Well then, please cite a precedent – that is, an argument which is not rooted in abortion rhetoric – that specifically shows that personhood does not begin until birth.
One can “posit” any number of things. One could posit, for example, that blacks are not persons, and that they do not deserve the protections that whites enjoy. Positing something is easy, but it does not make a given position reasonable, or in any way justifiable.
I think the crucial difference here is that blacks, just like whites, can appreciate being free and feel distress at the thought of being enslaved.
However, a fetus lacks the cognitive capacity to appreciate being alive or to feel distress at the thought of being killed.
You keep missing the point, Blalron. You posited that the unborn is not a person. As I said, people can posit any number of things. Hence, I challenge you to cite a precedent outside of the abortion issue which specifically shows the unborn to be a non-person.
You claim that “the cognitive capacity to appreciate being alive or to feel distress at the thought of being killed” makes the unborn a non-person. By that logic, a newborn child is not a person. Neither is a toddler, and neither is a severely retarded adult. Hence, your criterion – if it were valid – would actually disprove the pro-choice claim that personhood begins at the moment of birth.
Try again.
There are only two ways that one can become a citizen of the United States. One of those ways involves an adult person taking an oath. The other is to be born on American soil or to American parents abroad.
There seems to be quite a legal precedent for fetuses not being citizens. They also cannot hold green cards or resident alien papers or apply for visas. Wouldn’t a ‘person’ be able to do those things?
Perhaps you saw it on the New Hampshire license plate. 
Sorry, I would need to see a cite on that. I understand that there are laws to protect the cadavers. But by definition murder is the taking of a human life. If the person is already dead, even if the intent is there, I can’t see how it’s murder.
I see. So instead of arguing about personhood, you are arguing about U.S. citizenship instead, eh?
Moreover, what does citizenship have to do with personhood? Are you seriously suggesting that individuals who are not U.S. citizens are not persons? That their lives do not deserve to be protected by law?
If so, then does that say about your attitude toward foreigners?
Why should we adopt such a definition of personhood? Once again, I am asking for precedents, rather than arbitrary definitions which are concocted specifically to defend abortions.
Besides, a newborn baby cannot apply for a visa, either. Nor can a severely retarded adult. Since you cite the ability to apply for visas as a requirement for personhood, I guess that would render then non-persons.
Moreover, your arguments only apply to current U.S. law. If the laws were modified, such that Pakistanis could not obtain green cards, would that make them non-citizens? And what about times past, before the concept of green cards and travel visas were even invented? Seems to me that your standard of personhood is entirely arbitrary, and entirely dependent on the current state of legislation.
Obviously, I meant to ask if this would render them non-persons, rather than non-citizens.
This whole issue of citizenship, green cards and U.S. visas is a colossal red herring. For one thing, it appeals to U.S. legislation, rather than any inherent qualities of the unborn – thereby appointing the United States as the final arbiter of personhood, regardless of what other nations may say. For another thing, it seeks to enshrine personhood in the current state of legislation – and as the Dred Scott trial showed, such legislation is subject to change, and not always justified.
More importantly, it constitutes a gross misinterpretation of U.S. immigration law. Citizenship, green cards and travel visas allow an individual to stay in the U.S.A. – however, even individuals without citizenship, visas or green card status are subject to the protections of the law. This applies to both the born and the unborn. Hence, even if we misguidedly select U.S. immigration law as the final arbiter of one’s personhood, it would actually support the personhood of the unborn, rather than deny it!
You want precedent? Here you go, from the Roe vs Wade decision:
Incidently, most abortions are performed before quickening.
Considering all the beliefs in the rights of the fetus, does it ever seem baffling that the parents ultimately choose the life of the fetus? I’m currently struggling with this concept.
If the mother has no rights after conception, what gives her rights before conception?
How is it that the law allows parents to make life?
As it stands, the law does not allow you to do things you KNOW will cause death, like firing a gun into a crowd. If a death occurred and you knew your actions would cause it, you’re at fault. Here is a situation where your action will directly cause death, and there is no debate on that matter. There is no possible way that fetus is not going to die.
You’re not paying attention. I specifically, unambiguously and repeatedly asked for a precedent outside of the abortion debate. That is, I asked for a prior definition of personhood that was not specifically concocted in order to justify abortion.
More importantly, the Roe vs. Wade text which you cited does not say that the fetus is a non-person, nor does it say that personhood begins at birth. Rather, it only asserted that there was a “loose consensus” that personhood and/or fetal formation occured “at some point between conception and live birth” (emphasis mine).
In other words, Blalron, if you hold the Roe v. Wade text to be authoritative, then it actually refutes the notion that personhood begins at birth. Thank you very much for generously providing this argument against the pro-choice position!
Very tricky of you then. I don’t know how I could come up with a cite like that “outside of the abortion debate.”
You want me to find a passage from a book 200 years ago that specifically says “a fetus is not a person” and doesn’t in any way mention abortion? I don’t understand what you are asking.
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/EJ71/EJ71B.html
Aristotle says that even infants are not human beings and thus we owe them nothing.
You do realize, my dear JThunder, you are asking for a nigh-impossibility. Without abortion, you sweet, sweet man, there is no real reason to consider when life begins. Except, of course, from a strictly religious perspective, as it asks when a life gets a soul. Now, clearly, all religions will have different answers on that.
Clearly, there are several answers to your lovely question.
Unfortunately, you have not phrased it in a way that it can be parsed properly. What do you mean by a “non-person”? I’m afraid that word does not make any sense to me. Do you mean when does the soul enter the body? Do you mean sentience? Sapience? Do you mean when the infant can survive and develop outside the mother’s body?
You can’t get an answer until you give me a question that can be answered. Otherwise, I’m afraid the best answer I can give you is “Pudding.”
Here’s a good answer as to when life begins: http://christianity.about.com/library/weekly/aa091400.htm
I rather like it as it is both accurate and irrelevant to this debate.
It can be interpreted as either God knowing every combination of sperm and egg possible on the planet at this very moment…
Or God knowing which will survive to be born. After all, it is all part of his plan. So clearly, aborted fetuses, sperms and eggs that never meet, zygotes that never implant, are never alive, and he does not know them as such.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/indepth/featureitems/cloning.htm
Some arguments that are not directly abortion related involve cloning: Simply: Some Christians say yes, some Jewish thinkers say no.
http://tonysteele.blogspot.com/
This gentleman, and a T-Shirt that I have for no logical reason, inform me that life begins at 40. Thus, logically, I can be aborted.
http://www.cyberstreet.com/trumbore/sermons/s723.htm
This priest seems to think he has some sort of system.
http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/WhenBeginGame.htm
I’m not sure what this person is saying. It’s not really abortion related, though.
If a human life begins at conception… what do you consider a twin, which happens at what, 14 days? A person split in half?
Thunder
I think you ought to consider the word ‘paradigm’ and what I implied by using it (hint: You don’t have to preface everything with “Jesus said . . .” to be making an argument from within a Christian mindset).
Bob Cos
Well, if you notice, I don’t get involved in arguing with the case you make - I patently ignore the case you make.
tlw:
This was followed by a knock out list of service to children and adults that would shame Mother Theresa. I wish that more pro-life activists and pro-choice advocates here could come close to that standard!
I really didn’t ask for a laundry list. (I was just giving examples of what I was looking for.) But I’m glad that you posted these.
You asked what I have done in the same vein.
I spent twenty years teaching in an inner city high school where motherhood and marriage do not go hand in hand. I had opportunities to teach in the city’s academic magnet school but turned them down to remain in the inner city.
When I was beaten by one of a group of tresspasser in the school, I asked the judge (through my lawyer) not to put him in juvenile detention so that he would still have a chance at a football scholarship.
taught Sunday School and Bible School for children
organized a camp retreat for children.
served as a voluntary counsellor in church camps for children six times
signed my organ donor card
solicited crocheted hats for the children at St. Jude’s hospital
took in a run away fourteen year old who was being abused, got her medical help and counselling
participated in an inner-city program to replace items in homes that burned
served as a volunteer drug counsellor at a center for teens for two years (in addition to my teaching job)
volunteered my time as a tutor for a middle school child in my home in the summer
volunteered to teach a young woman who had been convicted of murder so that she could get enough credits to graduate
I tried to donate blood but they wouldn’t take it because of medications that I take. So I sponsored a Red Cross Blood Donation Drive for teenagers. (64 pints from my small high school!)
I volunteered to babysit for a single mother while she attended college classes.
I let a student in labor take my final exam! (That one was the scariest thing that I’ve done.)
served as a Lamaze coach
Both of us have paid our dues.
My apologies for getting your initials wrong…
Your problem, not mine. If you’re going to argue using the premise that the fetus is a non-person, then you need to demonstrate this without using definitions of personhood that were concocted specifically to justify abortion.
I’m asking you provide a precedent – PERIOD. If the only definitions of personhood you can use are those which were specifically developed by the pro-choice crowd, then that says something about the validity of that approach. It suggests that this alleged definition of personhood was cherry-picked in order to justify the desired conclusion – as opposed to, say, using prior definitions from which natural conclusions can be drawn.
And do you agree with that definition? I think that even most pro-choicers would contest that claim.
Even if we grant that, then it’s only a problem for the pro-choicers who choose to rely on that definition of personhood.
Do you see the problem yet? We have pro-choicers saying “The unborn is not a person! Personhood begins at birth!” If they insist on using this argument, then they must explain what personhood is, and why it begins at birth. If they can not, then their argument is invalid.
Furthermore, it becomes abundantly clear that their definition of “personhood” was selected out of convenience, with no valid justification. Witness, for example, Blalron’s attempt to equate personhood with the cognitive ability to justify life. By that standard, a great many fully-born humans would be considered “non-persons.” Obviously, this standard was selected in order to justify the desired conclusion, instead of deriving conclusions from the facts at hand.
The same problem is seen with catsix’s attempt to equate personhood with citizenship and/or the ability to acquire green cards and travel visas. Apart from its obvious dependence on ever-changing federal laws, such a standard would likewise eliminate a great number of fully-born people (or alternately, include a great many unborn humans, depending on one’s interpretation). Once again, this is a situation in which the “facts” were massaged and selected in order to craftily produce the desired outcome.
So once again: If you can’t explain what personhood IS (i.e. what its defining characteristics are), and why it specifically begins at the moment of birth, then it’s clear that this definition of “personhood” is entirely arbitrary, and is motivated solely by an attempt to justify abortion.