Foetal Personhood
This essay discusses when you can 中止する (kill[A]) a foetus, and the 関係 or さもなければ with whether it is a person.
The 基準 defined in UK 法律 for deciding whether a foetus is killable or not are somewhat コンビナート／複合体. So, ーするために 明らかにする my understanding of the 合法的な position, and perhaps to help anyone who is 自信のない whether they can 合法的に kill a particular foetus they are 肉体的に, parentally or medically connected with, I have drawn up this handy flowchart[B]:
- [1] This 言い回し is my 試みる／企てる to summarise the 基準 by which the 限界 on abortions was 減ずるd from 28 to 24 weeks in 1990, and by which その上の 削減s have recently been called for.
- [2] The 結果 of Joanna Jepson's 法廷，裁判所 事例／患者 was that the 栄冠を与える 起訴 Service decided not to 起訴する two doctors who 中止するd a foetus with a cleft lip and palate at 28 weeks because they were "事実上の／代理 in good 約束".
Personhood
So what does it mean to be a person? I 示唆する that personhood has two 関連した and important 特徴[C]:
- Intrinsic. Personhood is defined by what the （独立の）存在 in question is, and not by the 明言する／公表する or 活動／戦闘s of some third party. That is, one should be able to 決定する an （独立の）存在's personhood by 診察するing it in 孤立／分離. If a person is a person only because the 政府 says so, you 結局最後にはーなる with the 状況／情勢 which led to the 大破壊／大虐殺 - the Nazis defined Jews, homosexuals and gypsies as 非，不，無-people and 始める，決める about 除去するing them.
- Irrevocable. Once someone is given personhood, they keep that status until they die. Nothing can change in the 未来 to make that person no longer a person. If personhood were revocable, perhaps by 政府 fiat or by mental 病気, we would all need to be watching our 支援するs, 特に in old age.
Persons are afforded special 保護 in 法律 which is not 延長するd to other （独立の）存在s such as animals, 工場／植物s or 激しく揺するs. For example, when is it 合法的な to kill a person? UK 法律 収容する／認めるs three 推論する／理由s:
- as 罰 (this 権利 is reserved to the 明言する／公表する)
- in self-defence
- in defence of others (含むing as part of a 宣言するd war)
In any other 状況／情勢, you would be punished. Therefore, to say that you can kill something with impunity in circumstances other than those above is to say that it isn't a person.
Abortion 法律 反映するs this in that you can kill a foetus at any time for self-defence (i.e. if the life of the mother is in danger), and you can't kill a newly-born baby. However, as we have seen, abortions are also permitted, in some 事例／患者s up until birth, for a wide variety of other 推論する／理由s 関係のない to the three given above.
So what is the 法律 説 about the question of whether a foetus is a person? 論理（学）上, there are three 可能性s - always, never and いつかs[D]:
Always A Person
If the foetus is always a person, then we would either need to 廃止する all the 存在するing abortion 支配（する）／統制する 法律s and 禁止（する） abortion except in self-defence, or we must 追加する some more 合法的な justifications for 殺人，大当り to the 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる） above, 含むing having a disability and 原因（となる）ing some other person mental or physical 苦しめる. To be 一貫した, we would then need to 許す 殺人，大当り other types of people, such as adults, for the same 推論する／理由s.
As either 選択 is 本気で inconsistent with the 存在するing 団体／死体 of 法律制定, this cannot be the position of UK 法律 on the question.
Never A Person
The second 可能性 is that the foetus is never a person until it fully 現れるs from the birth canal. That is to say, personhood is defined by the foetus/baby's 場所 in three-dimensional space. This would make it reasonable to kill it at any time while it was still inside the womb, but it would also mean having a 鮮明度／定義 of personhood which was not intrinsic. After all, if geographical 場所 may 決定する personhood, it would be reasonable and 一貫した if we were to choose to define those inside 刑務所，拘置所 独房s in Guantanamo Bay, for example, as not people.
However, it's （疑いを）晴らす that this is also not the 姿勢 of UK 法律. If it were, abortion 法律s would not 存在する, as they would 単に be 独断的な 制限s on the 完全に reasonable 活動／戦闘s of women.
いつかs A Person
The last 可能性 is that a foetus is a person some of the time. Given our 排除／予選 of the two 可能性s above, this remaining 論理（学）の 選択 must be the position of UK 法律. This would mean that abortion 法律 is an 試みる／企てる to define under what circumstances a foetus is a person, その為に 妨げるing it 存在 killed when it is, and 許すing it when it isn't. Personhood and killability are 合法的に linked.
But we see that in the chart given above, and therefore in the 法律 it 代表するs, personhood is revocable. That is, it's possible for a particular foetus to be classed as killable, then as not killable, then later as killable again. This could happen if, for example, a follow-up ざっと目を通す is 成し遂げるd at 26 weeks and a 以前-unknown disability is discovered.
Additionally, if the 法律 is defining personhood ーするために define killability, then it is using many extrinsic 基準. によれば the flowchart, the に引き続いて factors can all 影響する／感情 the position in 確かな circumstances:
- The mental health of a mother's already 存在するing children
- The 現在の 明言する／公表する of 医療の science (which defines the age below which abortion is permitted)
- The "good 約束" of any doctors 伴う／関わるd
非，不，無 of these 基準 are intrinsic to the foetus. So a 宣言 of personhood for one （独立の）存在 can depend on the mental 明言する／公表する of one or more other people; and a 23-week-old foetus was not a person in 1989, but an 同一の foetus today is.
結論
When it comes to people, the 法律 says that you can't kill them except for the 推論する／理由s 名簿（に載せる）／表（にあげる）d above. So in the 事例／患者 of foetuses, what is the 法律 説? Either they are people, and it's 許すing the 殺人，大当り of people on grounds like having a cleft palate or 乱すing another's mental health, or else it's using one of several very strange 鮮明度／定義s of "person". For example, in the "いつかs A Person" シナリオ (which seems to be the 姿勢 of UK 法律) the foetus's personhood is neither irrevocable nor intrinsic.
I think that all 関係者s in the abortion 審議 need to be able to have a defendable answer for the questions: "What makes something a person? 適用するing that, when (if ever) is a foetus a person?"
[A]: I use the word "kill" throughout this essay because I think it's a reasonable and ありふれた word to use for the 過程 of changing something alive to 存在 not alive by 審議する／熟考する 活動／戦闘. I have 試みる／企てるd, as far as is possible, to use 非，不，無-負担d language - for example, the 医療の 称する，呼ぶ／期間／用語 "foetus" instead of the 負担d "unborn child". (支援する)
[B]: It's やめる possible that I've misunderstood the 法律, or have not 反映するd the 十分な 複雑さ of it in this flowchart. My main source was the website of "Abortion 権利s", a プロの／賛成の-abortion organisation. If so, I apologise - I've only just started 熟考する／考慮するing the 状況／情勢. 是正s and 改良s are welcome; please email me. (支援する)
[C]: I 自由に 収容する／認める I am 主張するing rather than "証明するing" this. I do so on the basis of the unacceptability of the 代案／選択肢s, as 輪郭（を描く）d in the text. However, I would happily hear arguments against these 主張s about the nature of personhood. (支援する)
[D]: To be 完全にする: it is also possible that the 法律 does not say anything about whether the foetus is a person. Because personhood is 前向きに／確かに defined, that 減ずるs to the second 選択, "Never A Person". It is also possible that the foetus is いつかs a person, and the 法律 does define when it is, but this 鮮明度／定義 is neither 含む／封じ込めるd in nor 反映するd by abortion 法律. Given that abortion 法律 is the 最初の／主要な 状況／情勢 in which this question needs to be answered, this position seems absurd, and so is not considered その上の. (支援する)