When is the Onset of Personhood?

[stiggywiggy]

In another topic about the end of abortion being close (which I don't believe), some guy defended the legality of killing unborn children because they are just fetuses, and therefore have not achieved "peoplehood" (his word).

So when exactly is one supposedly imbued with this "personhood," so that he or she can be legally protected from being killed? Is it the onset of a heartbeat? Does it occur at birth? The first breath? The first spoken words? The first upright step (when they achieve homo erectus-hood?)? Consensus these days about the best time to begin legal protection for unborn children seems to be somewhere between three to six months.

But whatever this magical moment is when the unborn suddenly (PRESTO!) become "persons," it does seem to have various opinions, even among the pro-choice folks.

Now if I were a pro-choice type, I'd feel a little silly believing that this abstract phenomenon known as personhood comes upon a child in the womb at a partcular moment. So I guess I'd start having to speculate as to how it is more likely that this personhood comes upon a child gradually from birth, and then comes to full fruition at six months (or whatever arbitrary milestone I choose as my favorite).

But then I'd face yet another problem. If it comes on incrementally, and we keep it legal to kill three-month olds, shouldn't the doctor hired to do the deed at least be charged with something? After all, he "terminated" half a person.

 

[Anovah]

When do you turn into an adult? 16? 18? 21? What did it feel like to one second be a child and the next, an adult?

 

[stiggywiggy]

When do you turn into an adult? 16? 18? 21? What did it feel like to one second be a child and the next, an adult?

Agreed. There is no particular day or week or month in which we can say that one transforms from child into adult. I assume you made the comment as a parallel to the transformation from fetus to person, thus not accepting the beginning of the second trimester as some specific milestone that immediately alters the status of the fetus.

So when a doctor is hired to kill a fetus at four months old, does it possess personhood attributes yet? Is he killing a partial person? Or rather, is six months the time at which personhood begins to develop from PERSONHOOD ZERO level to 100% PERSONHOOD? If so, when is full personhood achieved? At 8 month? Moment of birth? First upright step?

 

[Wayte]

So...am I the only one bothered that the number of abortion threads on the Politics forum is comparable to the number on the Ethics forum? Like, I can't be the only one seeing a problem there, can I?

 

[Theofane]

When is the Onset of Personhood?

I would say the onset of personhood happens when the unborn child arrives at self-awareness inside the womb.

Who agrees?

 

[Vylo]

I believe i was the poster you are refering to. The issue is that in order for there to be laws regarding when someone becomes a person you must legally define what makes them a human being and when. That being said you must find what differentiates something being human vs being a human being or person. One of the easiest ways is to think about what you could remove from a person that would leave them human, but not a person. Removing limbs, hearts, lungs, etc., still leaves them a person. In fact you can remove it all except for their mind. Thought is what makes something human into a human being. Essentially personality makes someone a person. The absence of brain function and thought thusly means not a person.

Now we have a functional definition for person. Now we look at embryos. No brain function. Not a person. We look at fetuses. Eventually they develop brain function and thought. It is mundane, but then again so are infants, so it would still technically, and thus should legally define any fetus with demonstratable brain function, to be a human being.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I would say the onset of personhood happens when the unborn child arrives at self-awareness inside the womb.

Who agrees?

[facetious]Sure, why I was asking an unborn just the other day if he'd reached self-awareness yet and he gave me this big lecture about disturbing him in the womb (I think I woke him up from a nap)...[/facetious]

The obvious issues here I would think are several:
1) What constitutes "self-awareness"
2) What is the test for "self-awareness" with say, a baby in the womb?
2) What about the living who aren't "self aware"? Coma? Sleeping??
4) Why, among those outside the womb, does "self awareness" seem to come and go, depending on certain circumstances? And why is the [temporary] departure of "self-awareness" allowed as a defense in a criminal case ("I wasn't aware I'd shot the man...")?

What do we do? Should we give them the ole "pinch me to see if I'm awake" test and if they holler 'ouch!' deem them "self aware?"

No, this tack is fraught with a plethora of irreconcilable issues.

 

[rambot]

[facetious]Sure, why I was asking an unborn just the other day if he'd reached self-awareness yet and he gave me this big lecture about disturbing him in the womb (I think I woke him up from a nap)...[/facetious]

The obvious issues here I would think are several:
1) What constitutes "self-awareness"
2) What is the test for "self-awareness" with say, a baby in the womb?
2) What about the living who aren't "self aware"? Coma? Sleeping??
4) Why, among those outside the womb, does "self awareness" seem to come and go, depending on certain circumstances? And why is the [temporary] departure of "self-awareness" allowed as a defense in a criminal case ("I wasn't aware I'd shot the man...")?

What do we do? Should we give them the ole "pinch me to see if I'm awake" test and if they holler 'ouch!' deem them "self aware?"

No, this tack is fraught with a plethora of irreconcilable issues.

More importantly, perhaps a nice clear definition of "personhood" may be useful too!

 

[Viren]

Personhood = momoment of conception. All the information is there and they're growing. I often hear the acorn doesn't equal a tree argument, but that doesn't take into account that the acorn(sapling) is growing and on it's way to becoming full grown.

 

[Vylo]

Personhood = momoment of conception. All the information is there and they're growing. I often hear the acorn doesn't equal a tree argument, but that doesn't take into account that the acorn(sapling) is growing and on it's way to becoming full grown.

That is only the potential for personhood. That would be like arresting someone for murder because they own a gun, and have the potential to kill someone with it.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I would say the onset of personhood happens when the unborn child arrives at self-awareness inside the womb.

Who agrees?

(1). Why is this your favorite milestone?

(2). How do we determine that a child in the womb is now aware that it exists, ensuring that it can no longer be killed.

 

[zoink]

Now we have a functional definition for person. Now we look at embryos. No brain function. Not a person. We look at fetuses. Eventually they develop brain function and thought. It is mundane, but then again so are infants, so it would still technically, and thus should legally define any fetus with demonstratable brain function, to be a human being.

Do the cognitive abilities of other animals like primates, cetaceans, and elephants factor into this discussion for you?

 

[stiggywiggy]

I believe i was the poster you are refering to. The issue is that in order for there to be laws regarding when someone becomes a person you must legally define what makes them a human being and when. That being said you must find what differentiates something being human vs being a human being or person. One of the easiest ways is to think about what you could remove from a person that would leave them human, but not a person. Removing limbs, hearts, lungs, etc., still leaves them a person. In fact you can remove it all except for their mind. Thought is what makes something human into a human being. Essentially personality makes someone a person. The absence of brain function and thought thusly means not a person.

Now we have a functional definition for person. Now we look at embryos. No brain function. Not a person. We look at fetuses. Eventually they develop brain function and thought. It is mundane, but then again so are infants, so it would still technically, and thus should legally define any fetus with demonstratable brain function, to be a human being.

Well thought out answer. Thanks. I'm in a hurry now and will reply later unless someone else here beats me to whatever I want to say.

 

[stiggywiggy]

I would say the onset of personhood happens when the unborn child arrives at self-awareness inside the womb.

So you believe that we should only be able to kill them before it is even possible for them to know it's happening?

And since you used the term "self-awareness," I assume you believe that they have a "self" of which to be aware. But as long as they are not aware they have one, you think these selves should be able to be killed with impunity?

Then when is the onset of selfhood?

 

[Anovah]

Agreed. There is no particular day or week or month in which we can say that one transforms from child into adult. I assume you made the comment as a parallel to the transformation from fetus to person, thus not accepting the beginning of the second trimester as some specific milestone that immediately alters the status of the fetus.

I feel like we're pretty much in agreement here as I think you aluded to there not being a magic moment where personhood occurs.

So when a doctor is hired to kill a fetus at four months old, does it possess personhood attributes yet? Is he killing a partial person? Or rather, is six months the time at which personhood begins to develop from PERSONHOOD ZERO level to 100% PERSONHOOD? If so, when is full personhood achieved? At 8 month? Moment of birth? First upright step?

Legally speaking, I'd say when they are born. You sign the birth certificate, and register their name and so on...

Otherwise, I think as humans we have in interest in protecting life and that's where viability comes in and why late trimester abortions can be where you see real division from people on the abortion issue.

 

[Viren]

That is only the potential for personhood. That would be like arresting someone for murder because they own a gun, and have the potential to kill someone with it.

No, they don't have the potential to become human they're in the process of "becoming" similar to a sapling is becoming a full grown tree.

Just because a person owns a gun doesn't mean they're necessarily becoming a murderer. Apples and oranges.

 

[Vylo]

Do the cognitive abilities of other animals like primates, cetaceans, and elephants factor into this discussion for you?

Not truly. We judge a child born to definitively be a person, despite their cognitive abilities being undeveloped, so that should extend to the whom. In essence, any thought from a human brain would be himan thought, no matter how basic.

 

[Vylo]

No, they don't have the potential to become human they're in the process of "becoming" similar to a sapling is becoming a full grown tree.

Just because a person owns a gun doesn't mean they're necessarily becoming a murderer. Apples and oranges.

Saplings are not animals, that would also make it apples to oranges.

What makes someone a person is their thoughts. If you could translate a person's thoughts to an artifical brain and body, they would no longer be human, but still a person. The conundrum there is if they would still be a human being, since they would no longer technically be human, but certainly a being.

 

[jayem]

So when exactly is one supposedly imbued with this "personhood," so that he or she can be legally protected from being killed?

As I see it, personhood, as a legal entity, occurs at 2 points--whichever comes first.

1) At birth, whenever that occurs

2) When a fetus in utero reaches natural viability. 24 weeks gestational age. Natural viability means a fetus has developed enough to survive without artificial life support if it were born.

Sure, this is arbitrary. But so what? Our laws make arbitrary distinctions all the time. This is no more arbitrary than claiming that a single cell has the same legal status as a newborn baby. The proper question is what legal criterion for personhood is most rational, reasonable, practical, and fairly respects the interests of all parties.

 

[Viren]

Saplings are not animals, that would also make it apples to oranges.

What makes someone a person is their thoughts. If you could translate a person's thoughts to an artifical brain and body, they would no longer be human, but still a person. The conundrum there is if they would still be a human being, since they would no longer technically be human, but certainly a being.

Imagine a person was in a serious accident and lost brain function, but you knew it would come back in 6 months. Would it be okay to disconnect life support?