What is a person

[jayem]

The contentiousness over abortion mainly arises because there is no consensus on what is meant by the term "person." I don't mean linguistically--as in a dictionary definition--but in the broader philosophic, and especially, the legal sense. (The USSC ruled in Roe that a fetus is not a person under the law.) It seems like all we hear are the two extremes--personhood begins either at fertilization, or not until birth. Why not a compromise in between?

This is my proposal. I'd say a person is a living member of human society. Now to be a member of society, I'd also say one has to be IN society. Which means one has to be born. But I'll extend this criterion to include those yet unborn, who, under usual circumstances, would be expected to naturally survive if they were born. Which means a naturally viable fetus. (Natural viability means survival by provision of normal nutrition, hydration, warmth, and protection, etc. And there is good objective data on when this occurs. Back in the old days, before high tech neonatal life support was available, infants born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival.)

So legal personhood begins at either of two points--whichever comes first:

1) Birth--whenever this occurs. Once you're born, you're a person--no matter how premature, or how much life support you need.

2) If still unborn, when you reach 24 weeks of gestational age.

This would allow states to restrict aborting viable, third-trimester fetuses, yet still allow pregnant women plenty of time to seek a termination if their circumstances require it. Yeah, it's arbitrary, but so what? Our laws make arbitrary distinctions all the time (like legal adulthood begins at age 21, but not age 20.) I think it's a reasonable and workable compromise. I'm sure the absolutists on either end will never go for it--which makes me think it's fair.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Don't forget, corporations are persons (at least legally).

 

[KET20]

I'm very pro-choice but this sounds like a good scenario to me. In fact, this probably has something to do with why late-term abortions are illegal in lots of places (except to save the life of the mother).

 

[CCGirl]

I am still wondering why there HAS to be any abortion legislation at all. It is a medical decision.

 

[cantata]

I don't see how personhood is relevant to the discussion anyhow.

 

[Spherical Time]

I don't see how personhood is relevant to the discussion anyhow.

Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's relevant? I certainly do, and I'm extremely pro-choice.

I do understand the Christian drive to protect life (or at least, I understand the consistent drive to protect life, such as that of the Catholic Church), and I understand how it influences their desire to protect what they consider little people.

 

[cantata]

Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's relevant? I certainly do, and I'm extremely pro-choice.

I do understand the Christian drive to protect life (or at least, I understand the consistent drive to protect life, such as that of the Catholic Church), and I understand how it influences their desire to protect what they consider little people.

Well, I suppose it's partly because I don't think dying is bad, and partly because I think the word "person" is pretty useless as soon as you get to problem cases (like babies or highly intelligent aliens). It's too emotionally charged and horribly vague.

 

[angelpie545]

I'm strongly pro-life, but I could definitely agree with this. I personally would never have an abortion except for health reasons (to save my life, or because the baby has a very severe defect that is incompatible with life), but I wouldn't want to make that choice for another woman. I *do* think that a form of late-term abortion should be available always to save the life of a mother, but that partial-birth abortion (a form of late-term abortion) should be completely outlawed and banned. If a mother can endure a late-term partial birth abortion when the fetus is viable, then she can give birth, or at least have her labor induced or the infant removed surgically if her health is in danger. So, in a sense, what I am saying is that I think inducing labor or removing the baby from the womb late in pregnancy should be allowed to save the mother, but that if the fetus is viable, all attempts should be made to save its life as well. I don't think that any elective abortions should be performed after 12 weeks of pregnancy unless there are extenuating circumstances like the ones I have described above.

 

[karisma]

Personhood is completely irrelevent to the discussion on abortion. Even if fetus's were granted personhood, they still could not use the body of another (the woman) against that person's will.

 

[RobertByers]

Come ONNNN
A person means a person as opposed to not a person.
A child in the womb is a person like the people who leave the womb but know it was their origin.
Trying to deny personhood to a human being is just trying to get around the well estanlished rights and beliefs that all people should not be denued their continued exsistence except by the greatest need to destroy them.
God and the founders of america meant that if your a people then your a person before the great dictates of natural rights.

By the way I have often argued that the Roe decision was flawed and illegal because it did state thate the constitution dictated that the people could not decide the fetus was a human being with equal rights.
Many pro-lifer thinkers say the Roe decision was wrong because it found a right to abortion by way of privacy.
Actually the decision should be attacked on the denial of the right of the people to vote in the unborn child is a human being. This is the great, even innocent , error.

 

[cantata]

Come ONNNN
A person means a person as opposed to not a person.
A child in the womb is a person like the people who leave the womb but know it was their origin.
Trying to deny personhood to a human being is just trying to get around the well estanlished rights and beliefs that all people should not be denued their continued exsistence except by the greatest need to destroy them.
God and the founders of america meant that if your a people then your a person before the great dictates of natural rights.

By the way I have often argued that the Roe decision was flawed and illegal because it did state thate the constitution dictated that the people could not decide the fetus was a human being with equal rights.
Many pro-lifer thinkers say the Roe decision was wrong because it found a right to abortion by way of privacy.
Actually the decision should be attacked on the denial of the right of the people to vote in the unborn child is a human being. This is the great, even innocent , error.

Human ≠ person.

Would a horse with the intelligence, sentiments, and ability to communicate of the average human being be a person? I say yes, absolutely. Personhood, if this vague idea is to be defined at all, is defined in terms of certain abilities, not in terms of species. First trimester foetuses are not persons.

Not that it matters anyway.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I don't see how personhood is relevant to the discussion anyhow.

I disagree. I don't feel that the status of "legal person" would protect unborn humans from abortion (because, of course, legal persons do not gain the right to use another legal person's body against their will), but it would effect why abortion is legal, and it would change some other laws (like the fetal homicide laws).

Just because it doesn't change the legality or ethics of abortion, in our opinion, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

[WatersMoon110]

A person means a person as opposed to not a person.

Ah, yes. That sure makes things easier! Let's just define words to mean themselves! So a "boaducule" is a "boaducule" and isn't anything that isn't a "boaducle". That must have defined the word I just made up for everyone, right?

Obviously, we can't just define things using the terms we are trying to define. That is confusing and stupid. Instead, we try to figure out exactly what those terms refer to, and convey the meaning they have to us to others. When it comes to the term "person" there are actually many different definitions that come into play. Legally, in the US, a "person" is a born citizen or a corporation. Philosophically, a "person" was defined by John Locke as having one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness
2. The ability to steer one's intentions and actions purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subjects' perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

Obviously, when defining what "person" means, there is more to it than just saying "it's a person, as opposed to not being a person". *rolls eyes*

A child in the womb is a person like the people who leave the womb but know it was their origin.

It depends on which characteristics one is looking at, I suppose. Certainly there are many physical differences between unborn humans in different stages and born humans in different stages. And there are many mental differences as well, since the brain is setting up while in the womb (and for quite some time after birth, also). Born humans tend to be self-aware, and unborn human certainly aren't, particularly in the early stages of development.

But there are also similarities between born and unborn humans. They both have human DNA, and share about 99.9% of it with each other (closer for relatives, I believe). They are both alive, certainly, in most cases.

Trying to deny personhood to a human being is just trying to get around the well estanlished rights and beliefs that all people should not be denued their continued exsistence except by the greatest need to destroy them.
God and the founders of america meant that if your a people then your a person before the great dictates of natural rights.

And yet the Founding Fathers didn't believe black humans to be people, didn't believe women to be people, and didn't seem to believe children to be people. Certainly the Founding Fathers and the Constitution they left for us don't claim that unborn humans are people by any standard.

As for God, the Bible certainly doesn't speak out against abortion, and even seems to state that unborn humans don't have the same value as born humans:
Exodus 21:22-25:
"If men fight with each other and hit a woman who is going to have a child so that she loses her baby but no other hurt comes to her, he must pay whatever the woman's husband says he must, as agreed upon by the judges. But if there is other hurt also, then it is life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, cut for cut, sore for sore."
If the penalty for causing a miscarriage is a fine, and the penalty for otherwise harming a woman is a similar injury, then obviously an unborn human doesn't have the same value as a born human.

By the way I have often argued that the Roe decision was flawed and illegal because it did state thate the constitution dictated that the people could not decide the fetus was a human being with equal rights.

Um...what?

Many pro-lifer thinkers say the Roe decision was wrong because it found a right to abortion by way of privacy.

Well, I somewhat agree that "privacy" really isn't the right that abortion should hinge on (rather, I feel that the woman's right to control her body should be most important). However, I do see the Court's point, that medical decisions should be made by doctors and their patients, not the government.

Actually the decision should be attacked on the denial of the right of the people to vote in the unborn child is a human being. This is the great, even innocent , error.

People don't get to vote on what isn't or isn't a legal person. The populus didn't get to decide if black humans were people or if women were people. That isn't how the system works.

 

[cantata]

I disagree. I don't feel that the status of "legal person" would protect unborn humans from abortion (because, of course, legal persons do not gain the right to use another legal person's body against their will), but it would effect why abortion is legal, and it would change some other laws (like the fetal homicide laws).

I hope it wouldn't change foetal homicide laws. Foetal homicide laws are fine as they are, in my opinion, and that has nothing to do with whether or not foetuses are people.

I consider the question of whether a foetus is a person pretty much useless, because no one can agree about what a person is. It's reasonably clear that the term is not terribly useful. People redefine it to suit their needs, and whoever "wins" the term for their side gains the emotive high ground. It seems to me that the argument is far better discussed in other terms.

Just because it doesn't change the legality or ethics of abortion, in our opinion, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the discussion.

Well, I don't see how that can be true If it has no effect on the ethics of abortion, why is it relevant to the discussion? And is the reason for its legality or illegality documented as being in terms of personhood?

 

[WatersMoon110]

I hope it wouldn't change foetal homicide laws. Foetal homicide laws are fine as they are, in my opinion, and that has nothing to do with whether or not foetuses are people.

Well, it might extend them to States that don't already have them. And it would possibly call for rewording some of the laws, and might change the reason why such laws do or do not apply (some of them are only in effect during the third trimester, some come into effect earlier - and I'm not aware of any that exist for the entire pregnancy).

I consider the question of whether a foetus is a person pretty much useless, because no one can agree about what a person is. It's reasonably clear that the term is not terribly useful. People redefine it to suit their needs, and whoever "wins" the term for their side gains the emotive high ground. It seems to me that the argument is far better discussed in other terms.

I agree, "personhoood" isn't the best way to go about arguing for or against abortion. However, I still feel that it is relevant to the topic of abortion as a whole.

Well, I don't see how that can be true If it has no effect on the ethics of abortion, why is it relevant to the discussion?

I said it had no effect on the legality of abortion (in our opinions), not that it had nothing to do with the ethics surrounding abortion. Some Pro-Choicers do agree with abortion only because they feel the unborn human is not a person, and might feel otherwise if it was a legal person. Certainly many Pro-Lifers feel that the status of "person" is deserved by unborn humans, partially to protect them from abortion.

And is the reason for its legality or illegality documented as being in terms of personhood?

Obviously it isn't. But, if unborn humans were consider legal persons, the laws surrounding abortion might change, and the way they were interpreted by people on both sides of the abortion issue would certainly change.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I doubt it would make a lot of women happy, but whatever.

They are technically IN the world. They exist. Their existence is known. That's fairly in. Most of the time feotuses get more attention that hermits that cower in their homes.

Abortion is touchy. Is it a medical, personal or legal thing? Is it a person or not? Is it the mother's right or not? People argue abortion like it's one subject. There's at least 10 completely separate issues that must be agreed upon before we can really decide "Is abortion okay?" I personally am pro-life. I realize some people disagree but it's something I feel strongly enough about that I'll actually say "Um no, I think you're wrong". Except I actually plan to do something in the future when I can support a child. There's no real fix to the abortion debate. It's out there. Even if one side were proven right, the other side would still be unhappy because there really is no way to prove something as metaphorical as "what makes a human", because you stand the risk of discluding many born human beings. What we should be doing is finding a solution, because now that it's out, you can't really stop it.

 

[RobertByers]

Watersmoon110
Actually the founders did believe everyone was a person. Just not all had the same rights.
Legal terms do not change what a person is. We all know what a person is outside the womb.
Pro-lifers say the creature within is also a person.
Since all people have an inalienable right to life then so too do the people in the womb.
The conly contention is whether the people in the womb are people or not yet people but acoming or something.
You can't redefine humanity in order to deny the rights of humanity.
All you can do is say its not humanity.
Humanity and personhood on the major rights are one and the same.
That you try this method shows you are uncomfortable in deciding when a child has arrived in the universe. I'm sure you consider it unlikely 5 minutes before birth the child was not yet here in this universe.
In denying humanity the pro-choicer is forced to figure out when humanity has arrived and when it hasn't. No getting around it.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Actually the founders did believe everyone was a person. Just not all had the same rights.

If not everyone was given the same rights, how could the Founding Fathers be said to have considered "everyone a person"? Obviously, if they had considered everyone to be people, they would have given them all the same rights.

Legal terms do not change what a person is.

Uh, when we are talking about legal issues, legal terms define what a "person" is.

We all know what a person is outside the womb.

Actually, it depends on what definition of "person" we are talking about. There are certainly definitions that would state a dead human body is a person, and others that would say it isn't a person. There are those who would say that a very young child or a severely retarded individual shouldn't count as "people" and others who say that they should. There are some who say that great apes, dolphins, or all sorts of other animals should be considered "people".

So we certainly don't all agree on what a "person" is.

Pro-lifers say the creature within is also a person.

Creature?
Anyway, while certainly it is their opinion that an unborn human is a person, that really doesn't help the discussion. When should an unborn human be considered a person, and why that point in time?

Since all people have an inalienable right to life then so too do the people in the womb.
The conly contention is whether the people in the womb are people or not yet people but acoming or something.

Any "right to life" doesn't give one the right to use another's body against their will.

You can't redefine humanity in order to deny the rights of humanity.
All you can do is say its not humanity.
Humanity and personhood on the major rights are one and the same.

In that case, should we abide by the current legal definition of "person" and assume that unborn humans aren't? Obviously, when it comes to the legal system "humanity and personhood" don't seem to be the same.

That you try this method shows you are uncomfortable in deciding when a child has arrived in the universe. I'm sure you consider it unlikely 5 minutes before birth the child was not yet here in this universe.

What are you even talking about? Certainly unborn humans don't suddenly appear in the universe at their birth! I think that basic Health Classes would cover "where babies come from"...

Two human sex cells join, then begin replicating and soon become a cluster of cells. This zygote implants in the uterine wall, soon attaching to take in nutrients. The genes in the embryo turn on and off at the proper times, to chemically "direct" the stem cells what body shape to form. Around 11 weeks hormones start to develop the fetus into one gender or the other. Eventually, all of the organs and such are in place, and all of the energy taken in by the fetus are used for growth and "finishing touches" to help it survive in the outside world. Most humans are born after 9 months of gestation, though premature babies can often survive after 5 months.

During all of that, the unborn human is certainly present in the universe, in the womb of the pregnant woman carrying it. However, when it counts as a legal person is another matter, which is what this thread is about (I think).

In denying humanity the pro-choicer is forced to figure out when humanity has arrived and when it hasn't. No getting around it.

There is no doubt that unborn humans are humans. However, when they should be counted as legal persons is still a question. Certainly you can't think that pointing out that unborn humans are human would convince anyone in here that they should immediately be counted as legal persons, did you?

I do so enjoy that you never really address any of my points.

So, when should an unborn human be counted as a legal person, in your opinion, and why?

 

[karisma]

Since all people have an inalienable right to life then so too do the people in the womb.

They might have that right, but that right can't be used to violate the woman's right to bodily integrity.

The conly contention is whether the people in the womb are people or not yet people but acoming or something.
You can't redefine humanity in order to deny the rights of humanity.
All you can do is say its not humanity.
Humanity and personhood on the major rights are one and the same.
That you try this method shows you are uncomfortable in deciding when a child has arrived in the universe. I'm sure you consider it unlikely 5 minutes before birth the child was not yet here in this universe.
In denying humanity the pro-choicer is forced to figure out when humanity has arrived and when it hasn't. No getting around it.

It's not relevent whether a fetus is a "person" or not. No born person has any right to any other person's blood or organs, and neither does a fetus, without the woman's consent.

 

[RobertByers]

Watersmoon 110
I did answer.
I'm saying a person who is a person must be seen legally as a person.
So the reason the fetus is not a legal person is because it is not seen as a actual human being. This indeed is what the Roe decision said.

Your still sneaking around the forest here.
You can't redefine people out of their humanity and rights by legalese. All you can say is they are not actual people.
Abortion law is based on the presumption the kid in the womb is not a human being.
If it was a human being or it was neutral then laws would be brought up to say they are people and so can't be killed by abortion.
The roe decision anticapated this and made the decision based entirely on the constitution having said the fetus can not be said to be a human being.
The flaw of the decision.