Pro-Choicers: What makes a person?

[Sinaijon]

A fetus isn't a person

This statement comes up pretty frequently in abortion debates from the Pro-Choice side of things, and I'm curious just how exactly do you define a 'person'? Is that definition exclusive to just fetuses, or does it apply universally?

First, I assume there is a distinction being made between life (whether a viable biological process or a religious soul) and a person (recognized by society as having rights).

Second, I'm assuming the people declaring this believes that 'personhood' is relevant to abortion rights. If the fetus was declared a 'person', that would have some effect on the mother's rights over her own body. ( I know some Pro-Choice people believe that the status of the fetus is irrelevant, and that the woman's rights over her own body are supreme.)

To me, the obvious definition (from their point of view) would be 'inside = not a person; outside = person". Personally, I think this a poor definition because it defines a person, not by what they are, but rather where they are, and there are also seem to be some obvious loop holes in that definition. I don't want to waste my time with strawmen, though.

So, if you are Pro Choice and believe that the status of the fetus matters, is this definition more or less correct? Do you have a different definition?

[Blut Aus Nord]

I'm pretty sure this was addressed in the other topic on abortion.

* Main Entry: 1man
* Pronunciation: \ˈman, in compounds ˌman or mən\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural men \ˈmen, in compounds ˌmen or mən\
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu
* Date: before 12th century

1 (2) a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family; broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1) : one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood

What separates humans from animals from both a scientific and philosophical perspective is the mind. Therefore, when the brain has developed to a point of potentiality where cognitive processes unique to the human mind can begin to develop, the fetus has begun its growth process as a human being. This is, what, 6 months in or something? I don't know when the brain activity shifts in the fetal stage, but it's somewhere around there.

From another incorporeal perspective, our reason and will separate us from the instinctive animals. But the potential for this growth can only begin to develop at a certain point in the process, as mentioned earlier. Assigning the value of being human to a non-human entity is degrading to us, and therefore there is a distinction between early stages in the development of a fetus and the growth of a human being.

I'm pretty sure this was agreed upon, but some people even claim that the potential for the mind's growth doesn't begin until born. Either way, zygotes are out.

[Angel of the Lord]

I define a person as an individual who is at least minimally aware of their surroundings. Alternately, a person can be defined as someone to whom a person of the first definition is viscerally attached.

Therefore, to me, a fetus in the early stages of development is not a person according to the inherent (first) definition. However, if the mother is attached to the fetus--if she wants the eventual child, if she considers the fetus a person--then, for legal purposes, IMHO, the fetus should be considered a person. Deliberately inducing a miscarriage in a woman who wants to carry the pregnancy to term should be a serious legal offense.

In the later stages, it gets iffy. I personally wouldn't have an abortion much past the first trimester--that's what adoption's for--but I wouldn't condemn a woman who disagreed. It's her body. She has no obligation to allow another being--person or not--to reside inside it, to suck nourishment from it. She is no more legally obligated to keep that fetus/person in her body than you are to house homeless people in your living room. Or--maybe more appropriately--no more obligation to do so than a parent has to donate a kidney to their child, or a brother has to donate to his sister, or you have to donate to a complete stranger.

Yes, there may be moral obligations--indeed, I certainly believe there are. It's not a choice that I would make. But it is a choice I should be allowed to make. And, if I am not going to allow an inviable fetus to stay in my body, then the only kind thing to do is to make sure there's no chance of suffering.

So, personhood is a dividing line for me, but not for the legal status of abortion. But my definition is above.

[MOIDALIZE]

What makes a man, is it the woman in his arms? JUST CAUSE SHE HAS BIG TITTIES?
Or is it the way he fights everyday? NO, IT'S PROBABLY THE TITTIES!

[Whack-a-Mole]

As I noted in another thread the answer is partly objective and partly subjective.

I think it is abundantly clear that anyone can see the difference between a blastocyst and a fetus 1 day away from birth.

Something changed during those nine months so we move forward from the fertilized egg and backwards from the nearly born fetus to find where the line is drawn.

Eventually we get to a gray area. The earliest a fetus is viable outside the womb is around 6 months of gestation. Of course modern medical science allows that. One hundred years ago I doubt such a premature baby would have a chance in hell of surviving.

So, where is the bright line drawn where one moment we say "not a person" and the next where we say "person"?

Birth itself is about the only actual bright line but I think few people could view the fetus 10 seconds before birth as devoid of personhood than it is 10 seconds later after birth.

In the end, as with so many things in society, we need to balance different rights. Seems reasonable giving a woman six months to make up her mind is more than sufficient to protect her rights to her body and her choice. Eventually though the rights of the fetus supplant hers in most cases (life of the mother being an exception I'd say).

Where is it a person? No one can say with certainty.

Hell, try to come up with a hard and fast definition of "life" (which I think you can substitute for "person" in this context). Seems simple but actually it is an elusive target and to date has not really been done despite the efforts of a lot of smart philosophers and scientists.

[begbert2]

Siccinctly, I think if you don't have a functioning human brain, you're not a person. I gather that "6 months in" is a good marker for that, though I admit I haven't looked into it much. Even if that varies a little it from case to case I think that would be a fine legal demarcation for defining when elective abortions cease to be available.

Supposing that "A seed is a tree!" and "my pastor says so!" aren't good arguments, is there any argument for an earlier cutoff?

[AHunter3]

This question is partially a red herring. I say "partially" because certainly some people who are pro-choice do indeed consider it important to their view on the subject that the fetus ( / embryo / blastocyte) is "not a person".

But only some of us.

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:


a) To be human is to be a person. It's a social construct, a category WE'VE invented that only has whatever meaning WE glue onto it, yadda yada, but sure, why split hairs (even potential hairs)? A fetus (yea, even an embryo or blastocyte) is a person in a sense that a fingernail clipping, an entire finger, a spermatozoon, or a dead body are NOT a person.

b) Abortion is killing. It is other things, too (medical procedure; termination of unwanted medical condition; exercise of the right to make one's own reproductive decisions; etc) but except in the case where the implanted conception-product is already dead, abortion kills it.

c) Abortion is therefore the killing of a person.


I'm pro-choice. I think abortion should be legally available to any pregnant person. Period. No qualifiers. I'm OK with Roe v Wade as a compromise.

I ask for the following stipulations from anyone who is NOT pro-choice:

a) Not all killing is murder, or even immoral. While I am not going to point to any specific example as being just like abortion (nothing precisely is), it is generally held that to kill in one's self-defense is neither immoral nor murder; it is held by the majority of people, if not by everyone, that to kill in combat as a soldier in wartime is also neither immoral nor murder; and in triage considerations (military or medical) it is generally accepted that it is sometimes necessary to cause the death of some via the taking of action designed to save the lives and/or establish the goals of others.

b) We have a general abhorrence towards the killing of human beings, but it does not have the status of an "absolute value". When and where it is wrong, it is wrong for a reason. Normatively it is an assault upon the person who is being killed insofar as that person has a consciousness containing plans, history, and intentions, all of which investments are lost prematurely when the person is killed. Normatively it is also an assault upon the person's family friends associates and community as well, insofar as that person has understandings and skills, relationships utilitarian and emotional, and has likely been the subject of investments of time and resources, all of which are again lost prematurely when the person is killed. Perhaps there are other reasons whereby it might be concluded that it is wrong to kill a person, but the argument has to be asserted and defended; establishing simply that a person would be killed does not ipso facto make something morally wrong.

c) There may therefore be legitimate grounds and legitimate perspectives from which any given abortion may be deemed appropriate and necessary and not immoral. A decision is therefore required, either across-the-board (applying to all abortions) or categorical (in which case abortion situations must be categorized, and therefore categorized by someone), or individually (in which case each individual abortion situation must be evaluated on its own merits independently). Therefore it is a matter of critical importance to decide who should be making those decisions, and whether to try to make them once for all situations, to create a categorical structure and a decision-making structure for evaluations situations to categorize them, or to deal with each individual case on its own merits.

[Voyager]

A fetus becomes a person sometime between the start of brain activity and the ability to survive outside the womb. Never before the beginning of brain activity, though, even if technology advanced to allow development from a petri dish.

However this is all my opinion, and I wouldn't force it on any woman who is actually carrying a fetus. Sometimes it is okay to say there is no real answer to a question like this.

[Der Trihs]

Personhood is a matter of mental function; of awareness, thought. When, exactly a fetus achieves what level of mental functions isn't something science can define well yet. But it certainly requires a brain that has its basic functions up and running. Six months is about where it starts showing human brainwaves, but that's so basic that it probably doesn't qualify as a person yet. And it's unlikely that there's a neat, objective bright line that one can point to.

And yes it applies universally, which is why it's moral to dismember the brain dead for their organs. THEY are gone; only the biological machinery remains. One reason I oppose the pro-birth definition of human life is that it inevitably defines the brain dead as people too. And as said, it degrades personhood to define personhood that way.

[Cat Fight]

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

To me, the obvious definition (from their point of view) would be 'inside = not a person; outside = person". Personally, I think this a poor definition because it defines a person, not by what they are, but rather where they are, and there are also seem to be some obvious loop holes in that definition.

As AHunter points out, we may not define 'person' based on location, but we certainly use it to determine where their lives and deaths fit on the scale of 'most tragic' to 'least tragic.' See: enemy troops, civilian casualties, slave labor, developing countries, elder care, prisoners.

[YogSosoth]

A fetus is a person when society says it is, so a person like me who believes in choice must always fight to keep that definition to fetuses.

Lets face it, when it comes to what humans "believe", everything is subjective. We could define rape as simply looking at a woman when she doesn't want to and that will be the definition of rape. So I'm not at all impressed by the pro-life argument that a person could be then defined to be anyone who is unconscious of his surroundings such as the infirm or the mentally challenged. Keep the definition to that of fetuses pre-birth and keep abortion legal for that and I'll be fine with it.

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.

My atheistic views convinces me that death isn't a bad thing by itself; dying is what sucks. So if a fetus dies and it cannot really have experienced the loss, then its not a bad thing for the fetus. So the death of a fetus = meh.

[El Zagna]

Short answer: A fetus becomes a person some time between conception and birth.

Long answer: Well...

The question seems to assume that there is a discreet point at which a fetus becomes a human, and I see that as one of the great obstacles in discussing the abortion issue. If only it were that easy, then we could define what it means to be human and draw a line at that point.

I think that everyone other than the most ideologically driven in the abortion debate recognize the difference between a zygote and a fetus at 9 months. There's really not a point at which person-hood happens, but rather a process of becoming a person.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:


a) To be human is to be a person. It's a social construct, a category WE'VE invented that only has whatever meaning WE glue onto it, yadda yada, but sure, why split hairs (even potential hairs)? A fetus (yea, even an embryo or blastocyte) is a person in a sense that a fingernail clipping, an entire finger, a spermatozoon, or a dead body are NOT a person.

Wait, what? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Among other various problems, "To be human is to be a person" means that removing a fingernail clipping is murder, because it's a human fingernail clipping.

You can't just handwave away the question of whether the thing in question is a fetus, a baby, a person, or a tumor. If we're talking about something that is human but not a person, then it's simply not a person, and we shouldn't entertain the idea for any reason. Doing so just invites people to base arguments on the error.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

A fetus is a person when society says it is, so a person like me who believes in choice must always fight to keep that definition to fetuses.

Lets face it, when it comes to what humans "believe", everything is subjective. We could define rape as simply looking at a woman when she doesn't want to and that will be the definition of rape. So I'm not at all impressed by the pro-life argument that a person could be then defined to be anyone who is unconscious of his surroundings such as the infirm or the mentally challenged. Keep the definition to that of fetuses pre-birth and keep abortion legal for that and I'll be fine with it.

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.

My atheistic views convinces me that death isn't a bad thing by itself; dying is what sucks. So if a fetus dies and it cannot really have experienced the loss, then its not a bad thing for the fetus. So the death of a fetus = meh.

You sicken me.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

Personally, I think as long as the mother's still physically attached to the kid somehow and feeding it off her own body, its hers to do what she wants. I'm for abortion anytime before birth AND before the cord is cut; either or one doesn't make it for me.

Once the baby is born and the cord is cut the baby is still hugely dependent on its mother (or at least some adult). If the mother breast feeds the baby is still feeding off the woman's body. More than that the baby now requires more care than when it was insider her (changing diapers, waking at all hours of the day and night to feed it or rock it, need to expend resources to clothe it and so on).

So, by your rationale the mother (or whatever adult that needs to expend their own resources to keep the baby alive) should be free to bash it in the head and be done with it.

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

Pretty messed up thinking there.

[BrandonR]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Once the baby is born and the cord is cut the baby is still hugely dependent on its mother (or at least some adult). If the mother breast feeds the baby is still feeding off the woman's body. More than that the baby now requires more care than when it was insider her (changing diapers, waking at all hours of the day and night to feed it or rock it, need to expend resources to clothe it and so on).

So, by your rationale the mother (or whatever adult that needs to expend their own resources to keep the baby alive) should be free to bash it in the head and be done with it.

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

Pretty messed up thinking there.

Except anyone can feed the baby formula from a can. It's not dependent on the (original) mother the same way an undeveloped fetus is, which is what I can assume YogSosoth was referring to. Once a baby is born it no longer exclusively depends on a single person for continued development. If that were the case, adopted kids would surely not exist.

[Sinaijon]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Only once the child is no longer sucking resources from its keepers can the child be said to have rights of its own.

There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.

[Sinaijon]

Originally Posted by AHunter3

Me, I'm comfortable making the following stipulations:

So, am I understanding correctly that (to paraphrase) you believe the question of personhood is a separate question from the right to abortion? (A fetus may be classified as a person, but a woman may still choose to abort?)

[Sinaijon]

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.

Sorry, just to clarify, I know that this quote isn't your position on things, I was just trying to expand on it. Even a 'born' baby might be directly sucking resources...

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

There's a little bit of overlap there. When a baby is born it can be anywhere from 30 seconds to 2 minutes before the umbilical cord is cut. So a baby might very well be cradled in its mothers arms while still sucking resources through the umbilical cord.

After a certain point, laws kick into place preventing parents from denying their child sufficient support, which goes a fair bit beyond breastfeeding, unless they go throug a legal procedure that moves those legal responsibilities elsewhere. However, best as I can tell, the point those laws kick in is birth, or at least closer to birth than conception.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by BrandonR

Except anyone can feed the baby formula from a can. It's not dependent on the (original) mother the same way an undeveloped fetus is, which is what I can assume YogSosoth was referring to. Once a baby is born it no longer exclusively depends on a single person for continued development. If that were the case, adopted kids would surely not exist.

Sure any adult can do it but some adult has to do it or the baby will die. As such the child is siphoning resources from some caretaker. Time and money.

YogSoth's POV seems to be the fetus is a parasite and as such lives or dies at the whim of the mother (caretaker) right up to the instant before the umbilical cord is cut.

Thing is after the umbilical is cut the baby's needs increase from when it was in the mother. It requires active effort on the part of caretakers to live. It requires more resource outlays for its survival (clothes at the least). Its status as a parasite continues minus the physical connection to the mother after birth.

So, if it is a parasite its caretakers should have the choice of life or death over it by his logic.

[BrandonR]

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by BrandonR

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.

To be clear I am not arguing with you but YogSoth's take on it. He departs from us in that he feels the mother should be allowed to kill the baby right up to the instant before the umbilical is cut. As such I think he is stretching the notion that it is a parasite thus at the whim of the mother out of all recognition. I merely extended that notion to try to portray its absurdity and show how it is morally bankrupt.

By-and-large I personally feel the same as you on the subject (as you just described it).

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by BrandonR

Well I do think there is some gray area between the time when a fetus is essentially a parasite, completely dependent upon the host to continue to develop, and when it's a baby that can be taken care of by anyone that's willing. That time is probably the third trimester, and personally I'm against third trimester abortions because by that point the baby could be born (prematurely) but still be developed enough to not solely depend on its mother for development.

My take on this issue is that up until the point where a baby can be born and survive on its own (obviously with care) it's not a person, it's an undeveloped grouping of cells and tissue. To me, preventing the continued development of a jumble of biological matter incapable of survival without you and only you is not murder. If it were, masturbation would be considered genocide. You're not taking life away from something, you're merely preventing life from occurring in the first place.

But I certainly don't expect to win anyone over in this discussion. Abortion is just one of those topics that 90% of people's opinions are essentially set in stone.

Personally I don't see survivability as being relevent to personhood - it's relevent to responsibility for that person's survival. That is, there is a level of hardship we do not ask people to do, even to save another person's life. So, if we presume a fetus has finally become person, then we shouldn't kill it on a whim - which explains why most pro-choicers oppose casual abortion in the third trimester.

For most of us, the key issue is whether the fetus counts as a person yet. I suppose some people could base this on viability, but that doesn't make sense to me; I do it by cognition and levels of intelligence. Below a certain level, it's not a person to me, and I feel it can be killed with impunity regardless of it's viability. An adult cow is certainly a viable independent organism, and I'm fine with it being killed for trivial reasons.

Now, it is worth noting that viability could effect whether an abortion is the best way to unburden a woman of a fetus or zygote. If a woman wants to shed herself of a fetus and it can be put into an incubator and brought to term (without having to slice up the woman too horribly to get it out), then I say, feel free! There's no moral obligation to do so, but so long as you take full responsibility for the result, I don't mind incubatoring rather than aborting. However, forcing the woman to be an incubator for you is reprehensible on a level precisely equivalent to grabbing people and stealing their 'redundant' organs.

[Chronos]

Whatever personhood is, it has to be something related to our minds, so a thing without a mind cannot be a person. Exactly what level of mind is necessary is a gray area, and difficult to pin down: A five year old dog has, in most respects, greater mental capacity than a newborn human, and yet most will agree that the newborn human has a greater degree of personhood than the dog. But certainly a human zygote or embryo before the development of nervous tissue cannot be a person, and probably not one before the start of brain activity.

Personhood cannot be defined in terms of being human, because doing so fails to account both for nonhuman persons and nonperson human things. In the former case, angels, aliens, artificially intelligent computers, and elves (without comment on whether any of those exist) should all be regarded as persons, even though none of them are human. By contrast, a HeLa culture is undoubtedly human in a biological sense, and is alive and self-sufficient, but can't by any stretch be called a person.

[jsgoddess]

I'll ignore the abortion part for the moment since, like AHunter3, I don't consider personhood necessary or sufficient for that debate.

A person, to me, is an individual life form with a certain level of mental ability and a personality. Hypothetically, a machine could be a person and hypothetically a Homo sapiens might not be.

To borrow from Star Trek, a Vulcan is a person. A Borg? Maybe not (maybe all Borg together form a single person). V'ger? Yes.

[Maia's Well]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Now, it is worth noting that viability could effect whether an abortion is the best way to unburden a woman of a fetus or zygote. If a woman wants to shed herself of a fetus and it can be put into an incubator and brought to term (without having to slice up the woman too horribly to get it out), then I say, feel free! There's no moral obligation to do so, but so long as you take full responsibility for the result, I don't mind incubatoring rather than aborting. However, forcing the woman to be an incubator for you is reprehensible on a level precisely equivalent to grabbing people and stealing their 'redundant' organs.

This brings up an interesting point to me (as have many other posts in this thread). I've often wondering if there is any research going on anywhere into transplanting human embryoes. Research I've done shows that it is done with animals (cattle and such). I recognize that there are ethical considerations (for example, we don't know what detrimental effect this might have on the embryo), but it seems to me, for those who feel very strongly that abortion is murder and want to save babies, it seems like that might be one way to do it. Does anyone know if there is such research being done? Or can anyone explain to me why that's not an option?

Hope this isn't too much of a "Hi, Jack!" If it is, I could mebbe start a thread...

[Maia's Well]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

To borrow from Star Trek, a Vulcan is a person. A Borg? Maybe not (maybe all Borg together form a single person). V'ger? Yes.

Whadda about Data, hm?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Maia's Well

Whadda about Data, hm?

"If you prick me, do I not . . . leak?"

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Maia's Well

Whadda about Data, hm?

You can tell I'm into TOS since I didn't even think of Data!

[AHunter3]

Originally Posted by Sinaijon

So, am I understanding correctly that (to paraphrase) you believe the question of personhood is a separate question from the right to abortion? (A fetus may be classified as a person, but a woman may still choose to abort?)

I thought that was overwhelmingly obvious from my post.


I need to work on that "unintentional subtlety" thing.

[Sinaijon]

I need to work on that "unintentional subtlety" thing.

I'm thinking more of the 'brevity' thing.

I thought it was obvious too, but was second guessing myself when paraphrasing it down into a single sentence.

[Knorf]

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that. Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity, it can been asserted as existing arbitrarily whenever, even at conception. Clump of cells + soul = person. Whether they use the word "soul" or not, it seems to me that many (most?) anti-abortion types treat the word "person" magically and indefinably, quite literally akin to the word "soul."

If you don't believe in souls, as I do not, defining a person is far more problematic. Clearly, if cognition (or, potential cognition) is an essential component to being a person, then a late-term fetus which might be viable has a much stronger claim to personhood than a zygote.

The next question is simply what does the law require regarding protecting the rights of a fetus to the degree a fetus is definable as a person. In short, a person is what the Law (to the degree it is enforceable by the State) says it is. Presently, in the U.S. and in most industrialized nations, a fetus is not a person with rights endowed by the State, but a baby is. There will never be a clear line that can be drawn to the satisfaction of everyone, unless God himself comes down and defines an ultimate Law. Since that has not and will not happen, we're stuck with human Law.

What becomes obvious in any discussion like this is that there will be no agreement on any of these points.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Knorf

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that. Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity, it can been asserted as existing arbitrarily whenever, even at conception. Clump of cells + soul = person. Whether they use the word "soul" or not, it seems to me that many (most?) anti-abortion types treat the word "person" magically and indefinably, quite literally akin to the word "soul."

Another problem with that argument is that even if they do have souls, so what? If a mindless lump of cells can have a soul, that's just an argument for souls not being important. They might as well argue that rocks have souls so we shouldn't dig mines.

[Chronos]

Souls don't make the question any simpler, since you still have to have some way of determining what things have and do not have souls. That determination has to be made either based on observable characteristics of the thing, in which case you could just use those characteristics directly as your basis for comparison, or it has to be decreed by some authority, and the most-recognized such authority in the US, the Bible, is silent on the matter (it does imply that a fetus has a soul some time before birth, but not precisely when).

[kanicbird]

This is very spiritual and IMHO:

The attraction that m/f have for each other I believe is the desire of the woman to give life to a certain aspect of that man, to have a child - regardless of what her mind says it's her heart that desires the child. As such the female selects the child her soul/heart wants and desires. The child is part of the soul of the father at this time. During the sexual union that child is being coaxed to separate him/herself from the man and become a total person. Once that child agrees with that a new person is formed totally complete. IMHO Physically this would happen at ejaculation.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Souls don't make the question any simpler, since you still have to have some way of determining what things have and do not have souls. That determination has to be made either based on observable characteristics of the thing, in which case you could just use those characteristics directly as your basis for comparison, or it has to be decreed by some authority, and the most-recognized such authority in the US, the Bible, is silent on the matter (it does imply that a fetus has a soul some time before birth, but not precisely when).

Come now, souls make things very simple. You simply declare that your god told you that zygotes get souls at conception, so they're babies and people and miscarrages are murder. Done!

And liberals quoting the bible don't count as an authority; only his pastor paraphrasing what might be in the bible is. It's divine inspirationed interpretation, see.


On preview: Aaand there you have your divine inspirationed interpretation! Pastor-free! (And wet dreams are murder!)

[Locrian]

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

For me, it's about survival status. Here's how I break it down:

Embryo, Zygote, fetus-- anything in the womb is clearly not a person. It won't survive at it's present state if removed.

Babies - ALSO not people. They are not capable of making decisions providing care for themselves. They need a grown person to provide.

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is.

And no, souls don't exist just because you want them to.

[simster]

You proceed from a false assumption - that pro-choicers feelings about "what makes a person" or when a "fetus" is a "person" makes any difference.

To me - being pro-choice is recognizing that my feelings and beliefs have no role in those of the person doing the choosing - I could feel/believe that every sperm is sacred and its only purpose is to be shoved into a vagina for procreation - but that has no bearing on what someone else might believe, or what they should choose to do with the parasite that is growing within them.

That is what Pro-Choice is about - allowing people to choose the medical procedures they want for the purposes they want them - all other arguments about "sanctity of life" , "fetus = human with rights", etc are all diversions from the point at hand.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Locrian

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is.

I can neither hunt, nor farm. I can only survive because other people do these things for me. Does that mean I'm not a person?

[Eliahna]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

YogSoth's POV seems to be the fetus is a parasite and as such lives or dies at the whim of the mother (caretaker) right up to the instant before the umbilical cord is cut.

Thing is after the umbilical is cut the baby's needs increase from when it was in the mother. It requires active effort on the part of caretakers to live. It requires more resource outlays for its survival (clothes at the least). Its status as a parasite continues minus the physical connection to the mother after birth.

So, if it is a parasite its caretakers should have the choice of life or death over it by his logic.

This is my POV, somewhat, but I don't agree with your conclusion. The fetus is a parasite and until it is viable the mother should be able to choose to eject it from her body. Once it is viable and no longer needs to be attached to the mother to survive, I'm against termination. Viability is difficult to define - 23 weekers have survived on rare occasions, and in my mind there's a question mark over whether a very prem baby can be called viable if it's early birth is likely to result in moderate to severe health problems and disabilities. That's something that would need to be hashed out after a lot more research than I'm prepared to do this morning.

A parasite is something that will die without being attached to a host. A newborn is not attached to a host and can be passed from one carer to another without difficulty. Therefore, I do not believe that even a helpless newborn can be called a parasite, they are simply a dependant.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by Miller

I can neither hunt, nor farm. I can only survive because other people do these things for me. Does that mean I'm not a person?

You have the capability of learning if you really have to. I love steak, but I don't know how to kill a cow. If I'm stranded on an island only with cows, I'll try my best to figure it out. If I'm 3, I'll cry till I'm dead.

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

For me, it's about survival status. Here's how I break it down:

Embryo, Zygote, fetus-- anything in the womb is clearly not a person. It won't survive at it's present state if removed.

Babies - ALSO not people. They are not capable of making decisions providing care for themselves. They need a grown person to provide.

I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is.

And no, souls don't exist just because you want them to.

Thanks!

Though, I disagree that survival status is a valid way of defining personhood, largely because my survival status is dependent on the environment just as much as a zygote's. If you tear me away from my Walmarts and my bank accounts and my refridgerator and my water faucets, I'll be aborted within a week.

Since I'm a little leery of any definition of personhood which excludes myself, I'll stick with the one based on brain activity. I'm fairly sure I have brain activity...

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by simster

That is what Pro-Choice is about - allowing people to choose the medical procedures they want for the purposes they want them - all other arguments about "sanctity of life" , "fetus = human with rights", etc are all diversions from the point at hand.

I think you put it best.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by begbert2

Thanks!

Though, I disagree that survival status is a valid way of defining personhood, largely because my survival status is dependent on the environment just as much as a zygote's. If you tear me away from my Walmarts and my bank accounts and my refridgerator and my water faucets, I'll be aborted within a week.

Since I'm a little leery of any definition of personhood which excludes myself, I'll stick with the one based on brain activity. I'm fairly sure I have brain activity...

Oh, I'm soooo domesticated too that I doubt I'd survive alone even on a ready to harvest farm. The brain activity you mention is the key. A toddler might know how to pick a strawberry without being told, but he/she probably won't know when it's ripe, how to wash it, how to harvest a lot at once, etc.

[Blut Aus Nord]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Ha! Begbert2, I love your posts.

...
I can only consider beings capable of surviving on their own as people. Not necessarily in a society sense. I don't care how much their money earning potential is.

But what about the mentally retarded or the physically handicapped? Does their dependency rob them of their person-hood?

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Oh, I'm soooo domesticated too that I doubt I'd survive alone even on a ready to harvest farm. The brain activity you mention is the key. A toddler might know how to pick a strawberry without being told, but he/she probably won't know when it's ripe, how to wash it, how to harvest a lot at once, etc.

Heck man, I wouldn't know when it was ripe. (I'm a nightmare in a kitchen, seriously.) At this point you are talking about deficiencies in knowledge, experience, and/or education, and if that's where we're going then I'm going to start slowly edging out of the room again, before somebody blindsides me with a question about european history or something and decides I'm subhuman based on the results.

[JThunder]

Originally Posted by Knorf

I often get the impression from anti-abortion types that their point of view is dependent upon the existence of a "soul" or something like that.

For some, that's surely true. Then you have people like Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who left NARAL to join the pro-life side. He did so while still an atheist, so presumably, the notion of a soul had no bearing on his decision.

Since the person-defining "soul" has zero scientific validity....

If you mean that it cannot be detected by science, that's true... but only because science is the wrong instrument to use. The soul, if it exists, is non-material; hence, its existence is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific one. Beauty, ethics, and morality cannot be detected by science either, yet few of us would dismiss these notions are being nonsensical.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Locrian

You have the capability of learning if you really have to.

I'd still need someone to teach me, making me dependent on the teacher.

I love steak, but I don't know how to kill a cow. If I'm stranded on an island only with cows, I'll try my best to figure it out. If I'm 3, I'll cry till I'm dead.

Sure, if I were stranded on an island populated with the docile and domesticated end result of ten thousand years of animal husbandry, I'd probably be able to get by, too. But I'm still relying on the work of ten thousand years worth of cattle farmers to get by. If I have to hunt down a wild aurochs for dinner, my survivability is significantly impaired.

Of course, the issue of disease and injury puts an entirely different spin on your definition of personhood. About two years back, I had to have surgery to correct a life threatening condition. It's not something I could have done myself, even if I had medical training. Did I lose my status as a person for the duration of my medical treatment?

[jsgoddess]

Originally Posted by Miller

Does that mean I'm not a person?

Well, I didn't want to be the one to tell you, Zerblix...