Response to Amy Rosvally

Amy asked if abortion can be considered murder if it is performed before the fetus has any brain activity.  If murder is defined as killing a person, then we are back to the question "How do we define a 'person'"?  I have already stated my views on personhood; I believe that all humans are persons, no matter what their mental capabilities are.  A fertilized egg may not yet have brain activity, but neither does a person (that is, if you still consider them a person) who has been declared brain dead.  I'm wondering why we determine personhood based on brain activity.  Does having higher levels of brain function make someone more of a person?  Does a mental handicap detract from someone's personhood?  Or is it more black and white: having any brain activity, no matter how limited, makes one a person?

I think it is important to regard a fetus as a person because although it doesn't have brain activity at first, it will.  It is a growing person.  Just because it is in a very early stage of development doesn't make it insignificant.  I'd also like to point out that brain activity begins very early in the fetus's development; abortions are performed on fetus's who have brains.   Someone used to term "potential person" in class today, which I like.  Even if you don't see a fetus as a person, it is undeniable that it is a potential person.  This is more significant than "honorary personhood" because, by terminating a fetus, you are ending the development of a human.  A honorary person, on the other hand, will never actually be a person.  

(My questions are at the end of the first paragraph.)