How do you know that it wasn’t a person prior to birth? Can you cite a prior definition of personhood that supports this assertion – one which was not developed in the wake of Roe v. Wade defenses? (In other words, I’m asking for a definition that preceded the abortion rhetoric, rather than one which was concocted so as to justify abortion.)
Before we go down any irrelevant tangents, note that I’m asking for a definition of personhood – not life, or viability, or citizenship. Personhood is the relevant term here, since your contention is that the unborn is not a person.
I think I’ll take definition number three from the dictionary -
The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality - since that is very close to what I was getting at.
Please note that I don’t really have a horse in this race - all of these definitions are ‘imposed’ rather than ‘discovered’, IMO.
Actually, the dictionary definition of personality says more on the subject:
The quality or condition of being a person.
The totality of qualities and traits, as of character or behavior, that are peculiar to a specific person.
The pattern of collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of a person.
Distinctive qualities of a person, especially those distinguishing personal characteristics that make one socially appealing.
These are things that (largely) develop after birth.
In which case, you should have no problem with killing newborns, right? After all, a human being’s personality isn’t developed until many years after birth – and even then, it continues to change.
Whether they’re imposed or discovered is irrelevant. If you can’t describe what personhood is, then you can’t say that it begins at the moment of birth. What is so magical about the passage through the birth canal which suddenly renders personhood upon a human being?
Which is all irrelevant, since the pertinent term is personhood, rather than personality.
Your replies reminds me of those SDMBers who offered precedents for U.S. citizenship when asked to defend the claim that personhood begins at birth. Personality, citizenship and personhood simply are not the same thing.
There’s a very good reason why nobody has been able to cite a prior definition of personhood which supports the claim that it begins at birth. No such definition was in use. The whole “personhood begins at birth” definition was concocted after the fact, so as to justify abortion.
Why do you insist on using such a wildly inaccurate term?
How is it hypocritical?
sugaree
Or saying that those who were conceived during a rape should be in favor of legalizing rape.
Actuary
You’re begging the question.
DNA is a tool used to identify people. It does not define personhood, any more than giving someone a Social Security number makes them a person. A person is more than just DNA. Would you be okay with aborting one of two identical twins?
Bob Cos:
You follow this with a paraphrase of my position, and then an imperative sentence. Where is the point that I missed?
“Pro-life” has all of the “ambiguities” that you ascribe to “pro-choice”, in addition to the false implication that it makes. Since it has all of the unclarity of “pro-choice” and then some, it is not as clear.
If I wanted to make all of my posts fulfill your definition of “unambiguous”, I’d be arrested for animal cruelty for torturing the hamsters to death.
That makes no sense. The argument “but everyone knows what that means” applies to the accusation that a term is ambiguous. But that’s not the accusation against “pro-life”. The accusation against “pro-life” is that it is misleading. The fact that everyone knows that it doesn’t mean x is no defense against the charge that it implies x. Suppose that the anti-choice side preferred to call themselves the “not-a-heartless-baby-killing-monster” side. And suppose that this term gained wide currency, and everyone even passingly familiar with the abortion debate knew what it meant. Would “but everyone knows what that means” be an appropiate response to the claim that this term demonizes the opposition? Yes, everyone knows that “pro-life” actually means “anti-choice”, but that doesn’t change the fact that it purposely promotes an incurrate point of view. Normally I accept other people’s self-designations, but not when they subtly insult me.
Furthermore, it blurs an important distinction: there are those vigorously opposed to abortion (pro-life) who still support the right to choose (pro-choice). The use of the term “pro-life”, as on opposite to “pro-choice” makes the completely unfounded impliciation that they are in fact opposites. It would like someone asking “Where do you stand on flag-burning? Are you pro-choice, or are you pro-America?” Do you see how disgusting a question that is? How is it any less disgusting to ask “Where do you stand on abortion? Are you pro-choice, or are you pro-life?”
But there is an impolrtant distinction that you are missing: “pro-choice” implies something about the opposition which is true, but “pro-life” implies something about the opposition which is false.
JThunder
This is a case where the slippery slope argument is valid. Birth is the least arbitrary place to draw the line, so that’s where I draw it.
It’s rather disingenuous to ask for definitions, and then dismiss those presented as irrelevant. Part of being a person is having a personality. A person has identity, has a unique way of thinking about things.
I see. You claim that this demarcation line is arbitrary. So you are contradicting Mangetout, who says that personhood most definitely begins at birth.
It’s rather disingenuous to ask for definitions, and then dismiss those presented as irrelevant. Part of being a person is having a personality. A person has identity, has a unique way of thinking about things. **
[/QUOTE]
Sorry about the previous post. Danged computer glitch. Let’s try that again. (Unfortunately, I misstated Mangetout’s position, and was unable to correct myself in time. My apologies.)
I see. You claim that this demarcation line is arbitrary. So you are contradicting Mangetout, who says that personhood most definitely does not occur before birth.
Besides, if we consider an arbitrary point to be adequate, then one could just as easily argue for conception – especially since it also marks the beginning of life.
It’s irrelevant because I asked for a definition of personhood, not personality. If I ask someone to define a banana, then the definition of a Granny Smith apple is not an adequate substitute.
With that reasoning, a severely retarded individual is not a person, and neither is a newborn. Are you truly willing to advocate such a claim?
Besides, before you can claim that a person must have personality, you need to have a definition of personhood. So once again – please cite a definition which declares personhood to begin at birth, and which was not concocted in the aftermath of Roe v Wade.
Please don’t try to put words in my mouth; you asked for my definition of person, you even specified that we were not talking about life, or viability, or citizenship. Personhood is the state of being a person and being a person involves possessing/exhibiting personality, that is the entirety of my position on the subject.
Are you even reading what I wrote? I said nothing about an instant transition at the moment of birth; quite the contrary in fact.
The Ryan —
“This is a case where the slippery slope argument is valid. Birth is the least arbitrary place to draw the line, so that’s where I draw it.”
JThunder —
“Whether they’re imposed or discovered is irrelevant. If you can’t describe what personhood is, then you can’t say that it begins at the moment of birth. What is so magical about the passage through the birth canal which suddenly renders personhood upon a human being?”
Mangetout —
“Are you even reading what I wrote? I said nothing about an instant transition at the moment of birth; quite the contrary in fact.”
I think I got these quotes attributed correctly (maybe not).
JThunder was not arguing that an actual transition takes place at birth. That would not even be his position in this debate. Don’t be an obscurist. You know exactly what he meant.
JThunder is saying (may I put words in your mouth?) that when you draw the line at birht, that’s not a logical or scientific point. It’s an arbitrary point. You said it was the least arbitrary. I’m gonna call ya on that! Prove your point…
I’ll provide evidence for mine. There are several points LESS arbitrary than birth. For example,
when brain waves appear (that’s not bad, since we have some precedent – the presence or absence of brain waves is one of the several indicators currently in wide use of whether there is still life - at the other end of the specrum)
when DNA is formed – this is a technique already mentioned that is frequent use to determine whether human life died at the scene of an accident, or identifies whether a particular human life was present at the scene of a crime, to distinguish one human life from another human life in court, etc.
when the heart starts beating (on its own) – again, this is another criterion already in wide use to judge whether a person is still alive (yes, whether a life worth protecting/saving is still there); in fact, we even make a person’s heart beat for them
when the first cluster (I’m gonna git real fuzzy here cuz I dunno the exact science) when FULL cells are formed
These are much more science-based points to draw the line. Birth may be a mechanical point — really arbitrary.
Out of all the most logical and scientific point to draw the line for legal purposes ----
ERR ON THE SIDE OF EARLIER.
ERR ON THE SIDE OF LIFE.
Unfortunately, most of the debate on this topic in this country is not on point. This discussion we’re having here (except for all the junk on names and labelling) is finally on point. Unalienable rights such as LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now were on point. When does life begin? When does “life worth protecting” begin?
I’ve listed 4 alternative points at which to draw the line for leagal purposes. If you really care about life and when it begins and when it is worth protecting, then you must make a more honest and deliberate and fair attempt to answer the question. DOn’t just blow it off an intellectually lazy position like, “Well, since ya can’t really know when it begins just pick, say, birth.” That’s lazy. Work hard to analyze the markers of life.
That’s fine, but I think that deciding in advance how you will use your definition (for example if you have already decided that we can destroy something that isn’t a person, but we can’t destroy something that is) can colour your perceptions somewhat; I have made no such advance decision - I’m simply trying to define ‘person’. I also haven’t decided that ‘personhood’ happens at the same time as ‘being human’, ‘being alive’, ‘being an individual’ etc.
All I am saying is that the traits that we commonly call ‘personality’ (and derived from this, the state of being a person’) are not in place from the moment of conception (or all at once from any given moment), unless we invoke metaphysics.
Incidentally, I don’t think distinct DNA will cut it as a factor; adult identical twins have identical DNA and they are most definitely not the same person.
No, I didn’t ask for your definition of personhood. My exact words were,
Anybody can provide his or her own “definition,” but that counts for nothing in reasoned argumentation. Heck, there are those who define blacks to be non-persons. If one is to justify abortion on the grounds of personhood, then one must appeal to a commonly accepted definition of the term – as opposed to, say, one’s “own” definition, specifically selected so as to justify one’s position.
I realize that, and I acknowledged my error in a subsequent post. Nevertheless, regardless of whether personhood is acquired instantaneously or not, one cannot claim that the unborn is a non-person without first defining personhood – and this definition must be one which precedes the abortion issue, rather than a definition which was concocted after the fact.
I’m not sure when those dictionary definitions were written, but I really doubt they were concocted after the fact (and in order to justify some decision or other)
Even though identical twins have the same DNA profile (at least in the top tests) and same blood type, the courts would use a tie-breaker. Like fingerprints, which are different. But this argument about twins’ DNA is a red herring because it’s not the only test for individuality. The point is that a. the baby is a different “person” than the mother - it’s not HER body, b. the baby is a life of its own, ya know, human, one of us. I’m all for protecting turtle eggs (at some expense), but human life in it’s gestation period surely deserves at least as much respect and protection.
You are the one getting ahead of me. Just answer the questions, one-by-one. I’ve not gotten to “personhood” (whatever in the heck that is). I’m just tryin’ to hold you down long enough to answer the question, “When does life begin?” You sound like you are reserving the position for yourself to take, that you may concede that “biological life” may begin at a certain point but that “it” may not be eligible for legal protection from murder until birth.
But for now, Please rank the 5 points in time currently on the table (birth plus my four) for when life begins. Rank them in order from least arbitrary to most arbitrary (your words). Or at least tell me which two are the best “markers” of life, from a scientific point of view.
I assure you that no such reservation of position is taking place at this end, however much it may look that way; the philosophical question of ‘what is [life]/[human]/[individual]/[person]?’ is one that I find endlessly intriguing, however if you want to pin me down to a decision on the legal/ethical matter of “is it OK to terminate the existence of this thing that may otherwise go on to become an adult human?”, well, I’m afraid you’ll be disappointed because I honestly don’t think I have any fixed ideas on that issue.
No I don’t, but I’m willing to compromise and draw the line there anyway. In fact, I’ll agree to support a ban on ‘partial-birth’ abortions if the pro-lifers will agree to leave it at that and move on.
Actuary:
We do. We ban infanticide even though a newborn is far from fully sentient. Indeed we have restrictions on 3rd-trimester abortions, which is fine since there aren’t a lot of women seeking abortions at that late stage. But we don’t want to “err” so much that we eliminate to opportunity of women to end an accidental pregnancy. There are compelling economic factors and these are part of the equation.
A fetus at 12 weeks is a long way from even beginning to develop the brains to support sentient thought. A newborn is a lot closer, so society grants it a sort of “provisional personhood” status pending further brain development. No need to keep splitting hairs and carrying singular principles to their absolute extremes. With a little pragmatism, things are working just fine.
So when would you say it “becomes” a human? What magical timespan must elapse before the essential elements of the human (the egg, fertilized by the sperm) become human enough for your random designation?
Aren’t you being equally hypocritical by not having sex, this very minute, in order to create as many babies as possible, in order to maximize the number of people who can exercise their right to life?
And, seriously, what do you propose? Only aborted fetuses are allowed to express their opinion on the topic, or what?
You seem to have read my statement that I want to minimize arbitrariness as saying that I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t see how you did so.
If you ask for a definition of “banana” and they say “it’s a type of Granny Smith apples”, it would be one thing to say that that is wrong, and quite another to say that it’s irrelevant.
Actuary: I disagree that your criteria are less arbitrary. Mine can be evaluated by simple observation. Yours require complicated equipment. Mine is quite objective; most of yours involve subjectivity. Mine has a clear connection to personhood: a being is a new person if it is physically separate from other beings. Brainwaves are the only one of yours that has anything to do with personhood.