Source Conversation Drama
The research question “What is personhood, when dealing with abortion?” is addressed by
several sources, personified as their authors.
Character Guide:
1. Shaniqua Thorpe: Focused Inquiry 112 student at Virginia Commonwealth University;
Head of Group
2. Susanne Gibson: Division of Religion and Philosophy at St. Martin’s College of
Lancaster. Her research seeks to define some morally contested concepts and moral
autonomy when dealing with the problem of abortion.
3. Paul S. Penner & Richard T. Hull: They work at the University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New
York, USA. Their research discusses the different approaches people take to consider
what is essential to personhood.
4. Mark L. Rienzi: Assistant Professor at the Catholic University of America, Columbus
School of Law; Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. His Research
seeks to make recognition that there should be a constitutional right not to kill.
5. Allyne L. Smith Jr.: Works at Saint Irenaeus Institute. His research discusses personhood
as both a philosophical and theological question in determining when life begins.
6. Jonathan F. Will: Associate Professor of Law and Director of the Bioethics & Health
Law Center, Mississippi College School of Law. His research describes the Personhood
Movement’s background and its purpose in relation to the abortion debate.
Every character received a letter in the mail that said on Friday the court house will be
having an interest meeting to try and overturn the ruling in the Roe vs. Wade case or
amend it, even though the case had been ruled forty-two years ago. Specifically the
purpose of the meeting is to solve the problem of the definition of personhood and also
where it should be established. Everyone in the community is welcome to come and voice
their opinions on the case. However, we ask that everyone comes with some specific
evidence, for we will be questioning people’s views. The next day my characters found
themselves walking into the courtroom with papers in hand. The meeting started at 1
o’clock on the dot. The head of the group spoke first:
Hi, everyone. We are so glad to see all of you today. This big outcome lets us know that
you all are committed to this community as well as the ones surrounding us. I hope today
we can come to a clear understanding on what personhood means when dealing with
abortion. To keep this meeting formal, I ask that whoever has something to say should
raise their hand before speaking and I will call on you and you may come up and present
your view on the topic. Now let’s get started! My first question of the day is what exactly
is personhood, when dealing with abortion?
*Head of Group: gets pen and paper ready to jot down some notes*
*Rienzi raises his hand and the head of the group calls on him. He stands and begins to speak*
Rienzi: In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court famously declared itself unable to determine when
human life begins: “[T]he judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not
in position to speculate as to the answer.”
*Will raises his hand and takes a stand*
Will: That is because the United States Constitution does not define the word “person.” More
specifically, it does not clearly delineate who or what is included in the concept of “person” for
purposes of bestowing the rights and protections that are found in the document. Nor does the
Constitution tell us when life begins. Some may argue that defining “personhood” or “life” is
best left to philosophers and theologians, but regardless of the philosophical or religious nature
of these questions, the answers have profound implications.
Head of Group: That is a very good point. However, I have one question though. If we don’t
leave the question to philosophers and theologians than who do we leave it to?
*Smith Jr. raises his hand and clears his throat before speaking*
Smith Jr.: I beg to differ. Christians of various theological persuasions approach the question
differently. Some argue for a theory of ensoulment wherein the human body is present from
conception but the soul is added to form the psychosomatic unity that is the human person.
Others hold, as does the Orthodox Church, that stages of development are irrelevant and that
abortion is forbidden at any stage from conception through birth. I believe that the fetus is an
unborn child, a person.
Head of Group: Ok so now we have a religious perspective on it, but what if the person is not
religious, do we have any other perspectives?
*Penner elbows Hull and he raises his hand, they both stand*
Penner and Hull: Personhood is traditionally taken to mean the possession of a range of
psychological capacities such as the capacity for thought and self-consciousness. Another
descriptive term, used in continental philosophy is that of personhood as “Being-in-the-World.”
This refers to the state when the organism achieves awareness of its place in the physical world.
Head of Group: It seems like there is not one set answer to what personhood is. Ms. Gibson you
haven’t said anything yet, so would you like to comment on this or wait to comment on
something that may come up later.
Gibson: I suggest that the concept of personhood is an essentially contested concept. Therefore it
cannot be used in determining if abortion is right or wrong.
Head of Group: Why do you suggest that Ms. Gibson?
Ms. Gibson: Considering the fact that everyone came up with a different answer to the same
question, who would be the one to say that their answer is in fact true?
Head of Group: Ok, point well made. Now let’s move on shall we. Now that everyone knows
how the other people of this meeting is defining personhood we can take the topic a little deeper.
My next question is even though we are not exactly sure who has the right definition of
personhood, what is essential to it?
*Will raises his hand*
Will: Although some people may take this as being inappropriately speciesest, proponents
maintain that the only criterion relevant to assigning the protections associated with legal
personhood is membership in the Homo sapiens species. After all, under the revised language
every human being is a “person,” and human beings include “every member of the species
[H]omo sapiens at any stage of development. One could also assign legal or moral personhood to
a pre-embryo not because of its current state, but because it has the potential to develop into a
born human being. Yet another approach rejects the significance of membership in the Homo
sapiens species, and instead would attach legal or moral personhood at the point when the
developing organism attains certain capacities, such as the capacity to experience pain or for
rational thought or self-consciousness like Penner and Hull used in their definition of
personhood. Interestingly, one could try to identify fetal viability as the person-defining criterion
using any of these approaches.
*Penner and Hull raise their hands in union, they take a stand. They take turns talking*
Penner and Hull: The idea is that once a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb (even
if in fact it is still in the womb), it has at that point become an independent human being and
should not be destroyed. However, objective differences exist between races regarding the
average time of independent viability for fetuses so setting different standards from permissible
abortion times among racial groups would be socially unacceptable. Secondly, the practical
viability of actual individual fetuses outside the womb varies greatly with the available
technology. The foundation for development of personhood is not so much the onset of
consciousness as it is an earlier stage in fetal development. This stage is marked by the onset of
the coordinated functioning of three aspects of the fetal nervous system: the sensory organs, the
cerebral cortex, and the thalamus.
Head of Group: Just to make sure we are all clear, y’all are suggesting that personhood cannot be
based on viability but instead fetal development, correct?
Penner and Hull: Yes, that is correct.
*Head of Group motions the conversation to move forward*
Smith Jr.: It all depends on how you want to look at the question though. You could look at it as
a philosophical or theological question. Only after choosing which way to look at you would be
able to better answer the question. Taking the philosophical aspect of it would mean dating back
to the times of people like Plato, Aristotle, and Boethius who defines person as an individual
substance of a rational nature. On the other hand, the theological aspect would be looking at the
mystery of the Holy Trinity to understand the notion of person.
Head of Group: So once again we are taken back to the religious views on it. Do you think there
will be a way to take the religious perspective out of the abortion debate?
Smith Jr.: As with almost everything in life, I think it would be really hard to not put a religious
perspective on the subject. Everyone is bias towards everything so of course people will go with
what they are used to.
Head of the Group: Agreed!
*Gibson immediately starts to grin and raises her hand in exhilaration*
Gibson: Well we can’t forget about the political views of the issue. Those who adopt the
conservative position focus on membership of the human species, emphasizing its special status.
The liberals, on the other hand, relegate species membership to a position of low importance,
focusing instead on capacities such as self-consciousness and rational autonomy. The moderate
might be said to pick out the capacity for sentience or for independent survival.
Head of Group: Now we are moving into adding politics to the debate. This is good, because we
have brought religion into perspective and now politics. This is what a discussion of a
controversial topic should bring up. Is there anything else that someone would like to add or can
we move forward?
*everyone looks around and shakes their head, which means no*
Head of Group: Last but, most importantly, how does personhood effect the abortion debate?
Rienzi: In short, the debate is over the morality or permissibility of the killing, not whether a
killing takes place.
Will: Woah! It should be both about the morality and if a killing is taking place, which is why
the Personhood Movement has come into effect. The goal of the Personhood Movement is to
create a framework in which human life is extended constitutional protection from the earliest
moments of biological development, without exception.
*Smith raises his hand*
Smith Jr.: I totally agree with Will. The Orthodox position is that the unborn child is a person
from conception onward.
*Penner and Hull make a quick glance at each other and then raise their hands*
Penner and Hull: As just one example, for some religionists on the pro-life side, increased
knowledge about the first 16 days of the biological development of the human organism from
fertilization to the completion of the process of gastrulation has produced a debate regarding
exactly when a soul might become uniquely available to the individual developing organism. For
some on the pro-choice side, increased knowledge about the last 4 months of the development of
the human organism has produced a debate as to exactly when personhood becomes a unique
feature of the individual developing organism.
*Gibson raises her hand*
Gibson: Well I disagree, just because there is no resolution to the dispute over what it is to be a
person, there is no foundation for the authority to overrule the decision to have an abortion, and
therefore it remains the case that it is the women’s right to choose abortion.
*Head of Group motions if there are any last words, no one speaks so she closes the meeting*
Head of Group: In closing, this has been an interesting meeting. I feel like a lot of things were
probably brought up here today than forty-two years ago when Roe v. Wade case was sitting in
the room a few doors down the hall. After hearing each and every one of you answer my
questions thoroughly I think me and my fellow partners can present the things y’all said and try
to start an awareness program of some sort so we can make the world we live in a better place. I
have one last request of y’all, if you wouldn’t mind while walking out of door can you fill out the
little survey located in the back of the room and put it in the box by the door. Once, again thank
you for coming out to express your opinions. Meetings like this would not be possible if it wasn’t
for engaged citizens like y’all.
Works Cited
Gibson, Susanne. "The Problem Of Abortion: Essentially Contested Concepts And Moral
Autonomy." Bioethics 18.3 (2004): 221-233. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Mar.
2015.
Penner, Paul S., and Richard T. Hull. "The Beginning of Individual Human Personhood."
Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 33.2 (2008): 174-182. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Rienzi, Mark L. "The Constitutional Right Not To Kill." Emory Law Journal 62.1 (2012): 121178. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Smith, Jr., Allyne L. "Personhood: Beginnings and Endings." Christian Bioethics: NonEcumenical Studies In Medical Morality 6.1 (2000): 003-014. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
Will, Jonathan F. "Beyond Abortion: Why The Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive
Choice." American Journal Of Law & Medicine 39.4 (2013): 573-616. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.