Is 'personhood' important?

[Orion]

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.

I see it differently. The ideas I've conveyed are not really being rebutted by the pro-life. In fact, my observation is that they are being willfully avoided and ignored because they lack the answers to combat them.

I see it as logic being ignored, which is to be expected with moral issues. People don't care if their morality makes sense or can be easily contradicted, only if it's right to them.

 

[drz-400]

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.

I think this highlights the debate and why it is not really about personhood. Everyone has their own belief about the sanctity of life and what we should do to protect it. In this case it is the potential for human life. Everyone will have their own opinion, its a religious decision that gets down to the very root of why we are here. I do not think it is in the interest of the state to set a law down protecting potential life when it is such a religious/personal decision. By declaring abortion illegal to protect potential life you are forcing everyone to conform to a single belief, claiming infallability to your arguement about the sanctity of life. Some people think we must have the baby even if it is know that the baby will be born severly disabled, some people think this is an insult to the baby being born. Who is right? Do you feel strongly enough that you would claim the other person is wrong in every situation? How would you feel if someone claimed your side was wrong in every situation and forced you to conform to their beliefs?

 

[Lakryte]

If a zygote has personhood then a skin cell on my arm has personhood. They are at the same level of development.

I don't care if you are prochoice or prolife, but that statement is completely biologically false.

First of all, skin cells are a product of further specialization of the cells in the developing zygote. They do not make up an individual life. Anyone who has studied basic biology knows this. An individual organism is made up of cells organized into tissues, tissues organized into organs, etc. A zygote is at the start of that development and stands on its own as an individual member of the human species, only it is at the earliest stages of development. If you want to say humans have different value based on their stage of development, go ahead, but a skin cells and a zygotes are not the same. A skin cell is like a piece of a puzzle, and the full human being is the completed puzzle. A zygote is not a piece of a puzzle. You do not combine zygotes to make a human. The zygote IS the human.

Second, a skin cell does not even develop the same way a zygote/fetus does. Have you heard of gastrulation? Neurulation? Do you know how human development works? Either you are mistaken or you are lying knowingly. I will assume that you are a decent person and that the former is true. Either way, you are wrong. That is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion. A zygote and that zygote's developed skin cells share the same DNA, but they are NOT the same, nor even close to being the same stage of development.

Everyone will have their own opinion, its a religious decision that gets down to the very root of why we are here. I do not think it is in the interest of the state to set a law down protecting potential life when it is such a religious/personal decision. By declaring abortion illegal to protect potential life you are forcing everyone to conform to a single belief, claiming infallability to your arguement about the sanctity of life.

I understand your point so don't take my response as just some "emotional" one. The decision does not have to be religious. There are plenty of atheists who are prolife. Check out this site if you want proof of that:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
Morals of society do not have to be bound to religion or even God.

Second, the illegality of murder could also be viewed as a religious belief forced on society (I am not comparing abortion to murder, I am trying to make a point about morals). Christianity is strongly against murder. Its a command that "thou shalt not kill." However, radical Islam is not against murder, and actually encourages killing nonbelievers. They have freedom of religion don't we? Why cant they kill people if that is their belief? Why should the government legislate their morality?

Say I was furious with my friend. He had borrowed money from me, and blown it all gambling. I would never get it back. He was living off welfare, and an economical burden to society. In my rage, I killed him. I felt that it was justified to do so. After all, he was only harming society, and he harmed me. Why should I be forced to obey a law the forces me to conform to the belief that murder is wrong? Sure, in some cases it may be, but in others it should be fine, right?

What about a poor person stealing from a store? Would that be "right" or should he be arrested? He needs the food to survive. But is he really right in what he is doing? People who say yes are playing on emotions of pity for the poor man. Many people on this topic have said that prolifers are just using emotional arguments, but what about the prochoice side? How many times have you heard "the burden on the mother" "the pain of pregnancy" "the cruelty of rape..." Aren't these arguments too playing off people's emotions?

The point I am trying to make is that there are some things that are simply wrong. People may try to make rationalizations and justify them subjectively, but that doesn't make them right.

 

[drz-400]

I understand your point so don't take my response as just some "emotional" one. The decision does not have to be religious. There are plenty of atheists who are prolife. Check out this site if you want proof of that:
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League Homepage
Morals of society do not have to be bound to religion or even God.

Second, the illegality of murder could also be viewed as a religious belief forced on society (I am not comparing abortion to murder, I am trying to make a point about morals). Christianity is strongly against murder. Its a command that "thou shalt not kill." However, radical Islam is not against murder, and actually encourages killing nonbelievers. They have freedom of religion don't we? Why cant they kill people if that is their belief? Why should the government legislate their morality?

Say I was furious with my friend. He had borrowed money from me, and blown it all gambling. I would never get it back. He was living off welfare, and an economical burden to society. In my rage, I killed him. I felt that it was justified to do so. After all, he was only harming society, and he harmed me. Why should I be forced to obey a law the forces me to conform to the belief that murder is wrong? Sure, in some cases it may be, but in others it should be fine, right?

What about a poor person stealing from a store? Would that be "right" or should he be arrested? He needs the food to survive. But is he really right in what he is doing? People who say yes are playing on emotions of pity for the poor man. Many people on this topic have said that prolifers are just using emotional arguments, but what about the prochoice side? How many times have you heard "the burden on the mother" "the pain of pregnancy" "the cruelty of rape..." Aren't these arguments too playing off people's emotions?

The point I am trying to make is that there are some things that are simply wrong. People may try to make rationalizations and justify them subjectively, but that doesn't make them right.

When I say religious I guess I am doing so as for a lack of better word. Athiests have their own opinion about the sanctity of life and what we should do to protect it. Everyone has their own opinion about the importance of the sanctity of life.

Your second point and third point leads into this. Obviously more secular convictions about morality will try to adjust for peoples competeing interests, but they will rarely make a claim about the meaning of life, or why human interests have any intrinsic importance. Religions will make these claims about absolute truths, saying things like all life is divine, or all of us were created by god. This is why people with very different veiws about human life can agree on justice, yet people with the same religious veiws can disagree on justice to a very large extent.

By saying that it is just wrong you are accepting that human life at least in this case has an intrinsic value, despite that a fetus has no interests of its own. It is for this reason why I would define it as a religious value, since it is claiming something about the meaning of life. This differs from your other examples, were someone was murdered, or a shopkeepers goods were stolen, because these people all had interests of their own. This goes back to my first point, about why we would not hold a dad accountable for being out on a trip and not concieving a different child that night, since that child being unborn does not have interests of its own.

I do necessarily disagree with you about the fact that abortion is just wrong sometimes. I do not think it is in the interest of the state to decide this though. Where as in your other examples we have to take into account the competing interests of the indviduals involved. This is my eyes is a legitamite time for the state to get involved to protect these competing interests.

 

[The Uncola]

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

Nonsense. What are you, some sort of freakin' mindreader? You not only know my thoughts but how I arrived at them? Oh really?

Bull ****.

Praytell, are you including me in that number?

How many special needs orphans have you adopted? If the answer is zero, yes, "praytell," you are included.

 

[Chuz Life]

I see it differently. The ideas I've conveyed are not really being rebutted by the pro-life. In fact, my observation is that they are being willfully avoided and ignored because they lack the answers to combat them.

I see it as logic being ignored, which is to be expected with moral issues. People don't care if their morality makes sense or can be easily contradicted, only if it's right to them.

Whoaaaa!

Wait!

What?

Please (can you tell I'm anxious here?) PLEASE do list or link to any of your facts, opinions or arguments that you feel an anti-abort such as myself can not combat.

 

[thatguymd]

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.

Exactly. So personhood is important and, in fact, the only issue because with personhood granted, no other aspect matters.

You can't say it isn't important just because you think there is no way they deserve personhood. And if the definition is so subjective, as you claim, it is certainly possible that a fetus could be defined as a person.

 

[Orion]

You can't say it isn't important just because you think there is no way they deserve personhood. And if the definition is so subjective, as you claim, it is certainly possible that a fetus could be defined as a person.

It's not important because it's not important to me. I have never considered fetuses persons at any point in my life, even before I became political.

And yes, one brand of morality could become law. I am just saying that there would be no reasoning behind it. At least my position has reasoning: a historical basis, a perspective on feminism, a perspective on natural behaviors, social consequences of illegalizing abortion etc. What do you have? Nothing. Just, "It's murder and it's wrong."

I accept that the abortion debate is subjective, but there are still effective and ineffective arguments. Yours falls into the latter category.

 

[Chuz Life]

Exactly. So personhood is important and, in fact, the only issue because with personhood granted, no other aspect matters.

You can't say it isn't important just because you think there is no way they deserve personhood. And if the definition is so subjective, as you claim, it is certainly possible that a fetus could be defined as a person.

The point that I keep trying to make is that by our current definitions,.... a human fetus already is a 'person.'

If the most basic definition of a person is "a human being" and a human in the fetal stage of their life is a "human being",....

Guess what,... a human fetus (human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person."

They meet the criteria.

Whether our laws currently recognize them as such is an entirely different matter.

Do I really need links to support this?

 

[Comic Relief]

I think this highlights the debate and why it is not really about personhood. Everyone has their own belief about the sanctity of life and what we should do to protect it. In this case it is the potential for human life.

Well, in my case and your case it's about that potential, perhaps, but I am sure that there are pro-lifers out there who consider all life sacred on religious grounds. (As a side note, how many vegetarians are pro-life versus pro-choice? That would be a cool poll...)

Everyone will have their own opinion, its a religious decision that gets down to the very root of why we are here.

I wouldn't call it religious, but certainly existential/moral and whatnot. Just a minor distinction I, as an atheist, like to make.

I do not think it is in the interest of the state to set a law down protecting potential life when it is such a religious/personal decision. By declaring abortion illegal to protect potential life you are forcing everyone to conform to a single belief, claiming infallability to your arguement about the sanctity of life.

Well, I'm not so sure that it's wrong to force everybody to conform to one standard on this issue. I mean, it's been a good idea to illegalize murder and theft across the board. Once the debates get a pretty good consensus, we can legislate that too.
Also, by legislating, we wouldn't really be claiming infallibility about our argument regarding life's sanctity (or lack thereof, or whatever you believe). We'd just be saying we think it's better; not perfect, but better than what anyone else has offered at the moment.

Some people think we must have the baby even if it is know that the baby will be born severly disabled, some people think this is an insult to the baby being born. Who is right? Do you feel strongly enough that you would claim the other person is wrong in every situation? How would you feel if someone claimed your side was wrong in every situation and forced you to conform to their beliefs?

Assuming your questions aren't rhetorical, here's my response:
1) Who's right? It's an insult to society to have to feed unproductive individuals. I see little benefit gained from such births, and would therefore (as a member of society) prefer that they not occur.
2) Do I feel strongly enough? Oh yes. Very.
3) How would I feel if someone else thought I was wrong and forced me to conform? Frustrated, of course; but there are avenues of political debate open in the wonderfully democratic societies such as the developed world is largely composed of today, and I might spend time exploring that.

 

[thatguymd]

It's not important because it's not important to me. I have never considered fetuses persons at any point in my life, even before I became political.

The fact is that the answer to “Is the fetus a person?” will always match up with the answer to “Should abortion be illegal?”. Just because you have always felt that the answer is no, is irrelevant to the question being important to the issue of abortion because if your mind was changed, it would change your mind on the issue of abortion along with it.

And yes, one brand of morality could become law. I am just saying that there would be no reasoning behind it. At least my position has reasoning: a historical basis, a perspective on feminism, a perspective on natural behaviors, social consequences of illegalizing abortion etc. What do you have? Nothing. Just, "It's murder and it's wrong."

I am examining the definition of personhood and the reasoning behind it. And you never answered the question of whether you would be okay with abortion if the fetus was a mini-adult with the exception of viability (different thread). Your reluctance seems to imply that being born is not the only thing that matters. And yet, there is no developmental difference pre and post birth. So, why would an adult be a person regardless of attachment to the mother but the fetus would not be?

I accept that the abortion debate is subjective, but there are still effective and ineffective arguments. Yours falls into the latter category.

In debate there are logical and illogical arguments. Yours falls into the latter category.

Hey! Pointless statements are fun!

I know, you should go with “if you were right you’d already agree with me”. Or how about “The truth is on my side”?

You spend the whole post proclaiming the wonderfulness of your arguments without making any.

 

[jallman]

It's important to pro-life people. It's what their entire opinion rests upon. To pro-choice people, it doesn't come down to universal rules, but rather what the mother thinks it is.

One group's brand of morality vs. another. I am pro-choice because it encompasses both.

That's not entirely true. I am pro-choice and it all comes down to personhood for me. In fact, the question of personhood is all that matters in the abortion debate.

 

[jallman]

The point that I keep trying to make is that by our current definitions,.... a human fetus already is a 'person.

'

Only in the most grossly simplistic, vernacular sense of the word. Legality is how we define our interactions within a society and, legally, the personhood of the fetus is only tied to the mother's will to gestate or not. If she chooses to gestate, then the personhood of the fetus is merely an extension of hers. If the woman chooses to abort, then personhood is not even a consideration lest the woman be found guilty under our law of murder. Personhood is so important because it is the boundary between the inviolable right to life for the fetus and the sovereign right to bodily control and self determination for the woman pregnant against her wishes.

 

[Chuz Life]

Your confidence in your opinions (and the opinions themselves) asside.

I say again.

If the most basic definition (criteria to meet) for personhood is that one must be a "human being" ...

Then certainly you must agree that on that level (at least), a human in the fetal stage of their life meets the criteria. They are a "person" in that biological sense.

Do they not meet the criteria?

If a human organism in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "human being" then I have to ask,... what kind of "being" is it?

 

[rivrrat]

Your confidence in your opinions (and the opinions themselves) asside.

I say again.

If the most basic definition (criteria to meet) for personhood is that one must be a "human being" ...

Then certainly you must agree that on that level (at least), a human in the fetal stage of their life meets the criteria. They are a "person" in that biological sense.

Do they not meet the criteria?

If a human organism in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "human being" then I have to ask,... what kind of "being" is it?

A first trimester fetus is human, but not a human being.

Being: In its objective usage —as in "a being," or "[a] human being" —it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character) such that transcend that of mere organisms (such that have only "life functions").

 

[Chuz Life]

A first trimester fetus is human, but not a human being.

And easy claim to make when one is in denial.

But the fact is a human in the fetal stage of their life and existence meet the criteria for the definition.

Being;

1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2.conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3.substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.something that exists: inanimate beings.

(note; 'an un-concious human being is still a human being')

(also note; 'even inanimate things can be recognized as 'beings.')

 

[rivrrat]

And easy claim to make when one is in denial.

But the fact is a human in the fetal stage of their life and existence meet the criteria for the definition.

Being;

1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).
2.conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.
3.substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.
4.something that exists: inanimate beings.

(note; 'an un-concious human being is still a human being')

(also note; 'even inanimate things can be recognized as 'beings.')

Yeah, inanimate things could be recognized as "beings" using that definition. Which makes the definition pretty ****ing useless, doesn't it? I mean seriously, inanimate beings?
But what's interesting is that the number 2 definition, that you highlighted for us, also states: conscious. Why didn't you bold that part of the definition you chose to apply to your argument?

Anywho, the state of being and actually being a... well... being, are two different things.

If something doesn't have a consciousness, it's not a person. If you want to protect mindless organisms, then go protest eating food. Until anyone can specifically tell me what makes a first trimester fetus worthy of protection but yet a fruit fly not worthy, then you've got nothing. As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely irrational to want to protect one, and not the other based solely on the name of the species we have designated they belong to. There's a reason we GRANT rights to PEOPLE and not boa constrictors. And it has nothing to do with the name of their species or dictionary definitions. If and when you can figure out why that is, then maybe you'll understand where the rest of us are coming from.

 

[jallman]

Your confidence in your opinions (and the opinions themselves) asside.

Uh, no. This is the law as it stands today. There is nothing in the way of opinion about it; this is the legal basis for allowing abortion and for trying the murderer of a pregnant woman with two counts of homocide. If you have a problem with this, take it up with congress.

I say again.

If the most basic definition (criteria to meet) for personhood is that one must be a "human being" ...

Then certainly you must agree that on that level (at least), a human in the fetal stage of their life meets the criteria. They are a "person" in that biological sense.

Do they not meet the criteria?

If a human organism in the fetal stage of their life is NOT a "human being" then I have to ask,... what kind of "being" is it?

You keep trying to distill a very complex issue into a grossly simplistic sound byte. That has never flown in the abortion forum before and I have no intention of indulging it now.

I conceded that in the most simplistic, vernacular sense, you may be correct. But legally, morally and ethically speaking, this is nowhere near being accurate.

 

[jallman]

And easy claim to make when one is in denial.

Let me just point out something about "easy claim(s) to make when one is in denial"...

2.conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.

I find it so telling that you embolden the parts that are convenient to your argument, yet think us daft enough to miss the very first word of the definition which defines the meaning of the whole. :lol:

 

[digsbe]

I don't think "person-hood" in the sense of sentience and intelligence is important. Logically speaking, to say it's alright to kill a fetus because it isn't a "person" would mean that we place value and worth on one's life based on their sentience and intelligence. Likewise, to be logically consistent it would be ok to kill senile seniors or the mentally handicapped.

 

[Demon of Light]

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 assure you I can provide such reasoning. Would you like me to point out the critical failing of the Roe v. Wade decision?

I see it differently. The ideas I've conveyed are not really being rebutted by the pro-life. In fact, my observation is that they are being willfully avoided and ignored because they lack the answers to combat them.

I see it as logic being ignored, which is to be expected with moral issues. People don't care if their morality makes sense or can be easily contradicted, only if it's right to them.

This is funny considering you never responded to my comments.

It's not important because it's not important to me. I have never considered fetuses persons at any point in my life, even before I became political.

Two things:

1. Just because you do not consider them persons does not mean the question of personhood is irrelevant. Roe v. Wade could not have been constitutionally sound unless they tried to address the question of personhood.

2. Have you ever seriously questioned your opinion on fetuses not being persons?

At least my position has reasoning: a historical basis, a perspective on feminism, a perspective on natural behaviors, social consequences of illegalizing abortion etc. What do you have? Nothing. Just, "It's murder and it's wrong."

You're going to have to explain a few of these things. What "historical basis" are you referring to regarding abortion? How can a "perspective on feminism" override the critical issue of legal personhood? Finally, where do "natural behaviors" come into play and why should they matter?

Nonsense. What are you, some sort of freakin' mindreader? You not only know my thoughts but how I arrived at them? Oh really?

Huh? You gave your position, so all I am saying is how that position arises. You may not have arrived to your position by such a manner, but wherever the initial source of your position was did arrive to it such.

How many special needs orphans have you adopted? If the answer is zero, yes, "praytell," you are included.

That is an absurd standard. Have you considered the possibility that someone may lack the resources to care for any child, let alone one that requires greater care? Am I only supposed to take a position if I'm of a certain economic class where such gestures of humanity would be plausible?

 

[jallman]

I don't think "person-hood" in the sense of sentience and intelligence is important. Logically speaking, to say it's alright to kill a fetus because it isn't a "person" would mean that we place value and worth on one's life based on their sentience and intelligence. Likewise, to be logically consistent it would be ok to kill senile seniors or the mentally handicapped.

Except that under our laws as they stand now, one cannot lose personhood and the associated rights to life, liberty, etc.

 

[digsbe]

Except that under our laws as they stand now, one cannot lose personhood and the associated rights to life, liberty, etc.

True, but to be logically consistent it would also mean that one has the "right" to kill the senile and mentally handicapped. The argument of "it's ok to kill a fetus because it isn't a 'person'" would also, by the same logic, justify killing the senile and mentally handicapped. I also don't believe abortion was legalized due to the person-hood debate, it was more along the lines of women's rights I believe.

 

[jallman]

True, but to be logically consistent it would also mean that one has the "right" to kill the senile and mentally handicapped. The argument of "it's ok to kill a fetus because it isn't a 'person'" would also, by the same logic, justify killing the senile and mentally handicapped. I also don't believe abortion was legalized due to the person-hood debate, it was more along the lines of women's rights I believe.

No, personhood as it is tied to citizenship in the United States is irrevocable. In fact, personhood endures beyond death in the form of binding contracts that maintain their validity such as wills, despite the undersigning party being nonexistent (as in "dead"). If the fetus is never granted personhood, then it can never be denied personhood and victim status in the event of its termination. Not so with the elderly as once they enjoy person status, they always enjoy it; so affirmed by the fact that even in the loss of all their faculties, their binding testaments can contract and obligate their medical care providers to act in accordance with predetermined wishes.

 

[iangb]

If the most basic definition of a person is "a human being" and a human in the fetal stage of their life is a "human being",....

Guess what,... a human fetus (human being in the fetal stage of their life) is a "person."

This is false, as has been repeatedly explained to you before - and will now be explained again, through use of ad absurdum.

If the most basic definition of what I have growing out of my fingertips is "A nail" and an iron rod used to hold together planks of wood is "A nail"...
Guess what,... I must have iron rods growing out of my fingertips.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that other definitions of a 'person' include "A self-concious or rational being", "A character, part or role, as in a play or story" and "An estate". Should rats, Father Christmas and an entire range of cars be legally protected?