According to ethicist/philosopher Peter Singer a baby does not become a person until some 30 days after birth. For this reason on Singer's view, the destruction of life prior to this point is not morally wrong. Singer states, "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”  There are others that share similar beliefs to Singer, such as Michael Tooley. Tooley agrees with Singer that personhood cannot be established unless that life form is conscious of its own awareness. Because of this definition of personhood, they "possess[es] a serious right to life only if it possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.”  Again, on this view the taking of life is justified up until that creature becomes aware of itself. Philosopher Jeffrey Reiman echos this belief in personhood by saying, "there will be permissible exceptions to the rule against killing infants that will not apply to the rule against killing adults and children."  Clearly, each philosopher believes that in order for a moral crime to take place, personhood must first be reached. The two questions that need to be addressed are, what is a person, and is the question of life irrelevant when compared to personhood?
Inconsistencies surface when examining the definition of personhood of the three aforementioned philosophers. First, adulthood is considered a person, because one has a sense of self-awareness. What about individuals in a comatose state or having amnesia, are we justified in killing them because they no longer are self-aware? Some would argue that they had self-awareness and therefore should be spared. But, isn't there argument saying that life does not matter unless someone is self aware? Don't all human beings have the potential of self-awareness at conception? Singer and the others are disingenuous when they claim that life is unimportant because a creature lacks self-awareness, because the potential for self-awareness happens at conception. Conception is the origin of life development and personhood. Second, Singer's view is self refuting because of his belief in animal rights. At what point do animals become self-aware on Singer's view? Why should animals have rights in the first place? If Singer is a proponent of animal rights, where do these rights derive from? Singer's views are inconsistent and indefensible when addressing the question of life.
The congresswoman who expressed concern over gun control protecting life needs to address the life question first, as opposed to focusing on guns. When does life start and why is it important? Our founding fathers stated that all Americans have the right to life, but what exactly does this mean? If life starts at conception, then abortion is the killing of innocent life. Roe Vs. Wade gave the right for women to choose abortion, but it did not address the question of when life starts. Gun control doesn't matter until the question of life is addressed first. Are we interested in life or choice? Until, our culture addresses the question of when life occurs, we will continue to destroy the potential personhood of the aborted fetuses.
 Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics, p. 122-123
 Tooley, Michael, Abortion and Infanticide in Rights and Wrongs of Abortion, p. 57
 Reiman, Jeffrey, Critical Moral Liberalism, p. 121
- A good article about Peter Singer's ethical stance.