Personhood and Technology

[Bazzgazzer]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

eh, technology more likely finds cause/cure to Parkinsons, Alzheimers etc in the next 40 years anyway

 

[Bazzgazzer]

eh, technology more likely finds cause/cure to Parkinsons, Alzheimers etc in the next 40 years anyway

it's be nice if you just answer the question. It's a hypothetical so it's not committing you to anything unless that hypothetical actually came about.

 

[lb_on_teh_cb]

it's be nice if you just answer the question. It's a hypothetical so it's not committing you to anything unless that hypothetical actually came about.

ok, apologies

I have two questions for pro-choicers

im not necessarily pro-choice. as a male, my opinion on the subject isnt all that important

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.

eh, this is over my head - personhood marker, nascent human being, etc

2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?

i would find that shameful

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.

Because it's still just a potential person. We can make predictions about what it'll grow up to look like, but it's still living in the mother's womb, connected to her bodily functions for its sole support; maybe someday we will be able to predict its personality in the womb, but it still will not be capable of expressing that personality.

2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?

Both desirable and ethical. We should do everything in our power to promote the general health and well-being of future generations.

 

[sangha]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?

1) Personhood is a legal and spiritual concept. Technology can not and will not provide us with any clues about it

2) Let us know when that happens

 

[prometeus]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood?

Because having a blue print is not the same as having the product.

2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump).

Individuals while collectively making up society by themselves, like Drumpf, are not society.

Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?

It is called collective self determination and it is what it is.

 

[KevinKohler]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

A blue print for a house =/= a house.

 

[Left Vendetta]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

1. What difference does that make? Why does the ability to predict a fetus' potential future physical characteristics change anything? There is no conscious; there is no social dimension to the human life.
2. That simply will not happen. When children is no longer is treated as the property of parents, a mature society is capable of treating such diseases or taking of those with such diseases.

 

[akrunner88]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

1. No one denies their potential personhood. If you believe viability is requirement to use in judging an abortion, then you'll find that even most pro-choicers do not find the idea of aborting a child that can live outside the womb (20 weeks usually???) appealing. Before that, the fetus is not viable, cannot feel pain, nor has consciousness. Technology can provide us clues to the potentiality of the fetus, based on genetics and other factors. But that does not mean they are a viable human being. I realize in the eyes of a pro-lifer how this sounds, and I respect the position (I used to be a pro-lifer myself and was even on my universities Pro-Life Club).

2. If the fetus is aborted before the gray area where viability becomes a factor, as a pro-choicer I have no problem with this. The fetus is not defined by "personhood" during this stage. Is it moral to force a woman to bring a child with a debilitating illness, mental or physical into this world, knowing that the child will never have a normal life? Knowing that the child will be a burden financially, mentally, and physically to the parents and even the tax payer? Again, from the pro-life perspective I totally get and understand why such a stance is morally objectionable and will not fault you for feeling this way. But I myself like to weigh the costs of everything to determine my stance on an issue. I'm also not remotely religious, so this doesn't come into play either.

I do, however object to your two scenario's above if the fetus reaches a point in development where we know he/she can survive outside of the womb. I don't support third trimester abortion unless the life of the mother is endangered, but such abortions are so rare and usually reserved for that purpose anyway that it is a non-issue. A fetus the size of my pinky, or even the size of a needle prick is no more human than my lap top.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

1. No one denies their potential personhood. If you believe viability is requirement to use in judging an abortion, then you'll find that even most pro-choicers do not find the idea of aborting a child that can live outside the womb (20 weeks usually???) appealing. Before that, the fetus is not viable, cannot feel pain, nor has consciousness. Technology can provide us clues to the potentiality of the fetus, based on genetics and other factors. But that does not mean they are a viable human being. I realize in the eyes of a pro-lifer how this sounds, and I respect the position (I used to be a pro-lifer myself and was even on my universities Pro-Life Club).

2. If the fetus is aborted before the gray area where viability becomes a factor, as a pro-choicer I have no problem with this. The fetus is not defined by "personhood" during this stage. Is it moral to force a woman to bring a child with a debilitating illness, mental or physical into this world, knowing that the child will never have a normal life? Knowing that the child will be a burden financially, mentally, and physically to the parents and even the tax payer? Again, from the pro-life perspective I totally get and understand why such a stance is morally objectionable and will not fault you for feeling this way. But I myself like to weigh the costs of everything to determine my stance on an issue. I'm also not remotely religious, so this doesn't come into play either.

I do, however object to your two scenario's above if the fetus reaches a point in development where we know he/she can survive outside of the womb. I don't support third trimester abortion unless the life of the mother is endangered, but such abortions are so rare and usually reserved for that purpose anyway that it is a non-issue. A fetus the size of my pinky, or even the size of a needle prick is no more human than my lap top.

If we use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood, you would be fine with the whole animal kingdom qualifying as persons under the law?

 

[akrunner88]

If we use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood, you would be fine with the whole animal kingdom qualifying as persons under the law?

Do I really have to clarify "human personhood" to you? Come on now, let's be an adult. That's really all you got out of my post? Lmao

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

.........

Answer the question should we use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood? Yes or no?

 

[akrunner88]

Answer the question should we use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood? Yes or no?

In regards to human beings, we already do use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood. That's why we had Roe v Wade. That's why we have abortion. The question was already answered decades ago.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

In regards to human beings, we already do use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood. That's why we had Roe v Wade. That's why we have abortion. The question was already answered decades ago.

The current criteria the law is using is you have to be a human located out of the womb to be considered a person under the law. The overall debate is still going on and the law can be changed if arguments are not prepared to defend Roe v Wade. So deciding to ignore the debate because the law happens to conveniently agree with you at the moment doesn't mean you can ignore pro lifers arguments all of a sudden.

 

[akrunner88]

The current criteria the law is using is you have to be a human located out of the womb to be considered a person under the law. The overall debate is still going on and the law can be changed if arguments are not prepared to defend Roe v Wade. So deciding to ignore the debate because the law happens to conveniently agree with you at the moment doesn't mean you can ignore pro lifers arguments all of a sudden.

First of all, we have probably thousands of posts in this particular area of the forum dealing with what you are talking about. I didn't come here to discuss this with you, I came here to discuss the OP. If you would like to return back to the topic and talk about the ethics mentioned in the OP, I'd be more than happy to discuss. But I thought it was an interesting premise and have no desire to derail the thread and take part in turning this thread into the many hundreds of threads already talking about your post.

 

[blarg]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

um the dna was always going to build a lot of a persons traits even before we could mess around wiht it at will that dosent mean a person has been created as soon as the dna has come together i dont see how this is a game changer

 

[minnie616]

1. No one denies their potential personhood. If you believe viability is requirement to use in judging an abortion, then you'll find that even most pro-choicers do not find the idea of aborting a child that can live outside the womb (20 weeks usually???) appealing. Before that, the fetus is not viable, cannot feel pain, nor has consciousness. Technology can provide us clues to the potentiality of the fetus, based on genetics and other factors. But that does not mean they are a viable human being. I realize in the eyes of a pro-lifer how this sounds, and I respect the position (I used to be a pro-lifer myself and was even on my universities Pro-Life Club).

2. If the fetus is aborted before the gray area where viability becomes a factor, as a pro-choicer I have no problem with this. The fetus is not defined by "personhood" during this stage. Is it moral to force a woman to bring a child with a debilitating illness, mental or physical into this world, knowing that the child will never have a normal life? Knowing that the child will be a burden financially, mentally, and physically to the parents and even the tax payer? Again, from the pro-life perspective I totally get and understand why such a stance is morally objectionable and will not fault you for feeling this way. But I myself like to weigh the costs of everything to determine my stance on an issue. I'm also not remotely religious, so this doesn't come into play either.

I do, however object to your two scenario's above if the fetus reaches a point in development where we know he/she can survive outside of the womb. I don't support third trimester abortion unless the life of the mother is endangered, but such abortions are so rare and usually reserved for that purpose anyway that it is a non-issue. A fetus the size of my pinky, or even the size of a needle prick is no more human than my lap top.

Well said, up to your last sentence.
A embryo or fetus is human , but it is not considered a person. Persons are born.
The unborn are not considered persons in the USA.

But I would just add as an aside
Viability is usually sometime between 22 to 24 gestation. ( the youngest premies to ever survive were 21 weeks 5 days and 21 weeks and 6 days gestation. Also
I am a pro choice Christian and the church I am a member of is a pro choice mainline Protestant Church.

 

[Removable Mind]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

Let's go your way. Give personhood to the yet to be born...from the moment of conception.

Now, that will require an Amendment. Show how such an Amendment is constructed so that the yet to be born's new full constitutional rights can be implemented without infringing on the Constitutional rights of women...and in some cases even men.

Fire away, the ball is in your baby's court....

 

[Removable Mind]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

Oh, one more thing - I meant to add to my last post.

Personhood would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman's health. It would prohibit doctors from performing abortions except perhaps in some cases to save the life of the woman, thereby endangering the lives and health of many women.

After reading the above and can't clearly how any of these instances infringes on women. May the powers of the universe have mercy on your eternal electrons.

 

[Removable Mind]

Answer the question should we use sentience and consciousness as criteria for personhood? Yes or no?

The topic is referring to homo Sapiens...and you damn well know it. If you don't get somebody to explain it to you.

 

[Removable Mind]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

One last thing...and to repeat a post I recently made in another thread....

A lot of people believe that "personhood" is statutory term. In actuality, it's used in our Judicial System as a "legal fiction", which is an assertion accepted as true, though probably fictitious, to achieve a particular goal in a legal matter.

PERSON is statutorily defined. It's not a legal fiction. And the reality is that no stage of the yet to be born meet the criteria to be legally recognized as a PERSON.

As as I stated in a previous post replying to your OP...it would take an Amendment to include the yet to be born. Obviously there's a few who don't understand just how complex the process is to pass an Amendment.

 

[ajn678]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

1.Having an outline of something doesn't mean it is the finished product. Try that in a college course and tell your professor that you should get full credit for identifying your outline and that counts the same as a finished paper. Just because we can have an outline of what the fetus will be when it is born, doesn't mean that it is now the same as the fully born person.

2. Nevermind the fact that you aren't really asking an honest question, since you go in thinking abortion is a lapse of judgment in our nation's decisions. However, I would assume doctors will find cures to many diseases that plague us faster than we could abort everyone and eradicate it. I have no problem with a woman deciding to abort a fetus that will have serious birth defects or diseases. These children offer suffer horribly in foster care or their own parent's hands. I also have no problem if the woman wants to keep the child and believes they can take care of them. That's their decision.

 

[Bazzgazzer]

The idea that a blueprint is not the same as a house has come up many times and in various forms.

This misses the point. The point is that at some time in the future technology will be in such a state that a full menu of traits can be detected prior to the time that US law allows legal protections against harm. This means that it will be fully legal to discriminate based on whatever traits cabbie determined. You can kill a nascent human being if you know it won't have blue eyes, for example. Or you could kill based on likelihood of developing certain disorder, despite the fact that one could live a meaningful life even with a disorder.

This is a question of when rights begin. The house analogy makes no sense because houses don't have rights. The question is how is it logical for rights to begin AFTER discrimination begins. If you can't discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation, why should should you be able to when the human being in question is just really really young?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Let's assume Alec Ross is correct and we're just a few years out from being able to determine all sorts of traits at the 4th week in pregnancy. Everything from eye color, height, hair color, to likelihood of being an alcoholic or developing Parkinson's. And more.

I have two questions for pro-choicers

1) Why can we build an entire characteristic profile of a nascent human being but still deny it's personhood? Maybe technology is providing us a clue that consciousness (or insert other trait) is not the personhood marker that so many pro-choice people want to assume it is.


2) We all know that societies are susceptible of having major collective lapses of judgment (just look at Trump). Let's say for arguments sake, society's whims determines that it's just not worth bringing people into this world who have any chance of developing Parkinson's and within a generation, parkinson's is eradicated because of abortion. Is this desirable? Ethical? An acceptable outcome to preserve the right to choose?



https://youtu.be/_an2CfNUJak?t=146

Everything that you mentioned there involves physical characteristics. "Personhood", or "what makes us HUMAN" is a bit more nebulous than physical characteristics. Otherwise a person that is in a coma but alive could not be taken off of life support by a loved ones decision.