Is 'personhood' important?

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, in that case you're crafting a hypothetical scenario that simply does not resemble the facts at hand. Fetuses aren't miniature adults.

And as far as proving my assertion, don't be daft. Please, do give an example of how something that lacks consciousness can suffer. There are many forms of suffering... and every last one of them has consciousness as a pre-condition.

There is no penalty imposed against the fetus, because something that has no experiences loses nothing in death.

 

[rivrrat]

Of course personhood is important - or whatever the **** you want to call a sentient creature with consciousness. If it weren't important, then we'd be protecting the life of every blade of grass, every gnat, every flower. Obviously, mental capacity IS important.

 

[thatguymd]

Well, in that case you're crafting a hypothetical scenario that simply does not resemble the facts at hand. Fetuses aren't miniature adults.

The hypothetical scenario is intended to remove the factor of personhood to discuss if it can be argued that abortion makes sense even with personhood granted to the fetus. Yes, you can argue that even if the fetus is granted personhood that it still won’t have consciousness, but the whole point to the “mini adult” portion was that developmental stages are what people tie a fetus’ personhood to in the first place. For example, the argument for consciousness being needed for suffering is easily transplanted as an argument for consciousness being needed to be a person.

And as far as proving my assertion, don't be daft. Please, do give an example of how something that lacks consciousness can suffer. There are many forms of suffering... and every last one of them has consciousness as a pre-condition.

Well, could you start by addressing the example I already gave? If I am unconscious at the time I lose my life, would I not “suffer” the loss of my life? Or is that only allowed because I used to be conscious?

Also, what is the lowest level of consciousness necessary to “suffer” the loss of your life? Can a plant? Can an insect? Can a worm? Etc, etc.

I’d say life is the only pre-condition to suffering. There are reasons to not care about it but it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. I think you just feel worse when something can communicate its suffering.

There is no penalty imposed against the fetus, because something that has no experiences loses nothing in death.

So then you are happy with the “violation of rights” rephrasing I take it. If so, please address the original post with this rephrasing (and consider ignoring the rest of this post). If not, what could be wrong with that one? The whole point to the personhood is that it now has the right to life, and that right would be violated regardless of consciousness.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Not only does personhood matter, it is the only aspect of the abortion debate that matters. This is simply because if the fetus is undeniably a person (picture a mini adult with the exception of viability), then abortion makes no sense. Anyone that attempted to say that it doesn't matter has ended up stating why the ZEF isn't a person - which automatically means that personhood does matter.

For anyone who thinks they can justify abortion even if the fetus is a person, start out by answering me two simple questions. Who has more responsibility for creating the situation (i.e. the pregnancy)? Who suffers more from any proposed resolution to that situation?

1) The two people who engaged in sex are obviously responsible for every decisions made.
2) Who suffers more? The Woman, all around - abortion or no, the woman is always the main one to bear the burden and brunt of all pregnancy related issues whether she aborts or not.

Aside that - Why do you think death some form of suffering?
The only suffering to death itself is the time before your death *maybe* - not all paths to death are agony wrapped in pain. But, according to most religions, death simply is ushering your soul to a new plain of existance.

 

[Mell]

A fetus does have a full set of genes, that can go to make up a unique human being. But, for practical reasons concerning human rights, the fetus cant have the same rights as somebody who is fully developed, because the mother is responsible for both hers and the fetuss safety. If giving birth can diminish a womans rights, then she should be able to choose to have an abortion.

A person simply cant be forced to undergo a pregnancy and birth, especially in a world where womens rights are so often disregarded and/or abused . To reduce incidentences in which a women feels she cant go through with a pregnancy and birth, I think making the world a kinder place for pregnant women and mothers is the answer. This may tip the balance for some women from wanting an abortion to feeling able to parent a baby or child.

 

[Comic Relief]

Not directly, but they are an unnecessary burden on society from a purely rational point of view. Why keep people alive when they will be of no use to society and only serve as a drag on society depleting resources that could be directed to those who can be of use to society? Overpopulation is a serious threat to every person's health.

Consider this argument:



You begin to equivocate about personhood and you end up with positions like this that eventually render our entire system of law moot. Ultimately you have a nihilistic view of society that is later subsumed by a statist mentality that views the benefit of society as outweighing all other factors.

Well said, and strikingly close to where I come from. It makes a lot of otherwise-difficult questions very easy...
Here's to a comment a page or so earlier that somehow managed to skip by without comment; forgive me if it has already been addressed.

What is the difference between someone in a permanent vegetative state and a fetus?

The difference is that fetuses have a chance of turning into a normal human; someone in a vegetative state will never.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

For example, the argument for consciousness being needed for suffering is easily transplanted as an argument for consciousness being needed to be a person.

Okay, I see where you're going. I consider the personhood argument to be important, but there's still 1069's argument that no person has the right to extract nutrients from another person against their will, no matter how they ended up in that situation.

If I am unconscious at the time I lose my life, would I not “suffer” the loss of my life? Or is that only allowed because I used to be conscious?

Despite the literal meaning of the words, conscious beings do not lose consciousness when they are asleep. If you are injured to the point that you will likely never wake up, you are already dead. The differences between persistent vegetative state, deep coma, and clinical brain death are all splitting hairs over the reality that you're not coming back.

Also, what is the lowest level of consciousness necessary to “suffer” the loss of your life? Can a plant? Can an insect? Can a worm? Etc, etc.

I'd imagine it would at least require a life-form with a brain. I don't care to speculate further because I admit that personhood is my only consideration-- thus the lowest forms of life I'm interested in speculating upon are the other great apes.

I think you just feel worse when something can communicate its suffering.

Not really. I enjoy hurting people. It's one of the reasons that I'm so deeply concerned with ethical behavior and proper moral conduct.

So then you are happy with the “violation of rights” rephrasing I take it.

I just thought that the argument over human rights was too broad in scope for this thread. Personhood is the state in which people have obligations to others and others can have obligations to them. I don't see the world in terms of rights-- only duties.

 

[drz-400]

The difference is that fetuses have a chance of turning into a normal human; someone in a vegetative state will never.

I don't understand that arguement though. Was my dad be working against the interests of my never born brother because he was out of town the night before I was concieved? Surely, he rather than I would have been born if this was not the case. Obviously it does not follow that someone who is not yet born, someone without a concience can have their own interests.

 

[Demon of Light]

Well, don't argue with logical fallacies if you don't want to be called with them. You're probably right about more pro-choice people supporting assisted suicide and euthanasia (I support them) but that doesn't mean that leaving abortion legal will lead to killing off people we don't believe are useful to society.

I didn't argue with a logical fallacy is the thing. A lot of "skeptics" and "intellectuals" apparently think anything saying one event will lead to another is a fallacy and that simply saying it is a fallacy is all the argument they need to justify their position.

You are however using a strawman because my point was a great deal more involved than that as I'm sure you can tell.

The difference is that fetuses have a chance of turning into a normal human; someone in a vegetative state will never.

Well the point was more that at that moment there is no difference. That is where many people come from. They argue mental or biological development as an argument for determining legal personhood and thus whether the individual has a right to life. So allowing people in a vegetative state the right to life is inconsistent.

 

[molten_dragon]

I didn't argue with a logical fallacy is the thing. A lot of "skeptics" and "intellectuals" apparently think anything saying one event will lead to another is a fallacy and that simply saying it is a fallacy is all the argument they need to justify their position.

Um, saying that one event will lead to another with no justification is a slippery slope fallacy. That's what a slippery slope fallacy is.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope

 

[The Uncola]

You begin to equivocate about personhood and you end up with positions like this that eventually render our entire system of law moot. Ultimately you have a nihilistic view of society that is later subsumed by a statist mentality that views the benefit of society as outweighing all other factors.

Horsepucky. I " begin to equivocate" about nothing, I flat out say it. Fetuses are NOT people, period. No amount of appeals emotional garbage changes that fact. Especially those from control freaks who's "deep concern" for the "poor defenseless babies" starts at conception and ends at birth.

 

[thatguymd]

1) The two people who engaged in sex are obviously responsible for every decisions made.
2) Who suffers more? The Woman, all around - abortion or no, the woman is always the main one to bear the burden and brunt of all pregnancy related issues whether she aborts or not.

Aside that - Why do you think death some form of suffering?
The only suffering to death itself is the time before your death *maybe* - not all paths to death are agony wrapped in pain. But, according to most religions, death simply is ushering your soul to a new plain of existance.

Allow me to start over and frame the questions better. I’ve asked them so many times that I don’t always setup the background as well. Also, I’ll rephrase the second question to avoid the confusion over how I was using suffering.

If the fetus is granted all the rights of a person and a woman becomes pregnant, a situation is created where their rights are in conflict. So looking at the case for these two people, who has the greater responsibility for creating the situation where their rights are in conflict? Also, who would have a greater violation of their rights from any proposed resolution?

The whole point is that in an abortion, the person with no responsibility for creating the situation would take on the greatest violation of their rights (you don’t have any other rights if you are dead). And so, unless you can argue otherwise without resorting to mentioning that the ZEF isn’t a person (or “just a sack of tissue”, etc.) - personhood is the only issue for abortion.

 

[thatguymd]

Okay, I see where you're going. I consider the personhood argument to be important, but there's still 1069's argument that no person has the right to extract nutrients from another person against their will, no matter how they ended up in that situation.



Despite the literal meaning of the words, conscious beings do not lose consciousness when they are asleep. If you are injured to the point that you will likely never wake up, you are already dead. The differences between persistent vegetative state, deep coma, and clinical brain death are all splitting hairs over the reality that you're not coming back.



I'd imagine it would at least require a life-form with a brain. I don't care to speculate further because I admit that personhood is my only consideration-- thus the lowest forms of life I'm interested in speculating upon are the other great apes.



Not really. I enjoy hurting people. It's one of the reasons that I'm so deeply concerned with ethical behavior and proper moral conduct.



I just thought that the argument over human rights was too broad in scope for this thread. Personhood is the state in which people have obligations to others and others can have obligations to them. I don't see the world in terms of rights-- only duties.

Although there are points in that post that might be interesting to discuss, at least for the purposes of this thread you seem to agree that personhood is the only real issue. So, unless you want me to discuss why I think 1069’s argument fails (as I’ve done elsewhere) – I’m good with stopping.

 

[Comic Relief]

Well the point was more that at that moment there is no difference. That is where many people come from. They argue mental or biological development as an argument for determining legal personhood and thus whether the individual has a right to life.

Ok, there is very little difference at the moment. Granted. Perhaps neither is a person currently, but I would argue that it's not personhood that matters, but the potential for personhood that matters.

So allowing people in a vegetative state the right to life is inconsistent.

It's not really inconsistent with the pro-life position; it's inconsistent with a pro-choice position. If one allows vegetative people to live, one must also allow fetuses to live; the solid argument can be made, however, that fetuses should live and the vegetative people perhaps should be given the backseat...

I don't understand that arguement though. Was my dad be working against the interests of my never born brother because he was out of town the night before I was concieved? Surely, he rather than I would have been born if this was not the case. Obviously it does not follow that someone who is not yet born, someone without a concience can have their own interests.

Well, your dad had no way of knowing what the child would look and act like if he left town and conceived you, or stayed and conceived your brother. It's absurd, I agree, to accuse him of denying your brother anything.
It would indeed be an interesting thread topic to discuss whether the unborn have any rights. Thin air, an unborn soul, whatever you want to call it, a not-yet-born child can still have some rights in the community. When it comes into the world, it's going to be a person and we'd better have prepared things for it a bit.
First, though, I think we need to figure out why we have the concept human rights. Then we can work out how that applies to the unborn, to fetuses, and to children.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Allow me to start over and frame the questions better. I’ve asked them so many times that I don’t always setup the background as well. Also, I’ll rephrase the second question to avoid the confusion over how I was using suffering.

If the fetus is granted all the rights of a person and a woman becomes pregnant, a situation is created where their rights are in conflict. So looking at the case for these two people, who has the greater responsibility for creating the situation where their rights are in conflict? Also, who would have a greater violation of their rights from any proposed resolution?

The whole point is that in an abortion, the person with no responsibility for creating the situation would take on the greatest violation of their rights (you don’t have any other rights if you are dead). And so, unless you can argue otherwise without resorting to mentioning that the ZEF isn’t a person (or “just a sack of tissue”, etc.) - personhood is the only issue for abortion.

Every Doctor and scientist in the entire world can decide at what exact moment a sack of tissues becomes a baby. At what point a baby can survive on it's own outside the womb. At what point that child obtains the characteristics of life and at which point it, legally, is a 'person'

My view doesn't rest on these scientific and biological issues. Nor does it rest on rights differed to an undeveloped human, etc etc etc.

My view rests on who has to provide for the child and their best interest.

(this is so repeat . . .)
I have 4 children and I've had a tubal - I'm not suppose to be able to have more kids. but, let's say, it does happen and I decide I don't want and can't handle carrying and having another child. . . I, regardless of what scientists, doctors and politicians decide, will NOT be having that child.

It's that simple - opinions and decisions about when it became a baby and all that yada yada won't be on my mind at all.

So, no, it's not important to the issue from my view. No matter what others decide or believe, my view will remain solid and unwavering even if they proved to me that my child would be aborted and then come back to kill me, seeking revenge for it's forlorned soul.

 

[thatguymd]

Every Doctor and scientist in the entire world can decide at what exact moment a sack of tissues becomes a baby. At what point a baby can survive on it's own outside the womb. At what point that child obtains the characteristics of life and at which point it, legally, is a 'person'

My view doesn't rest on these scientific and biological issues. Nor does it rest on rights differed to an undeveloped human, etc etc etc.

My view rests on who has to provide for the child and their best interest.

(this is so repeat . . .)
I have 4 children and I've had a tubal - I'm not suppose to be able to have more kids. but, let's say, it does happen and I decide I don't want and can't handle carrying and having another child. . . I, regardless of what scientists, doctors and politicians decide, will NOT be having that child.

It's that simple - opinions and decisions about when it became a baby and all that yada yada won't be on my mind at all.

So, no, it's not important to the issue from my view. No matter what others decide or believe, my view will remain solid and unwavering even if they proved to me that my child would be aborted and then come back to kill me, seeking revenge for it's forlorned soul.

Well, that isn't really a counter argument. That is "I don't care, it still only matters what the woman wants". You didn't really provide any reasoning as to why the child still wouldn't matter in light of what I presented. So......I guess that's the end of this "debate".

 

[Orion]

Well, that isn't really a counter argument. That is "I don't care, it still only matters what the woman wants". You didn't really provide any reasoning as to why the child still wouldn't matter in light of what I presented. So......I guess that's the end of this "debate".

The pro-life sect hardly ever provides reasoning for why Roe v Wade should be altered. They only give "just because" reasoning, or emotional responses.

I have already given plenty of reasons for why the law does not need to be changed in order to satisfy one group's morality, when their morality is already included under pro-choice. If you don't think abortion is moral, then don't get one. It's really that simple.

 

[thatguymd]

The pro-life sect hardly ever provides reasoning for why Roe v Wade should be altered. They only give "just because" reasoning, or emotional responses.

I have already given plenty of reasons for why the law does not need to be changed in order to satisfy one group's morality, when their morality is already included under pro-choice. If you don't think abortion is moral, then don't get one. It's really that simple.

If it were that simple, we wouldn’t need laws at all. For example, the pro-choice side of murder already includes your morality. If you don’t think murder is moral, then don’t murder people.

Keep in mind that any explanation to differentiate a law outlawing abortion from a law outlawing murder already means it isn’t “that simple” because you will head right into the usual aspects of the debate.

However, none of this matters anyway since the topic is all about whether personhood is important. The way to demonstrate that it isn’t important would be to construct an argument that shows why abortion should still be legal even if personhood were to be granted to a ZEF (see my post previous to the one you responded to).

 

[Orion]

If it were that simple, we wouldn’t need laws at all. For example, the pro-choice side of murder already includes your morality. If you don’t think murder is moral, then don’t murder people.

Apples and oranges. Murder is an absolute. We know what it is. It's already defined. It was defined in the Bible before democracies even existed. You can't take the abortion debate and apply it to all laws, that is a logical fallacy. Laws work on a case by case basis, and in this case, abortion should stay legal.

The abortion debate isn't about murder. It's about claims to personhood which are silly and subjective.

Keep in mind that any explanation to differentiate a law outlawing abortion from a law outlawing murder already means it isn’t “that simple” because you will head right into the usual aspects of the debate.

Abortion and murder are already differentiated. It's the pro-life sect that wants to make them one, but they can't provide logical reasoning for why the law should be changed.

However, none of this matters anyway since the topic is all about whether personhood is important. The way to demonstrate that it isn’t important would be to construct an argument that shows why abortion should still be legal even if personhood were to be granted to a ZEF (see my post previous to the one you responded to).

Yeah actually it matters a lot, especially since personhood, abortion, and murder are all issues that are lumped together under the pro-life scope, even though their morality has no logical way to be conveyed to the rational.

I read your other posts. I don't agree with it because I don't agree with the premise. Personhood should not be granted to fetuses for many reasons that I outlined earlier. As soon as you grant personhood to fetuses, murder becomes a consideration, and abortion becomes illegal. What you are proposing is an even greater impossibility in the legal system: that a fetus could be considered a person but still be aborted.

A fetus isn't a person unless the mother says it is. That is what personhood means. Just because you are alive does not mean you are a person. The fetus has no consciousness or awareness to relate such rights to others, and it is in a feeble state of development where natural death is common.

Women will always abort whether the law consents or not. This is what the pro-life sect isn't getting. They want to control the issue but it is not up to them. In this case nature decides.

You are welcome to go back and see the reasons I outlined earlier. So far no one has been able to rebut them and I don't care to rehash them here.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Apples and oranges. Murder is an absolute. We know what it is. It's already defined.

Murder is hardly an absolute, and its definition has changed over time. There was a time when dueling was legal in this country, and for nearly a century afterwards if a man was shot with his hand on his gun, it was considered self-defense. If the definition of "murder"-- the most basic and fundamental law in any society-- can change, how can any law be anything other than subjective? It is as you say, that the law works on a case by case basis; the law is whatever we say it is, and it is so only because we say it is. There is no justification for any law except that it is the law, and the law can change at any time according to public sentiment.

Abortion is no different. You and I might have our reasons, however different, for saying that it should remain legal, but our reasons are subjective and personal to us and no different, fundamentally or objectively, from the reasons of the people who wish to make it illegal. All we can do is give our reasons and hope that they are more appealing to the public sentiment than the reasons of our opponents.

 

[Chuz Life]

You and I might have our reasons, however different, for saying that it should remain legal, but our reasons are subjective and personal to us and no different, fundamentally or objectively, from the reasons of the people who wish to make it illegal. All we can do is give our reasons and hope that they are more appealing to the public sentiment than the reasons of our opponents.

It's refreshing to see someone this confident and honest about their views on the 'other side' of an issue.

Made my day.

 

[Demon of Light]

Um, saying that one event will lead to another with no justification is a slippery slope fallacy. That's what a slippery slope fallacy is.

You people really are quite entertaining. The notion that you can just recite the name of some fallacy you read about on a skeptic's site and win an argument is quite hilarious. Please provide a decent explanation of why my reasoning was fallacious rather than parroting some term you learned because you think it fits.

Horsepucky. I " begin to equivocate" about nothing, I flat out say it. Fetuses are NOT people, period. No amount of appeals emotional garbage changes that fact.

Maybe you need to understand what I was referring to, I was saying your position is the result of such equivocation.

Especially those from control freaks who's "deep concern" for the "poor defenseless babies" starts at conception and ends at birth.

Praytell, are you including me in that number?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Well, that isn't really a counter argument. That is "I don't care, it still only matters what the woman wants". You didn't really provide any reasoning as to why the child still wouldn't matter in light of what I presented. So......I guess that's the end of this "debate".

Well, I'm terribly sorry that your points and questions didn't change my thoughts and feelings on this entire issue.

They are good points, though, I'll give you that. But because 'personhood' doesn't factor into my stance about abortion no issues centering around or through 'personhoodism' affects my opinion.

An unborn child's life is inferior to that of the parents, other siblings and everything else that has to be seen to whether or not that child is born (bills, education, food, etc etc etc).

 

[Orion]

Murder is hardly an absolute, and its definition has changed over time. There was a time when dueling was legal in this country, and for nearly a century afterwards if a man was shot with his hand on his gun, it was considered self-defense. If the definition of "murder"-- the most basic and fundamental law in any society-- can change, how can any law be anything other than subjective? It is as you say, that the law works on a case by case basis; the law is whatever we say it is, and it is so only because we say it is. There is no justification for any law except that it is the law, and the law can change at any time according to public sentiment.

Abortion is no different. You and I might have our reasons, however different, for saying that it should remain legal, but our reasons are subjective and personal to us and no different, fundamentally or objectively, from the reasons of the people who wish to make it illegal. All we can do is give our reasons and hope that they are more appealing to the public sentiment than the reasons of our opponents.

I reluctantly agree... but I have to say, my reasoning has way more effort put into it than simply emotional attachment. Abortion is nature, it does happen regardless if it's legal or not, and fetal personhood is based on motherly desires.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I reluctantly agree... but I have to say, my reasoning has way more effort put into it than simply emotional attachment.

I'm not trying to claim otherwise. But all of the logical reasoning that your argument is built upon is still contingent on acceptance of your subjective, emotional, moral convictions. If someone isn't operating from the same convictions, and you can't convince them to agree to those convictions, your logic is meaningless.