Should Consciousness Determine Who Deserves Human Rights?

I recently joined a pro-choice podcast for a long-form conversation about the morality of abortion and the nature of personhood. You can watch the video here:

The host, Elijah Moore, defends legal abortion up to 20 weeks, grounding that position in the assumption that consciousness appears around that time in humans. He believes that before a fetus develops the neurological structures often associated with measuring consciousness, there is no subject who can experience harm. In his view, without a past conscious experience and an ongoing consciousness, abortion does not wrong anyone.

As someone who has spent a lot of time arguing with pro-abortion extremists online, I appreciated the opportunity to dig into a more nuanced and thoughtful position in a serious way. We didn’t ultimately come to an agreement but I’m glad to have been able to model that pro-life and pro-choice people can disagree while remaining cordial and open-minded.  

The Consciousness Standard

A central question in our discussion was whether the present capacity for consciousness should be the dividing line for human rights.

We had some back and forth about my skepticism of his claim that we can say with any certainty that the science shows that consciousness “turns on” around 20 weeks in utero; however, my concern really is not about where the line gets drawn but whether consciousness is a valid standard at all.

First, “consciousness” is not a clearly defined or universally agreed-upon concept. While philosophers debate what it is, neuroscientists struggle with how to measure it. Even people like Moore, who place great emphasis on its value, struggle to coherently define “consciousness.” 

If something is conceptually murky and scientifically contested, I’m extremely skeptical that it should function as the standard for determining which humans can legally be killed.

Further, tying moral worth to present capacities creates instability. Human beings vary widely in cognitive ability among ourselves and throughout our lives. Fetuses, newborns, toddlers, and adults, as well as people of all ages under anesthesia, in comas, or with cognitive disabilities all possess different levels of awareness at any given time. 

If rights depend on our present abilities — or anything other than our shared humanity — then human equality is meaningless. 

The Problem with “Personhood”

The core of the contention is whether or not biological humanity is enough to justify moral consideration or if we should distinguish which humans should have rights with the construct of “personhood.”

I’ve always been uneasy with that move. History’s greatest atrocities often begin with the premise that we can distinguish between humans and “persons.” In fact, I believe that the only real purpose of separating the idea of a “human being” from a “person” is to justify the abuse, subjugation, and often slaughter of whole classes of human beings. And so, I tend to reject “personhood” as a worthwhile concept when determining human rights. 

Why These Conversations Matter

The core of Secular Pro-Life’s work is to try to make more people pro-life and we can’t do that by shutting ourselves off from the opposition. We must seriously engage with their arguments and it was refreshing to be able to have a civil conversation with someone who disagrees but is still willing to take our position just as seriously as we do theirs.

There was a real attempt to understand the other speaker’s position – not just score debate points by making the other look dumb or cruel. 

As you consider your own opinion on the morality of abortion, I invite you to think on these questions:

• Should there ever be a category of “human, non-persons?”
• What is consciousness and how should it play into discussions of human rights? 
• Should a standard that is difficult to define and even harder to measure determine which humans have a right not to be killed?
• If consciousness does matter, is it our present, past, or future capacity for it that should determine our rights?

If those questions interest you, I hope you’ll watch the full conversation.

One thing that we didn’t have time to explore is the question of bodily autonomy. It’s possible that you could watch this conversation and come away with the perspective that sure, embryos and fetuses are persons who deserve moral consideration, but the intimate nature of pregnancy still justifies abortion for reasons of bodily rights. We at Secular Pro-Life have thought deeply about those claims and address them here and elsewhere on our blog. 

If you value conversations like this, please consider supporting this work with a donation.

If you would like to invite Herb or another Secular Pro-Life representative to appear on a future debate online or in person you can visit our speaker page here.