extremes that are wise to guard against. Fortunately, our law currently is a lot more reasonable than either extreme.

 

[iceaura]

Under Roe the "rights" of the viable fetus are presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition.
No, they are presupposed based on viability

The rights accruing to viability seem to have been presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition.

Just an understanding that the law must represent a compromise between protecting the mother and protecting the life of a viable fetus.

The potentiality of life, you mean. And the preservation of the life or health of the mother is not compromised, in the original language there.

Or under a legislative circumstance that wants to go too far in the other direction, and assign zero rights to any fetus until after birth. Both are extremes that are wise to guard against.

Only one of them is a constituent of reality. We are discussing actual threat, in this thread, not imaginary alternative realities.

 

[billvon]

The rights accruing to viability seem to have been presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition.

If you want to define them that way, that's your decision. However the Supreme Court, both in its decision and by its charter, assumes that such rights come from the US Constitution.

The potentiality of life, you mean.

No, actual life. A 35 week old fetus is actually alive. You may not want to define it as a person (which is what this whole thread is about) but there is absolutely no doubt that a normal 35 week old fetus is alive.

And the preservation of the life or health of the mother is not compromised, in the original language there.

Exactly. Hence the tradeoff between the two sets of rights.

Only one of them is a constituent of reality. We are discussing actual threat, in this thread, not imaginary alternative realities.

NARAL advocates abortion on demand through the 40th week and protests fetal homicide laws. Unless you claim that NARAL is "imaginary" (which would be a hard sell) both sets of extremists exist.

 

[Tiassa]

Round and Round the Infinite Loop, Who Gets To Be Monkey or Weasel?

Nothing about aesthetics and tradition there. Just an understanding that the law must represent a compromise between protecting the mother and protecting the life of a viable fetus.

Then certainly you can provide an objetive framework to define the compuslsion.

That is to say—

The State . . .has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.​

—what is the objectively, rationally defined circumstance that makes abortion access restrictions compelling?

Singer Natalie Cole won Record of the Year for 1992 at the Grammy Awards. This one puzzled almost everyone, more so than Michael Bolton's Best Vocal Performance two years before.

If we stick to human behavior, we can certainly argue a potentially testable thesis for how a sappy, sentimental karaoke duet with her dead father's voice might warrant; the single was, after all, up against Bryan Adams, Amy Grant, Bonnie Raitt, and R.E.M. Whether ignorance or political correctness, or whatever, it's kind of like giving Jethro Tull the Heavy Metal award over Metallica, Soundgarden, and G'n'R. That is, there are objective ways to comprehend the opinions people hold and express.

But are those opinions in and of themselves objective?

Compelling, yes, but why?

This is the thing about invoking sincere beliefs or abstract moral duties; much like recta, pretty much everyone has abstract beliefs. The question of how, when, and where we apply a given function function? Well, yeah. It's one thing to argue about dogs shitting on the lawn and the fact that dogs need to shit, but you're not a dog. The dogs that shit on the lawn are being dogs, regardless of my annoyance. If I catch you shitting on my lawn?

That the shit is analogous and the lawn metaphorical isn't always a comfort. I might not be able to smack you with a newspaper, or spray you with a hose—metaphorically or otherwise—but I sure as hell ain't gonna say, "Good job, boy! You didn't piddle on the carpet!"

 

[iceaura]

If you want to define them that way, that's your decision

It's an observation of how others, including the US judiciary, seem to have arrived at their apparent definitions. Do you find it in error? How so?

The potentiality of life, you mean.
No, actual life. A 35 week old fetus is actually alive.

Again, that's not up to you or me in reference to Roe vs Wade - the wording of the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade, which you quoted, was "potentiality of life". I was correcting your reference, in hopes that would force a reworking of your arguments, partly dependent as they are upon the distinction.

Only one of them is a constituent of reality. We are discussing actual threat, in this thread, not imaginary alternative realities.
NARAL advocates abortion on demand through the 40th week and protests fetal homicide laws. Unless you claim that NARAL is "imaginary" (which would be a hard sell) both sets of extremists exist.

NARAL is not a legislative circumstance. NARAL does not advocate assigning "zero rights" to fetuses, anyway.

You need a "legislative circumstance" in real life USA that attempts to banish all rights from all fetuses. I know of none.

Then you need to connect the whole thing to the thread issue, which so many posters here seem to be more or less actively avoiding.

 

[billvon]

It's an observation of how others, including the US judiciary, seem to have arrived at their apparent definitions.

No, it is not. They do not define it that way. You may think it seems that way but the facts do not support your supposition.

Again, that's not up to you or me in reference to Roe vs Wade - the wording of the Supreme Court in Roe vs Wade, which you quoted, was "potentiality of life"

No, it's not. They said "potentiality of HUMAN life" which has a much more specific meaning. Anyone who has ever seen an ultrasound knows that 35 week fetuses are alive by any definition.

Then you need to connect the whole thing to the thread issue, which so many posters here seem to be more or less actively avoiding.

As a reminder, this thread is about FAP. a legal theory that grants all rights at conception. Two posters brought up DF, which is the opposite extreme. Neither is valid, as the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade.

From the OP - "What happens when one person must assert equal protection that grants authority over another equally protected person's body?" Answer - there is a compromise based on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution. Several posters here do not like that interpretation; that's too bad. Fortunately the Supreme Court does not heed extremists from South Carolina (or the Internet.)

 

[Trooper]

As a reminder, this thread is about FAP. a legal theory that grants all rights at conception. Two posters brought up DF, which is the opposite extreme. Neither is valid, as the Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade.

He’s right, you know. Most people are not anti-abortion or abortion extremists. Neither view is sustainable for most people. Most Americans don’t want abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, unless the health of the mother is at risk.

"In Roe, the court ruled that women have a right to abortion during the first and second trimesters of pregnancy and the state cannot restrict the procedure. In the third trimester, which encompasses the period after the point of fetal viability, the state may prohibit abortion as long as it is still permitted if the life or health of the mother is at risk."

Perty simple realy... the "problem" of abortion to be the choice of the pregnant woman... ie... none of anybody elses bidness.!!!

The answer is simple. You hold that line. You make sure that everyone understands what the personhood laws actually entail. Even pro-lifers, such as Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, once a proponent of "personhood" measures, says he’s changed his mind and accepts the argument of critics that such measures not only ban abortion but prohibit some forms of contraception.

You can also remind pro-lifers of their horrific history.

Bodies of 800 Babies, Long-dead, Found in Septic Tank at Former Irish Home for Unwed Mothers

The keystone is their "God-given rights". So, it’s probably not a good idea to start topics that are meant to embarrass atheists back into the closet. Promoting atheism is nothing to be ashamed of. After all, it's their beliefs, their privileges, and their bigotry that we're challenging.

[video=youtube_share;IgDcihrotIA]http://youtu.be/IgDcihrotIA[/video]

If you keep yapping about your dry foot policy, Tiassa, you’ll have pro-choicers jumping the fence. You might also consider supporting and soothing your flamboyant feminist fan behind the scenes. Do you really think that her emotional outbursts and unfounded accusations against other members enhance your cause?

Think about it.

Good day to you, Tiassa.

 

[GeoffP]

Bum bum bum

Been a bit busy and haven't had time to comment. A slight roundup here:

At least she conceded defeat in the only way she knows how (threatening to ban you unless you shut up.)

Well, this is what one expects. Frankly, it's not necessary to bother with it, although the ethical issues surrounding the debate are indeed very serious vis-a-vis this forum.

You misread the "too", overlooking the context.

"Too" equivocates to "two", mon ami. Was the context you meant by "too" really "over those of the fetus in all instances"? That would be a bit of a transposition.

The aftermath, like the great majority of your posting in this thread, is irrelevancy conjoined with gratuitous insult - perhaps that cause is effective elsewhere?

Some people certainly do prefer such a technique. I'd be fascinated to know what you perceive about my proposition as "irrelevant" - some badly wrong people have called it a variety of things, but that term doesn't really fit with the argument.

But fairly easy to maintain that a bestowal of minimum personhood, i.e. early childhood, should happen abruptly at birth - which would of course include birth at 36 weeks by C-section, etc - on the grounds that abrogation of the woman's basic rights is no longer necessary to bestow it.

This is bizarre - are you now arguing for the employment of 'personhood' based on the medical circumstance you describe above? All along I'd thought you firmly in the 'other camp', as it were. In any event, I think personhood is a non-starter: which jurisdiction - and I apologise for asking this question yet again - currently uses 'personhood' in its consideration of the termination of abortion rights? This is a troublesome issue to answer, I'm sure, but very salient.

And they have been answered - because the day after, you do not have to abrogate the rights of the woman.

Well, if you're going to call personhood at 36-week C-section, this does in essence abrogate the rights of the woman. This is the part that's being found so troublesome, which is why I don't understand why you, who appears to be a DF advocate, is invoking the P-word now.

No, they are presupposed based on viability. From the decision:

=============
The State . . .has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
==============

Nothing about aesthetics and tradition there. Just an understanding that the law must represent a compromise between protecting the mother and protecting the life of a viable fetus.



Or under a legislative circumstance that wants to go too far in the other direction, and assign zero rights to any fetus until after birth. Both are extremes that are wise to guard against. Fortunately, our law currently is a lot more reasonable than either extreme.

Well said. That being said, I think there is latitude for re-examination; perhaps deadlines are being selected less rationally than could be done.

Only one of them is a constituent of reality. We are discussing actual threat, in this thread, not imaginary alternative realities.

Well, one does wonder why DF - an imaginary alternative reality if there ever was one - is required as a contrast to PAF, then.

Then certainly you can provide an objetive framework to define the compuslsion.

The what now?

That is to say—

The State . . .has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.​

—what is the objectively, rationally defined circumstance that makes abortion access restrictions compelling?[/quote]

Fetal behaviour, probably. I expect quickening was a likely benchmark informing present limitations, although the range of actual modern limitations employed both among and within nations does lead one to expect a much more heterogenous basis. Fetuses do appear to respond to different voices somewhere from 22-24 weeks, apparently (Hepper & Shahidullah in that article).

This deadline has shortcomings, of course: Fetal behaviour appears mroe divisible into stages later in development than present limitations to abortion rights (roughly 20 weeks).

Singer Natalie Cole won Record of the Year for 1992 at the Grammy Awards. This one puzzled almost everyone, more so than Michael Bolton's Best Vocal Performance two years before.

 

[Tiassa]

When Reality Is Rude Enough To Interject

Meanwhile, In That Strangeness Called 'Reality'

Personhood, because, well, right—because:

In Ohio, for example, Republican lawmakers are advancing a proposal to make it illegal for a private insurance company to cover abortions, even in cases of rape, incest and when pregnancy threatens a mother's life. The Columbus Dispatch's report added, however, that the state legislation doesn't stop there ....

The bill also would ban insurance coverage for public employees as well as those on Medicaid for birth control that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, such as intrauterine devices, known as IUDs.

During testimony, Rep. John Becker, a suburban Cincinnati Republican who sponsored the bill, acknowledged that the wording can be interpreted to include birth-control pills, which he said wasn't his intention. An amendment could be introduced to clarify that point, he said.

When it came to IUDs, which are plastic devices implanted into a woman, Becker said they should be included in the ban because they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, meaning they can be considered an abortion.​

Defending his proposal, the Republican lawmaker argued, "This is just a personal view. I'm not a medical doctor."

(Benen)​

To the one, we can appreciate the logic. Much like the politicians who choose to argue against the outcomes found in the climate sciences, now these folks asserting a medical opinion are going actually going to try to hide behind their ignorance. Rep. Becker (R-OH65) would ordinarily be a caricature, calling to impeach judges he doesn't like, legislating to put firearm noise suppressors in the marketplace, and promoting legislation to specifically legalize headlight communication. Except, well, it isn't really funny. Okay, the headlight thing, sure, but this?

He's not a doctor? Fine. That means he apparently expects Ohio should do this in order to suit his personal view.

And here we come to the heart of the personhood argument.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Contraception opponents aren't backing down". msnbc. June 5, 2014. msnbc.com. June 6, 2014. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/contraception-opponents-arent-backing-down

Ohio House of Representatives. "Representative John Becker (R) - District 65". n.d. OhioHouse.gov. June 6, 2014. http://www.ohiohouse.gov/john-becker

 

[GeoffP]

Then your best bet is to lean on RvW, and try not to equivocate those supporting existing or revised ontogenetic limitations on abortion with PAFers.

 

[Tiassa]

The Question Won't Simply Go Away

Then your best bet is to lean on RvW, and try not to equivocate those supporting existing or revised ontogenetic limitations on abortion with PAFers.

It's a problem that arises with any PIU argument, regardless of how you feel about humbuckers.

 

[GeoffP]

His way or the highway?

It's a problem that arises with any PIU argument, regardless of how you feel about humbuckers.

Then it's fortunate that neither present law nor the proponents of modified deadlines as discussed above require such a proposition. I'm surprised you haven't "picked up" on that.

 

[iceaura]

It's an observation of how others, including the US judiciary, seem to have arrived at their apparent definitions.
No, it is not. They do not define it that way. You may think it seems that way but the facts do not support your supposition.

Another blank assertion - the question was, if you found the observation in error, ->how so<-?

I'd be fascinated to know what you perceive about my proposition as "irrelevant"

It has nothing to do with personhood issues - all of your focus on Roe vs Wade, for example, is beside the point unless you are addressing the effects of declaring personhood in the womb on that landmark of reasonableness. And you aren't.

This is bizarre - are you now arguing for the employment of 'personhood' based on the medical circumstance you describe above?

Based on the "medical circumstance" of being alive, being human, and not being inside somebody else. This seems bizarre to you?

And they have been answered - because the day after, you do not have to abrogate the rights of the woman.
Well, if you're going to call personhood at 36-week C-section, this does in essence abrogate the rights of the woman.

No, it doesn't.

What is so freakishly difficult about recognizing the significance of the distinction between the inside and the outside of a living human being? I'm beginning to think the lady was simply stating fact, when she said that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament of the Christian Church.

 

[billvon]

Another blank assertion - the question was, if you found the observation in error, ->how so<-?

You said - "The rights accruing to viability seem to have been presupposed according to aesthetics and tradition." That is incorrect; the rights of the unborn were explicitly discussed by the Supreme Court, with viability being an explicit point at which their rights increase. They did not say "well, traditionally people think differently when the fetus is viable" - they state when and how the states can regulate abortion, and explicitly discuss the tradeoffs between maternal health and the rights of the fetus.

What is so freakishly difficult about recognizing the significance of the distinction between the inside and the outside of a living human being?

Not hard at all. And the Supreme Court's balance-of-rights definition in Roe v Wade (I will refer to that as the BoR maxim to have a snappy acronym) defines in what cases being inside a living human being grants a measure of personhood to a fetus - and when it doesn't. It's pretty simple if you read the decision.

However, some people cannot seem to see anything other than extremes, for some reason, and believe that any attempt to discuss fetal rights means "you want to kill women" (or some other asinine claim.)

 

[Bells]

Perhaps you need to read the decision yourself..

The Supreme Court was careful to not grant personhood to the fetus at any time. Perhaps even they recognised that doing so would create a biological conflict.

Granting personhood at any time would actually overthrow Roe v Wade.

Pro-lifer's who advocate personhood rely on Justice Potter Stewart's oral comments on "if" personhood were established, it would create an "impossible case here". Hence why pro-lifer's demand personhood, because it is the one way they have to completely overthrow Roe v Wade. So no, personhood was not granted at any point in Roe v Wade. On the contrary, they explicitly did not grant it at any time.

In Roe, the Supreme Court expressly rejected Texas’s claim that a “fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of” the Constitution, and in so doing, pointed out inconsistencies in Texas’s argument.

The Court pointed out, for example, that no state, including Texas banned all abortions. The Court further pointed out that the exceptions to abortion bans that routinely existed in state law at the time were out of line with Texas’s argument in Roe that “a fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law.” In other words, Texas couldn’t point to any state law that recognized fetuses as persons. Personhood activists, therefore, seek to avoid this inconsistency by enacting laws that specifically recognize the so-called unborn as persons.

Once states confer personhood rights upon eggs, personhood activists believe that they can successfully argue for abortion bans based on newly-created civil rights for prenatal life—rights they think will provide a counterweight to the federally-protected privacy rights established in Roe v. Wade. Personhood activists and legislators will then argue that under the Constitution, the civil rights of the unborn are paramount to the privacy rights of women.

But even if states successfully pass fetal personhood bills that doesn’t necessarily mean that a fetus will suddenly be granted the same rights as a pregnant woman. Why? Because personhood activists are confused about what a “person” is, what “personhood” means, and what rights personhood status will confer upon fetuses.

​