@ Dave Allen, Corporations have had personhood since Dartmouth v. Woodward
Corporations don't have collective consciousnesses? It's a collective, why wouldn't it have a collective consciousness? I mean if any collective does why wouldn't a corporation?
This type of consciousness is not interchangable with the consciousness of an individual person. When I think of the term 'collective consciousness' I generally think of it as being synonymous with the term 'zeitgeist'. It is not meant by this term that there is some kind of metaphysical consciousness which exercises a will over or consciously experiences a collective. A zeitgeist merely being a kind of general direction of a collective of independent
wills, I don't see why a zeitgeist is deserving of the same protections as an autonomous, rational being, such as an individual person.
Is there really an observer at the core of the being of a human?
Are you perceiving yourself in any way participating in this debate or in the world right now? If not seeing the computer screen then feeling your fingers typing on the keyboard or hearing some noises in the background or tasting the saliva in your mouth? If you answered in the affirmative, bravo, you've answered your own question. If you answered in the negative, then I would suggest calling a doctor as soon as enough of your faculties have returned to you to allow you to do so.
Where is this observer located? Somewhere in the brain?
The observer is the totality of your subjective experience and your will, which all happen to be located in the sensory and cognitive processing centers in your brain.
Always the same observer or does the observer change?
I don't know about you but I seem to have experienced the totality of my existence sequentially. So I don't believe that the observer has changed in me at all, no. I would find it very odd if anybodies had.
Is the observer present when a person is asleep?
This is an unconscious consciousness and is to be just as respected as a conscious consciousness.
Obviously? Universally understood? Saying "everyone knows" is not an argument.
I said obviously because any coherent definition of personhood must regard a person as an individual. Person is the name we have assigned to human individuals, it is singular. That's why you always use it when referring to specific individuals or individuals in general as opposed to groups of individuals. I'd certainly hope that things such as grammar were obvious in any case.
Well, now at least we've established that a corporation has in it nothing deserving of any more respect than a zeitgeist and the definition of 'person' we've demonstrated that they aren't deserving of any rights at all, and by definition personhood.
Now onto the ethically meaty abortion debate...