The Problem with Legalized Abortion

Would a completely brain dead human have full personification status?Aren't the anti abortionists trying to get the fetus the same sort of recognition of humanness without full rights that a brain dead human adult might expect (i.e. to be treated as human whilst recognising the lack of consciousness and the limitations that this necessarily imposes)

I agree that the emancipation of slaves did happen to some extent in small steps.
I also agree that anti abortionists are attempting to take this step by step strategy regarding the recognition of fetuses as having human rights.It is also true that the full humanity of slaves was denied in various guises and that this had a strong bearing on their personhood status.However where the anology breaks down is in the detail of the scientific facts on which judgements of humanity can be made.The slaves were humans. Eventually this fact had to be accepted as true and any dehumanising arguments supporting the continuation of slavery would therefore ultimately have to perish.Newly conceived embryos are arguably less human than a cancerous growth. Therefore in the absence of religious unfounded definitions of personhood (e.g. the soul) there is no basis on which to accord a fetus the rights of a person.

Hmmmm. I am not sure that is true. If there is any sort of rational basis for the attributes that something is required to have to obtain personhood status (or a 'person license') then surely that should be consistent at the other end of the spectrum as well?If there is no consistency of physical requirement then are we not just admitting that any rational discussion of what makes a person a person is just a smokescreen to justify our 'gut instinct' and irrational feelings on this emotive issue?To use your driving license anology I would say that brain dead human is to 'person' as a blind man is to driving license. A strong case can be made for revoking both if we accept rationally thought out physical attributes as being necessary for both. We don't let children vote but they are still citizens. They are citizens with limited rights and the potential to have full rights at a later date.
Fetuses are arguably comparable in terms of their right to personness.Not according a being full person rights is not an admission of non personness necessarily. It can just be a recognition that the being in question is incapable of fulfilling the obligations that come with rights in any meaningful way at that point in time.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Nothing to do with looks. A newly fertilised egg has not even combined to form a full genome. A cancer cell at least has all the genetic makeup of a full person.The point is I don't think there is an instant.
There is not an instant of conception if you really look into what actually happens at 'conception'. Conception is a graduated process and the 'moment of conception' is a concept not a fact.
Nor do I believe that there an 'instant' along the developmental path at which you can say 'this is human'
Nature does not work in instants despite our conceptual need for them.I don't have the answer to when a person becomes a person but silly thoughts of a soul (or whatever) aside I am extremely sure that the removal of some barely formed cells is not the 'killing' of a fellow human being.

Look broadly speaking we are on the same side regards the abortion issue.
HOWEVER - Your argument that not bestowing FULL human rights on a fetus is paramount to admitting that a fetus is not a person in the eyes of anti abortionists is not valid.
We don't accord various groups full citezenhood for various reasons yet we don't deny them the BASIC fundamental rights of citizenship.Anti abortionists may not accord fetuses full rights as human beings without any admission that they are any less human than you, I or themselves. BUT they can still argue for the fundamental rights of humanness (and indeed they do)
I don't agree with their arguments but on purely level of rights accorded I don't think your argument stands up.

This is a silly argument. A sperm is a potential child as is any egg. A fertilised egg may or may not develop into a fetus. In fact many many many naturally do not. Do you suggest we divert valuable resource from cancer and AIDS research to stop the natural miscarriage of millions of fertlised eggs a year on the basis that they are equal lives??????????
Of course not.
An unconscious bunch of cells may be potentially human but if cloning were a viable option so may a nostril hair.
Where do you draw the line? Do you really think that the millions of naturally miscarried very early fetuses deserve the same medical research to halt this phenomenon as the many tragic human diseases we are already challenged with???If not why not given your equal standing of fetuses with actual humans?????

Exactly.Nature does not work in instants. Our conceptions do.
Unconveniently for us there is no instant of humanness, conception or anything else.
Therefore the sooner we admit that limitations on abortion are necessarily arbitary decisions the sooner we can get about forming rational basis for making that rationale.
Arbitary in this case does not mean random or ill thought out just not based on agreeable physical definites.

Well I ask you why not sperm and eggs??Is a man every time he masturbates effectively committing mass murder????Obviously not.For that same reason a woman is not committing murder by having a set of unconscious cells removed.I am not a mas murderer. Just a sad maturbator.