Denying Personhood to Human Beings

Posted on October 22, 2024 By Rachel MacNair

by Fr. Jim Hewes

Historical Examples of Dehumanization

The denial of personhood isn’t a new concept. Throughout history, certain groups of people have been denied their humanity to justify their exploitation, oppression, or even extermination.

One of the most infamous examples is the Dred Scott decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled black slaves weren’t considered citizens or “persons” under the law. This decision allowed for slavery and dehumanization of African Americans.

The same type of thinking has justified genocides throughout history. In the Holocaust, Jews, along with other marginalized groups, were dehumanized and labeled as “non-persons.” By stripping them of their humanity, the Nazi regime was able to justify their extermination.

The same logic applied to the Rwandan genocide. The Hutu majority dehumanized the Tutsi minority to justify mass slaughter.

In each of these cases, those in power determined certain human beings weren’t worthy of the rights and protections afforded to persons. This dehumanization allowed for their mistreatment, oppression, and, in some cases, their complete annihilation.

The same logic is applied in the abortion debate. By declaring the preborn aren’t persons, society allows for their destruction. Just as in historical examples of dehumanization, the preborn are denied their humanity based on arbitrary criteria set by those in power.

What Defines a Person?

One central controversy in the abortion debate is whether the preborn child is a person. This question isn’t just philosophical or theological—it has profound legal and moral implications. If the preborn are considered persons, they are entitled to rights and protection under the law, including the most fundamental right: the right to life. However, if they aren’t considered persons, these protections may not apply, allowing for their destruction through abortion.

Personhood has been debated for centuries, with various definitions proposed by philosophers, theologians, and legal scholars, based on such traits as:

consciousness,
sentience,
self-awareness,
rationality and feeling (balance also),
self-determination,
ability to choose,
minimal intelligence/certain level of IQ,
reasoning,
has interests or desires or purpose or sense of the past (memory),
self-motivated activity,
communication,
ability to change,
connection to society and to relate others and concern for others,
self-control,
sense of time,
curiosity,
to envision a future,
to use language,
recognize continuity of time,
to solve problems,
idiosyncrasy,
electrical activity which will develop into the heart or the brain,
certain point of development within the womb,
when a soul enters,
when one feels pain,
when viable outside the mother’s body,

These criteria measure up to certain standards of perfection or usefulness, and what follows is whether they are valued with rights when they have attained such traits.

Who decides which definition or standard is used, and at what point the human individual originates? Philosophers like Mary Ann Warren, Michael Tooley, and Peter Singer argue personhood requires certain cognitive functions. Without traits like these, a human being cannot be considered a person. They don’t qualify as persons. Therefore, they don’t have the same rights as those who have been born.

This functionalist view of personhood is deeply problematic. If personhood is determined by cognitive ability, then what happens to individuals who lose these abilities due to injury, an accident, illness, or age? For example, a person in a coma or suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease may no longer meet these criteria for personhood, but we don’t deny their humanity or their right to life. Similarly, a newborn infant doesn’t have the self-awareness or rational thought that some philosophers require for personhood. This thinking, taken to its end, can be used to justify infanticide as well as abortion.

These perspectives open the door to dehumanizing vulnerable individuals who cannot meet their arbitrary standards of cognitive ability. These views are determined by adults who are deciding from an adult perspective. Those who have power decide who is a person or who isn’t, rather than the pre-born child’s perspective of powerlessness.

Such thinking allows society to determine who is worthy of protection based on vague, arbitrary, subjective, speculative, self-serving criteria. How many criteria or traits are necessary? How do you measure them?

Inherent vs. Achieved Personhood

At the heart of the abortion debate is the question of whether personhood is something inherent or something that must be earned through development. Pro-abortion advocates often argue personhood is something achieved when certain cognitive or physical milestones are met, as if one can gain or lose personhood at different situations in one’s life, depending on what one can do rather who one is, with an inherent legacy, whether that is recognized or not.

This view implies also that personhood can be lost if these abilities are lost. It creates a dangerous precedent where certain human beings are considered more valuable or worthy of protection than others. This achievement-based view of personhood is, in essence, a form of elitism. Pre-born children become “outcasts” or inferior humans – not persons. It suggests some human beings are more important than others based on their abilities, achievements, or the stage of their development.

In contrast is the view that personhood is inherent in every human being, regardless of stage of development or abilities. From the moment of conception, a unique human life begins with its own DNA, distinct from both the mother and father. This human life will grow and develop according to her or his own nature, moving through the various stages of development from embryo to fetus to infant and beyond. At no point does this being ceased to be human, nor does he or she become something else.

If the mother wants the child, then the life in the womb is a person, but if the child isn’t wanted by the mother, then there’s no person within the womb. Perhaps later the same child within the womb becomes wanted, and thus becomes a person again.

Being a person doesn’t depend on if he or she is significant to others or not. It’s a continuous process of growth, not a transition from non-personhood to personhood. The inability to fulfill their nature at one moment doesn’t negate or destroy the nature itself.

In other words, personhood isn’t a matter of something or someone being “more of,” or “less of.” It’s not . something “you have or don’t have,” or something “too broad or too narrow.” Personhood in fact is an intrinsic reality of a human being (both actual and potential).

Why Personhood Matters in the Abortion Debate

The question of personhood isn’t just a theoretical issue. It has real-world implications, particularly in the context of the abortion debate. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court famously sidestepped the question of when life begins, stating the judiciary wasn’t in a position to resolve this issue. However, the Court noted that if the preborn were recognized as persons, the case for abortion would collapse. The right to life of the preborn would be protected by the Constitution.

This highlights the central importance of personhood in the abortion debate. If the preborn are considered persons, they’re entitled to the same legal protections as anyone else, including the right to life. Denying their personhood allows for their destruction through abortion, but recognizing their personhood would extend to them the rights and protections afforded to all human beings.

From a legal perspective, the burden of proof should lie on those who argue the preborn are not persons. In any case of doubt, it would be prudent that the benefit of doubt should be given to the preborn, just as it would be in any other case involving human rights. Just as we wouldn’t take the life of a person in a coma or a newborn infant simply because they cannot currently exercise certain functions, we shouldn’t take the life of preborn children because they haven’t yet reached a certain stage of development.(for in-depth legal writings see Robert P. George, Joshua Craddock, and John Finnis or view (Rallyforpersonhood.com).

Conclusion

The debate over personhood is central to the abortion controversy. Denying the personhood of the preborn is a dangerous and dehumanizing philosophy. It has been used throughout history to justify mistreatment and destruction of vulnerable groups.

Recognizing the personhood of the preborn is a matter of justice. Every human being, regardless of their stage of development or abilities, deserves the right to life and the protection of the law. In a society that values human rights, the most vulnerable among us—the preborn—should be no exception. This sentiment is clearly summarized by Dr Seuss which simply states: (“Horton Hears a Who”)

Because after all,

a person’s a person

no matter how small.

============================================