What constitutes a person?

[anonymous1515]

Maybe it would be pertinent to the pro-choice/pro-life debate to discuss what makes something a person (particularly because the pro-life position aims to extend the rights of all other persons to include fetuses as well).

Ok, so let's start by setting up two extremes, and then discuss where between the two extremes we can draw the line between what is and is not a person, shall we?

Ok, extreme 1: A healthy, normal adult human being. I think that we can all agree that a healthy human adult deserves to be called a person, can't we?

Alright, how about extreme number 2: a single skin cell. I think we can all agree that a single skin cell does not deserve the same rights as a human adult, right? If I scratch off a skin cell, I probably shouldn't be tried for murder.

Ok, so we have our two extremes. A human adult is definitely a person, and a single skin cell is definitely not a person. So, what can we conclude from this? Let's examine the similarities first. Both are living. Both are diploid. Both have human DNA.

Excellent, so is it fair to conclude that the properties of having human DNA, being alive, and being diploid are NOT properties that constitute being a person?

Can we narrow the question any further? What else constitutes being a person, and what else does not?

 

[Verv]

Maybe it would be pertinent to the pro-choice/pro-life debate to discuss what makes something a person (particularly because the pro-life position aims to extend the rights of all other persons to include fetuses as well).

Ok, so let's start by setting up two extremes, and then discuss where between the two extremes we can draw the line between what is and is not a person, shall we?

Ok, extreme 1: A healthy, normal adult human being. I think that we can all agree that a healthy human adult deserves to be called a person, can't we?

Alright, how about extreme number 2: a single skin cell. I think we can all agree that a single skin cell does not deserve the same rights as a human adult, right? If I scratch off a skin cell, I probably shouldn't be tried for murder.

Ok, so we have our two extremes. A human adult is definitely a person, and a single skin cell is definitely not a person. So, what can we conclude from this? Let's examine the similarities first. Both are living. Both are diploid. Both have human DNA.

Excellent, so is it fair to conclude that the properties of having human DNA, being alive, and being diploid are NOT properties that constitute being a person?

Can we narrow the question any further? What else constitutes being a person, and what else does not?

As a skin cell is a mere portion of a human it is not really 'life' itself. It is like a finger or a tongue, just sort of a part of us.

In that sense, I guess, it is alive as long as it is attached to you.

A fetus is a human life as it possesses all of the DNA necessary to beable to tell so much about it plus is a continuously growing human.

The inabilities of a fetus are not all that different from that of an infant. Many infants can barely see for the first two weeks of life. A baby for the first few months of its life is equally helpless, etc.

 

[anonymous1515]

As a skin cell is a mere portion of a human it is not really 'life' itself. It is like a finger or a tongue, just sort of a part of us.

In that sense, I guess, it is alive as long as it is attached to you.

A fetus is a human life as it possesses all of the DNA necessary to beable to tell so much about it plus is a continuously growing human.

The inabilities of a fetus are not all that different from that of an infant. Many infants can barely see for the first two weeks of life. A baby for the first few months of its life is equally helpless, etc.

Yeah, that's an excellent point. But consider this: neither a skin cell nor an early fetus can survive on their own outside the body of their "host". Would you then consider a fetus to be a "part" of the mother? Or no?

A baby (or a viable fetus) could be considered independent of the mother (which I used the term "host" to describe, for lack of a better word), as they can be fed milk by anybody, wouldn't you say? If I was given a premature baby, I could probably take care of it by feeding it milk from a bottle, etc. So, in that sense, an early fetus and an infant are different.

In any case, we've narrowed down our search for personhood even further. We know it is somewhere between a skin cell and a viable fetus. Anybody object?

 

[Renton405]

Maybe it would be pertinent to the pro-choice/pro-life debate to discuss what makes something a person (particularly because the pro-life position aims to extend the rights of all other persons to include fetuses as well).

Ok, so let's start by setting up two extremes, and then discuss where between the two extremes we can draw the line between what is and is not a person, shall we?

Ok, extreme 1: A healthy, normal adult human being. I think that we can all agree that a healthy human adult deserves to be called a person, can't we?

Alright, how about extreme number 2: a single skin cell. I think we can all agree that a single skin cell does not deserve the same rights as a human adult, right? If I scratch off a skin cell, I probably shouldn't be tried for murder.

Ok, so we have our two extremes. A human adult is definitely a person, and a single skin cell is definitely not a person. So, what can we conclude from this? Let's examine the similarities first. Both are living. Both are diploid. Both have human DNA.

Excellent, so is it fair to conclude that the properties of having human DNA, being alive, and being diploid are NOT properties that constitute being a person?

Can we narrow the question any further? What else constitutes being a person, and what else does not?

Oh great, the single cell arguement.


Read the difference between a micro-organism and a living organism. Then get back ..

 

[anonymous1515]

Oh great, the single cell arguement.


Read the difference between a micro-organism and a living organism. Then get back ..

Haha, very well Renton. I am a biologist, so I can tell you what a microorganism is: a living organism that is typically unicellular and is too small to see with the naked eye. Examples would be bacteria, some fungi, protozoans, etc. So microorganisms are living organisms. What was the distinction you were trying to make again?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Most people who start these threads aimed towards pro-lifers, don't have children. No sense in arguing with someone who doesn't grasp the ideal of parenting.

 

[anonymous1515]

Most people who start these threads aimed towards pro-lifers, don't have children. No sense in arguing with someone who doesn't grasp the ideal of parenting.

That's true. I dont have kids. Do you think we should we allow only rape victims to determine the punishment for rape?

 

[Renton405]

Haha, very well Renton. I am a biologist, so I can tell you what a microorganism is: a living organism that is typically unicellular and is too small to see with the naked eye. Examples would be bacteria, some fungi, protozoans, etc. So microorganisms are living organisms. What was the distinction you were trying to make again?

are fetuses and humans unicellular?



It has its own unique genetic code (with forty-six chromosomes), which is neither the mother's nor the father's. From this point until death, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn entity a unique individual human.

 

[Verv]

Yeah, that's an excellent point. But consider this: neither a skin cell nor an early fetus can survive on their own outside the body of their "host". Would you then consider a fetus to be a "part" of the mother? Or no?

A baby (or a viable fetus) could be considered independent of the mother (which I used the term "host" to describe, for lack of a better word), as they can be fed milk by anybody, wouldn't you say? If I was given a premature baby, I could probably take care of it by feeding it milk from a bottle, etc. So, in that sense, an early fetus and an infant are different.

In any case, we've narrowed down our search for personhood even further. We know it is somewhere between a skin cell and a viable fetus. Anybody object?

I think it is important to look at some of the ramifications of terminating a fetus, though.

It essentially means that a life is ended. A life because we are talking about 46 human chromosomes that are directing the growth of a living thing, a thing which is slowly and surely becoming a fetus and then a newborn baby (and then an infant and a toddler and a child and a teenager all the way to a 41 year old divorcee having a midlife crisis).

A newborn can only live outside of the womb with the effort of another person, and a fetus can only live with the efforts of the mother. The fetus is dependent on the body as a newborn is dependent on a guardian.

Taking the fetus out of the mother or the guardian from the newborn is a death sentence for the life.

If it was not a life, why does it have to be terminated?

Can we really just call it a "thing" when it is about to be a life?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

That's true. I dont have kids. Do you think we should we allow only rape victims to determine the punishment for rape?

If that were the case, most rape victims would be lenient on their rapists. They were victims of violence, and would not wish the same on those who have harmed them. Bringing rape into this conversation is ridiculous anyways, so leave that alone. It's another attempt to justify that a fetus is nothing more than a virus invading a host and deserves to be killed if no longer wanted. Scientifically, it may not be considered a "human", it still holds the possibility of life. Imagine the number of people who were prematurely denied life, that could've made a positive impact upon the world. They were denied that, out of a sense of inconvenience. I'm not talking about those who have been raped and get abort the child, I'm talking of those too irresponsible to accept what happened to them and allow another to enjoy life.

Selfishness, shallowness and laziness surround the majority of abortions today. Whether it be from the would be parents, or their parents. Doesn't matter whose more to blame, but the blame is there on all parties. The only innocent is the being that could've made a difference in the world, but was denied that.

 

[HannahBanana]

Personally, I think that sentience constitutes a person, since without sentience, we wouldn't be capable of any sort of higher thought and we wouldn't be "people" at all. We would just be yet another species of wild animals.

 

[talkingmonkey]

Personally, I think that sentience constitutes a person, since without sentience, we wouldn't be capable of any sort of higher thought and we wouldn't be "people" at all. We would just be yet another species of wild animals.

I'm pretty sure that even wild animals are sentient as well. Unless they are not aware of their own existance.

(I might have missed something, I did skip some biology classes in high school. )

FWUNG!

 

[HannahBanana]

I'm pretty sure that even wild animals are sentient as well. Unless they are not aware of their own existance.

(I might have missed something, I did skip some biology classes in high school. )

FWUNG!

You know, you'd think that I'd stick to debating issues that I wouldn't make such an idiot of myself on, but no. LOL.

Thanks for the information.

 

[jayem]

A newborn can only live outside of the womb with the effort of another person, and a fetus can only live with the efforts of the mother. The fetus is dependent on the body as a newborn is dependent on a guardian.

There is a big difference. A newborn can thrive perfectly well under any nurturing caregiver. It doesn't really require it's biological mother at all. But a fetus makes a direct physiologic demand on its mothers uterus and organ systems. Just like anyone else who would use one of your body parts, this requires consent. And I don't think the fact of getting pregnant implies automatic consent for a full 9 month gestation. I think consent is on-going, but only UP TO A POINT. When the fetus is naturally viable, and could survive without directly using the mother's body parts, then her consent is no longer needed. (And obviously, when it's born it no longer makes a physiologic demand on the mother.) So I'd define personhood to occur at either of two points--whichever comes first: 1) Birth, whenever than occurs, and 2) Natural viability--which is 24 weeks.

Just to make it clear---before a fetus becomes a person, it's not just a "thing." It is what it is---a fetus. Absolutely it should be valued and protected, but for legal purposes, it's not yet a person. Almost, but not quite. I think what I've outlined is a fair and reasonable compromise between the rights of a fetus and the autonomy of the mother over her own body.

 

[gengwall]

"Person" - now there's a relative term if I ever heard one. It all depends on the context in which you are defining it.

Legally, according to the courts - the fetus is not quite a person but not quite not a person either. It kind of progresses from less personhood to more, never being completely not a person but never acheiving full personhood either.

Legally, courts, Justice O'Connor update - the harder you make it for mom to get an abortion the less of a person the fetus becomes.

Constitutionally - the framers were telling us how to run government, not how to have babies.

Constitutionally, 14th amendment writers - they give no definitive answer. Boy wouldn't it have been nice if they were a little more clear.

Legally, according to statute, the various states - it depends on the state

Legally, according to statute, the federal government - the pre-born are persons at every stage of development (Unborn Victims of Violence Act)

Biologically - biologists don't get into such debates. They are interested in facts, not philosophy. At best, they confirm the fact that the fetus is a living human being

Definitionally - a living human (American Heritage Dictionary), of which the fetus biologically qualifies.

Philosophically - something to do with brain waves and thought sentience. I never was much good at philosophy.

Moral relativistically - only those fetuses that we feel bad about the death of are persons, all the others are not.

Sociologically - Only if you really want the baby and are not overwhelmed by the emotional crisis of it all and can provide it with a good home is it a person.

Religiously - it depends on the religion or even the denomination. The bible, in particular, is pretty fuzzy on it. I don't know about the Koran or other religious texts.

Historically - no end to the opinions

And on and on it goes.

 

[WatersMoon110]

If that were the case, most rape victims would be lenient on their rapists. They were victims of violence, and would not wish the same on those who have harmed them. Bringing rape into this conversation is ridiculous anyways, so leave that alone.

You claim that only people with children "understand" what pregnancy/raising children is like, then go on to make claims about what victims of rape would or wouldn't do.

It's another attempt to justify that a fetus is nothing more than a virus invading a host and deserves to be killed if no longer wanted. Scientifically, it may not be considered a "human", it still holds the possibility of life. Imagine the number of people who were prematurely denied life, that could've made a positive impact upon the world. They were denied that, out of a sense of inconvenience.

Just because an unborn human could have grown and been born and possibly become a human who possibly might have made a positive impact on the world, means that since they died that they would have done so? They might also have been serial killers or mimes or neoNazis or prop comics, but they didn't do anything, because they died as unborn humans.

I'm not talking about those who have been raped and get abort the child, I'm talking of those too irresponsible to accept what happened to them and allow another to enjoy life.

Exactly how is abortion when one feels that one doesn't have the (financial, mental, emotional, time-wise) resources to raise a child "irresponsible"? I think that having a child one cannot afford to care for properly is far more "irresponsible", so we obviously have different ideas about what this word means.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I'm pretty sure that even wild animals are sentient as well. Unless they are not aware of their own existance.

(I might have missed something, I did skip some biology classes in high school. )

FWUNG!

Dolphins, most of the great apes, and maybe a couple other animals seem to have sentience. Most animals don't appear to recognize themselves in a mirror.

 

[cantata]

I find it bizarre that anyone would try to afford rights - an entirely human intellectual construct - to something that can't even begin to contemplate them. I think the whole notion of universal rights is weird anyway, but the idea of handing them out to bundles of unthinking, unfeeling cells is completely barmy.

Anyway, sorry. That was a bit off-topic. Enjoy the thread, folks.

 

[gengwall]

I find it bizarre that anyone would try to afford rights - an entirely human intellectual construct - to something that can't even begin to contemplate them. I think the whole notion of universal rights is weird anyway, but the idea of handing them out to bundles of unthinking, unfeeling cells is completely barmy.

Anyway, sorry. That was a bit off-topic. Enjoy the thread, folks.

I think it is on topic. Considering that the fetus can "think" at 6 weeks and can feel pain at 20 weeks, would you then consider the 20 week old fetus something which should be afforded rights?

 

[cantata]

I think it is on topic. Considering that the fetus can "think" at 6 weeks and can feel pain at 20 weeks, would you then consider the 20 week old fetus something which should be afforded rights?

As I say, I find the concept of rights quite bizarre to begin with.

I guess you can afford it some rights if you want to, but my feeling is that the already-born woman's will trump it every time.