Pro-Choicers: What makes a person?

Great Debates
1

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?

2

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.

3

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.

4

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!

5

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.

6

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?

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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.

14

You sicken me.

15

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.

16

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.

17

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.

18

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?)

19

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…

20

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.