PUBLIC VIEWPOINT When Is It A ‘Person’?

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS — Dr. Hobson, in his column “America’s obsession with abortion” (June 6), reveals his belief that humans are disposable until they are capable of “human thought.” This is couched in argument that an embryo becomes a “person” only when it forms brain cells capable of “human thought,” but a careful reading of his criticism shows that “human thought” itself is his key. He, of course, ignores that such brain cells can only result from the original tiny “dot” of being which contains the complete detail of the person to be. To pick some later point than fertilization as the time it becomes a “person” is wholly arbitrary and nonsensical.

He agrees that this fertilized “dot” is alive, just not yet a “person” and, until it is capable of “human thought” (that is, I suppose, the ability to reason, to reflect upon its existence, to be aware of itself), it can be destroyed for convenience by another “person.”

So, when does “human thought” actually begin in a human? Iexpect he would agree that the fetus never has any actual “human thought(s).” Even at birth, being mostly formed, it has only minimal locomotion, no rational thought or other uniquely human functions except as a consumer of resources and an environmental burden. Perhaps it finally becomes a “person” upon its first noninstinctive reaction to another “person,” or its first moment of self-awareness (how would we ever measure that?). Where in this developmental process would “human thought” actually take place so that it would finally be entitled to society’s protection - at six months? A year? Later?

Doesn’t this “human thought” position create additional issues? If an embryo is not a “person” and therefore at risk for destruction, what about other beings who have no “human thought?” If one is born severely mentally disabled, unable to care for himself or to react in any meaningful way to other beings, is he a “person” worthy of protection? Or if one has lost his ability to think because of disease, accident or age, has itbecome a non-“person” no longer deserving of protection? It might be a “gross distortion of language to call (such beings) person(s).” They certainly are not capable of rational thought.

We say the risk alluded to could never happen here. We are civilized, have laws protecting the individual, we believe in science (not superstition) and have the protection of “life” and “liberty.” Not long ago, a rich, wealthy, educated, scientific culture made similar rationalizations in failing to step forward early in the defense of life. It began in little steps, first by making a class of people non-“persons,” no longer entitled to society’s protection.

Should we follow their lead?

Perhaps those who oppose abortion so loudly and with such annoyance have found the key principle by focusing upon “life” as the compelling developmental condition and not some other arbitrary factor such as when a fetus becomes a “person.”

It’s a slippery slope, isn’t it?

H. ALLAN CALDWELL

Rogers