[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
A potential person is not an actual person.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. A sperm is not a person and an egg is not a person. Both will not be "born" by themselves after ~9 months of gestation. A fetus is a person, however, because under most conditions, that fetus will be born.

[ QUOTE ]
By the very admission that the fetus is going to be a person, the doctor is conceding that it is not a person right now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that's his argument. He's using a pro-choicer's argument to show why the assumption that *something* changes in the essential nature of the fetus that makes it a "person" is false.

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why I asked: what criteria determines personhood? That is the essential question in the debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is. I think that that "group of cells" is a person because it will be born (under normal conditions) and continue to live and grow (given nourshiment and care). This means that any arguments such as "well are my fingernails considered a person?" don't work because there is no other group of cells that will continue to mature into an adult like a fetus.

[ QUOTE ]
. The only rational answer that I have seen is that higher brain activity is the defining criteria.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have trouble accepting this criteria, especially with regards to abortion. Is there a way to prove with absolute certainty whether a given fetus has higher brain activity? If there isn't, and that is the criteria for personhood, where do you draw the line for when they can be killed and when they can't? If you can't know for certain, then you may be executing an "actual" person.