I find it ironic (abortion and freedom)

Great Debates
81

Also: isn’t the “definition of personhood” kind of a red herring?

The real question is: how do we balance two conflicting interests: that of a mother to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and that of the state to protect the unborn? In other words, it’s a legal question, not one of science.

Science can help out, to be sure; medicine has given us a useful threshhold in the development process, known as “viability.” The age of viability is of immense legal interest in the debate, but it is an artificial concept.

(Before modern medicine, babies born prematurely, even very close to full term, had a very high mortality rate…)

For all commonplace legal purposes, “personhood” begins at birth. Your age is calculated from date of birth for all other Constitutional purposes.

(Do we really want to get so Talmudic as to define “birth” as in the story of Jacob and Esau? Esau was “born first” because his hand popped out, and then back in, even though Jacob was the first to be fully delivered…)

Most Americans are able to accept the compromise involving trimesters (another entirely artificial legal boundary.) In the First timester, the mother’s interests are paramount. In the second, there are limitations. And in the third, the state’s interests are most prominent.

Sometimes, the law is an ass… But only the legal system can “define” personhood in terms relevant to this discussion.

The argument about infanticide is also pushed aside. Once the baby has been born, the mother can have no further interest in terminating the pregnancy. The pregnancy has been terminated, by delivery. The issue is, by definition, moot.

(And, of course, in practical terms, once the baby is born, other options exist – adoption, for instance – that were not possible earlier. Perhaps science will solve that problem some day, and “abortions” will be replaced by “fetal transplants.”)

(For my part, I can’t view even a 6 month old baby as a “person,” because I can’t discern his/her “personality.” But that doesn’t mean that it’s okay to kill him/her!)

ftr, I really like Mangetout’s riddle of the beard!

Trinopus

82

**This is now officially laughable. Pro-choice, the term by itself, implies that the opposition is against choice. Period. It demonizes the opposition to the extent that it implies that one side is for permitting people personal choices while the other does not, an implication that does not do justice to pro-life beliefs (however much you disagree with them).

“Pro-choice” is to “pro-abortion rights” as “pro-life” is to “pro-protecting the life of the unborn.” Both are self-chosen specifically for their connotations. Pro-choicers are as much against life as pro-lifers are against choice (each within the paradigms of their own philospohies). The difference in our little debate here is that I don’t kid myself otherwise. It’s inarguable to anyone without a blind agenda.

You continue to grant an implicit meaning to pro-choice that you will not to pro-life, despite the fact that both are ambiguous, both enoble the “home” camp, and both imply something less than noble about the opposition. Fine, have fun.

83

For those just tuning in, here’s the issue which I raised. Pro-choicers declare that the unborn is not a person. My question is, “Did the pro-choicers start with the definition of personhood, and from there, logically conclude that abortion is justified? If so, then they must surely be able to cite a definition which was established prior to the abortion debate. Alternately, did they first decide that abortion is justified, and then work backwards to establish a definition of personhood that would conveniently justify that position?”

Mangetout, pay close attention, please. Very. Close. Attention.

I asked for a definition of personhood, as used prior to Roe v. Wade. You cited a definition for personality, and then asserted (without any cites or corroborating evidence) that “Being a person involves possessing/exhibiting personality, that is the entirety of my position on the subject.” I do not contest the dictionary definition of personality, but I do contest your definition of personhood, as it seems to have been plucked out from either thin air or a convenient orifice.

Indeed the fact that you state “that is the entirety of my position on the subject (emphasis added)” suggests that this is merely your definition, not one which was established prior to the abortion issue.

So once again, I respectfully challenge you: Please cite a definition of personhood which was not concocted in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade and the abortion debate. If you declare that personhood is the quality of having a personality, then please cite some authoritative source which declares this to be commonly accepted usage. Stating that this is simply your definition won’t suffice, as that does not constitute established usage. Any fool can concoct his own definition, as evidenced by those who defined blacks to be non-persons.

84

Why don’t you show a definition of person that ever included zygotes?

Can you prove a rock is not a person?

If you want to assert that something is a person then you have the burden to prove it.

Actuary,
Just because somethibg has human DNA doesn’t mean it’s a human. Fingernails have human DNA.Is a fingernail a person?

BTW, the fact that a zygote’s DNA is differnt from the egg and the sperm which produced it still does not make a two celled organism a person.

I am personally more concerned with the rights and well-being of the woman who we know is a person than the hypothetical rights of a zygote which is fantasized into personhood through specious definitions and wildly extropolative arguments. My concern is to reduce suffering. A pregnant teenager can suffer. A zygote cannot. I

85

It can’t possibly matter to you, JThunder, what the “commonly accepted usage” of personhood is. If it could be shown that the commonly accepted usage was “the state of human existence after birth,” would you then accept abortion as valid? Of course not, so why waste your time arguing about it?

Basically, yes. Do you get your ethics from the dictionary? Have you ever looked up the dictionary definition of a word and said to yourself, “oh, then I guess I’d better change my opinion about [insert political or ethical topic]”?

Instead of harping on this point, which won’t do any good, I suggest you challenge pro-choicers about why they decided abortion was justified in the first place. If the answer comes back, “because a fetus isn’t a person,” then you get to call bullshit.

86

Because Mangetout claimed that the unborn is not a person. He made that specific claim, and so I’m asking him to defend it. This requires determining what a person is, and how that definition was established.

Besides, contrary to your claim, it DOES matter to me what the commonly accepted usage of the word “personhood” is. This is PRECISELY the matter on which I’m pressing Mangetout and The Ryan. If they’re going to make claims regarding fetal personhood, then I feel justified in asking if they’re using an established definition, or one which was specifically formulated so as to justify their positions.

In other words, did their stance on abortion stem from the definition of personhood? Or did they work backwards, taking a stand on abortion and then working backwards to find a definition of personhood that would justify this stance?

87

I see. Thank you for confirming what I knew all along.

So there you have it, pro-choicers. One of your own people has recognized that your definition of personhood was cherry-picked for consistency with the pro-choice stance. I’m sure that comes as a huge surprise to everyone.

Talk about a strawman.

I don’t get my ethics from a dictionary. I get my ethics from moral principles, such as the sanctity of human life. However, I resolve to use correct terminology in applying these principles. For example, I do not advocate the enslavement of black people by saying “Well, according to my definition, blacks aren’t persons anyway.”

Thank you for siding with me on this matter, as pro-choicers here have repeatedly said that abortion is justified because the fetus is a non-person. This was, in fact, the very point to which I originally responded in this thread.

88

Thank you very much! Would you not also say that if one declares something to be a non-person, then that person should defend that claim? For example, if someone were to say that homosexuals are non-persons, should the burden of proof not rest on that individual?

Remember, the pro-lifers aren’t defending their stance on the basis of personhood. Rather, it is the pro-choicers who declare that personhood is the relevant defining characteristic, and that this doesn’t exist until after birth. Ergo, the burden of proof rests on their shoulders.

So thank you very much for your contribution to this discussion. I hope that your fellow pro-choicers appreciate it as well.

89

VarlosZ does not speak for me…and no definition of “person” has ever included zygotes.

90

Yes.

  1. Biologically/genetically, is it a separate and disctinct “entity” from its mother?
    [/quote]

No.

Yes.

91

Why don’t you cite the definitions in question then, so that we can determine if they would include zygotes? After all, you seem quite certain that they would not, so presumably, you can support that claim.

Remember though… If you cite these definitions, we shall also examine them to determine if they do indeed exclude the unborn, as the pro-choicers claim they do.

92

My point was that I think everyone does this, whether or not they’re aware of it. Do proponents of the death penalty classify executions as “murders”? No, they’ll tend to define “murder” in such a way as not to include that particular type of cold-blooded killing. I imagine you’ll disagree with me, but I wanted to make my point clear.

Then instead trying to show that they don’t know what “person” means (which is useless, since they obviously use the word differently from you), try to convince them that the life of a fetus – or a zygote, or an unborn baby – should be protected in the same way that our lives are. Ask them to defend their beliefs in the same way; i.e., what is it about a person that makes it deserving of protection that a fetus lacks? Why is that distinction crucial to them, but not to you?

These are helpful questions. “What does a dictionary printed prior to Roe v. Wade say under ‘person’?” is not.

Pro-choicers are not part of a hive-mind; just because a particular pro-choicer argues the issue in a certain way does not mean that that is the best way to approach the debate.

93

Bob Cos

This is completely inaccurate. The “pro-life” side is against choice WRT abortion. Therefore, implying that they are opposed to choice does do justice to their beliefs. Furthermore, I don’t think that most “pro-life” people would see anything ignoble about restricting choice. If one thinks that abortion is murder, then how is being accused of being opposed to choice “demonizing”? If someone said “The Ryan is opposed to allowing people to choose to commit murder”, I wouldn’t consider that “demonizing”. I would consider that to be a quite accurate description of my position on the issue. If someone ever starts a thread about whether we should allow this choice, I would see nothing wrong with my position on this issue being described as “anti-choice”. So I don’t see why “pro-life” people would have a problem being called “anti-choice”, since that is a quite accurate description of their position on this issue.

That’s ridiculous. “Pro-lifers” wish to eliminate choice… Pro-choicers do not want to eliminate life. Therefore, pro-choicers are not as much against life as “pro-choicers” are against choice. If you can’t even recognize such obvious truth as this, then you are the one with a blind agenda.

Jthunder:
Do you think that anyone born after 1973 is unqualified to present a definition of “personhood”? And what is your definition of “personhood”.

94

Story #1- when it’s good that that baby is a human…while it’s inside the mother:

Couple Sues Doc for Wrongfully Aborting Healthy Baby
Akron, OH—A Canton, Ohio couple has filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit claiming a doctor negligently aborted their living, unborn child.

Christine L. and Michael F. Sicker allege Akron-area obstetrician and gynecologist Barry Fish erroneously determined that their unborn child was dead and recommended the abortion.

The couple say Fish failed to perform additional tests that would have shown the baby was alive.

Furthermore, they say Fish failed to tell them that the botched abortion removed only an arm of the baby, leaving Christine Sicker to deliver a “well-formed” baby three weeks later at her home.

In their lawsuit, the Sickers say the 12-week-old baby was intact, except for a missing arm. A pathologist later determined that the baby was viable and healthy prior to the abortion, they say.

“They’re emotionally devastated by what took place,”

Story #2 food for thought:

How would you respond in these situations?

  1. A preacher and his wife are very, very poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she’s pregnant with the 15th. They’re living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

  2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. Of their four children, the first is blind, the second has died, the third is deaf, the fourth has TB. She finds she’s pregnant again. Given this extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

  3. A white man raped a 13-year-old black girl and she’s now pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

  4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She’s not married. Her fiancé is not the father of the baby, and he’s upset. Would you recommend abortion?

In the first case, you would have killed John Wesley, one of the great evangelists in the 19th century. In the second case, you would have killed Beethoven. In the third case, you would have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer. If you said yes to the fourth case, you would have declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

Third news story: “Hawaii Inmate Sues”
Over her protests, a woman being processed into prison is injected with drugs that killed her** unborn baby**.

95

Hey Svt4him, I was shocked, just shocked, when I found out who might have been aborted.

  1. You are a teenage prostitute who has gotten knocked up. Is it a blessing in disguise?

  2. Your husband is an abusive alcoholic and now you’re pregnant. Will having a baby bring out his nurturing side?

  3. You are married to someone who is basically your uncle, and have already given birth to two boys and a girl. All three have died. Is god trying to tell you something, or should you give it one more try?

Well, the first situation produced Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Henry Lee Lucas (take your pick). Number two created upstanding gents like John Wayne Gacy and Leonard Lake. Go for the gold with humber three, and you’ve given birth to Hitler. Yeah, thanks a lot.

Of course, I think this is a silly little game and am sure plenty of people are born to abusive parents, hookers, etc. and grow up to be wonderful people who do not start cults or kill millions, but you get my point (I hope).

96

How about some cites for those stories, Svt?

Also, you’re asking the wrong questions with your clever hypotheticals. Nobody here is lobbying to be preganancy counselor. It’s not my place to “recommend” anything. I would simply support those women’s right to choose whatever they wanted.

97
98

I do hope you’re not including me in this.

Maybe I’m completely misunderstanding something here… does ‘personhood’ mean or imply something more than ‘being a person’ (i.e. does it imply some sort of rights or extended set of properties), because if it does (and really seems that you’re saying it does mean more), then I fail to see how I can comply with your request to define it independently of the implication of rights and other propeties.

You’re essentially asking me “independently of any biased assessment of what ‘personhood’ means or implies, what does ‘personhood’ mean?”. Tough one.

I don’t really see any way to proceed from this point, maybe you can help? Is ‘personhood’ something other/more than ‘being a person’?

99

I’m certainly not conscious of having worked backwards toward my definition of ‘what is a person’; given that I really don’t have a stance on abortion, It would make a particularly poor starting point.

Once again, I’m not equating '“X is a person, Y is not a person” with “it is OK to terminate the existence of Y, but not X”

100

JThunder:

We aren’t a unified indistinguishable lot. I can only speak for myself.

I first decided that a sexual double standard and a subject-object oppositional sexual dynamic is serious evil. I concluded from this the necessity of abortion being available to women.

Personhood never really entered into it. There are many evils worse than killing someone, even if the someone were a person with memories and intentions and life plans and a fully developed personality. Our military does it on a fairly regular and broad basis and usually for less important reasons. I trust that our women generally make their decisions wisely and with a maturity appropriate to the gravity of the situation. As for the ones that don’t, well, that sucks, but that’s still where the buck necessarily stops.