Gertie, if you decide that "personhood" only starts at birth, then yes, that angle bears similarity to my position. However, declaring that personhood begins at birth may not necessarily be understood by the fact that personhood is a worldly concept and therefore there is no such thing as pre-birth personhood. It's a bit like claiming that abortion kills babies. It kills featuses not babies. If you use an umbelical chord, you are a fetus. Saying that abortion kills babies is a lie or it is a euphemism; it's not acceptable to describe facts factually.Gertie wrote: ↑March 29th, 2023, 8:24 am
I suppose a similar common framing would be of 'personhood' and the rights (moral consideration) most see as accruing to persons. And then the debate becomes at what point does the egg/foetus/unborn baby acquire those rights of personhood. This creates the potential conflict of the 'right to life' of the egg/foetus/unborn baby, with the mother's rights of personhood regarding her 'bodily autonomy'.
In effect your claim would mean the rights of personhood come into effect when the baby leaves the mother's body. The other end of the spectrum would be at conception when the egg is fertilised.
(My own view is that such rights are meaningless to objects or organisms which aren't sentient and have interests (a stake) in what happens to them. Which is reflected in limits to the dates abortions are legal. But that leaves two uncomfortable blurry lines - one being confident we can know when sentience begins, and secondly the issue of aborting a 'potential' sentient person).
As you mention, some proponents of that similar theory may not agree with others as to where/when "personhood" begins. Because of this, this theory does not necessarily supports/justify abortionists. My theory points a finger at any abortion opponent as someone lacking worldly understanding or having an abusive agenda of male domination over women of some kind. In light of this, I think we can consider these two theories very dissimilar.
The acquisition of rights for a person does not necessarily have anything to do with the life stage that person has. Instead, it may have everything to do with the country that a person is born into. Not every country's constitution have a charter of rights for it's people. My theory doesn't complicate things with the need for a charter of rights. You just need to have a country that outlaws the killing of a worldly person by another person to appreciate that this protection begins when a person is of this world.