Summary: What makes someone a person isn’t just being alive — it’s having a mind. Neuroscience places the first emergence of the brain systems required for thought and feeling in the late second trimester, around 23–25 weeks of gestation. For law and policy, this framework draws a clear line at 23 weeks to reflect that developmental threshold and provide a workable legal standard.

The question of when a person’s life begins is logically, biologically, and philosophically complex. Biology describes and categorizes living systems: it tells us what is developing and when. Philosophy addresses a different question: what kinds of beings have moral standing and rights. Logic helps us ensure that the reasons we give for our answers are coherent and consistent. 

 

Because these domains answer different kinds of questions, biology alone cannot resolve the moral concept of “personhood.” Any serious attempt to address when a person’s life begins must first clarify the definition of "person" in a way that makes its philosophical assumptions explicit, draws on biological facts where relevant, and uses careful reasoning to connect the two.

​

In public debate, three definitions of “person” are commonly invoked: 

• Human being

• Human organism

• Human organism with a mind

​

In everyday conversation, these terms often blur together without causing confusion. In formal ethical and legal discussion—where questions of rights, obligations, and freedoms are at stake—this ambiguity becomes a problem. What follows is an attempt to clarify what each definition does and does not accomplish, for the purpose of revealing which definition is most accurate and moral for use in law and policy.

​​

​​​

"Human Being"

​​

If you heard someone say, “Aunt Sue is a human being. She deserves to be treated with respect,” you’d probably nod along in agreement. In ordinary language, calling someone a "human being" often serves a moral purpose: it emphasizes their importance and moral worth. In that sense, the phrase works well rhetorically. As a formal definition of personhood, however, it is imprecise. When we apply logical syllogism to this definition, we uncover a problem: all living human cells, from skin cells to muscle cells to bone cells, etcetera, are technically “human beings.” Using the definition “human being” produces the technical result that a single human skin cell deserves the same respect as Aunt Sue.

 

The syllogism goes like this:

 

All living cells are living things.

All living things are beings.

Therefore, all living cells are beings.

​

Then we apply human categorization, and we can see:

 

All living human cells are human beings.

 

If we formally use “human being” as our definition of person, the result is that we formally grant personhood to all living human cells.

This is no mere semantic trick. "Human being" is truly semantically unsound for the job people want it to do—defining the boundaries of personhood. The difficulty is not that the phrase is meaningless, but that it blurs several distinct ideas into one term: 

• Biological classification (human vs. non-human)

• Biological status (living vs. non-living, but not specifying cell vs. tissue vs. organ vs. organism)

• Moral status (person vs. non-person)

​

Biological status is particularly tricky because the term "human being" predates both the discovery of the cell and cell theory (the scientific understanding that cells are the living building blocks that compose all known life). Before people understood that people themselves are actually composed of living human cells, the term made more sense, though it was still more of a synonym to "person" than an actual definition. "Human being" struggles to be a definition for person, especially in the abortion debate, due to its ambiguity; the term can do moral work without clearly stating which feature is supposed to ground moral standing. Are we saying that biological species membership alone confers personhood? But also what does it take to count as a "being"? Just being alive, even as a single cell? Being an organism? Being a viable organism? Or that some further property of "human beings"—such as consciousness, agency, literacy, or spirituality—matters morally? It is too ambiguous.

Because "human being" does not specify which of these features is doing the ethical work, it cannot, by itself, resolve disputes about where the boundaries of personhood lie. It often functions as a conclusion ("this entity deserves moral respect") rather than an explanation of why it deserves that respect.

When you understand the imprecision of the term "human being," you also start to understand something more important: the abortion debate has been contentious not because a large portion of people are immoral, but because our society's most common definition of person is flawed. If we fix this imprecision in the definition, then we can peaceably settle the abortion debate once and for all.

​

For this reason, a more precise definition of person is needed—one that provides the clearest and truest boundaries of personhood as possible for use in law and policy.

​

​​​​​​​

"Human Organism"​

​​​​​​

A more specific definition identifies a person as a human organism—that is, a whole, living, integrated member of the species Homo sapiens, rather than a cell or tissue. This avoids the ambiguity of the previous term and aligns closely with biological language.

​

The philosophical question, however, is whether being a human organism is sufficient for having the moral status of a person.

​

One way to explore this is through a moral thought experiment often used in ethics to probe our intuitions about value and status.

A Moral Test Case
Suppose we accept the following principle: If we can save either a larger group of persons or a smaller group of persons, and there are no morally relevant differences between the two groups, then we ought to save the larger group.

This principle is accepted by most people, especially when extraneous variables do not complicate the situation. (For those interested, footnotes at the bottom of this webpage explain the influence of various extraneous variables when applied to this test case.)
 

Now consider a tragic scenario in which a rescuer must choose between saving:

• A large group of fertilized human eggs, or

• A small group of newborn human infants

​

Both groups qualify as human organisms. Yet most people report a strong intuition that the newborns should be saved, even if they are fewer in number.

What This Reveals (Modus Tollens)
This response does not rely on emotion or social convention alone. It exposes a deeper moral commitment that most people already hold in practice: when forced to choose, they treat newborns as having greater moral standing than fertilized eggs, even when the eggs are more numerous.

​

That judgment is not arbitrary or accidental. It reflects the widespread intuition that what matters morally is not merely being a living human organism, but being the kind of being for whom experiences, harm, and benefit are possible.

​

If this is correct, then biological organismhood by itself cannot fully explain what we mean by “person.” Something beyond life itself is doing the real moral work.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​