I participated in a pretty good conversation a while back, about a chimp who sued to have his/her rights recognized. Among other things, we noted that there are a great many different levels of animal intelligence and competence, and that that fact complicates our thinking. We like simple topics, and this one is not... I continued to ruminate on the same notion, but applied to the "personhood" of humans. It seems to me that we have two different approaches, legal and religious, and that the interference between the two is a big part of our mess. But that's not what I want to talk about. The religious approach can be summarized, basically, as "the zygote acquires a soul at conception, and is therefore a person". It is rarely expressed so simply, but this is what most right-to-lifers are really defending. But it's not what I want to talk about, either. This religious approach is binary if you agree about "soul at conception", then you say "Yay!!" and if you don't agree, you say "Nonsense!" Not very interesting... The legal approach, though, is kinda fun. In the sense that messy human befuddlement is often kinda fun... Up to three months after conception, a zygote has no legal standing. Roe v. Wade. (Yes, yes... if the mother lives in a Red state, she gets the feeling that the zygote has more rights than she does, but that's not the law...) From three months after conception to birth, the embryo/fetus's rights are... variable depending on what state it's in. From birth to adolescence, a child has very few rights. It's parents aren't allowed to kill it or even break too many bones, but they can do pretty much anything else. Beginning in adolescence, kids start accruing more significant rights. They can have sex! They can go to court to ask for emancipation (interesting word!). They can testify. They can vote. They can drink! Then a person is pretty much "a person" until they get old. Many old people lose the capacity to care for themselves, and the law recognizes the fact by confiding them to... someone. Usually a close relative. In parallel, there are the special cases of the severely mentally handicapped or the brain-injured, who also cede their rights to a caretaker. My point is that there is a variable set of rights, over time, a "variable content" to our personhood... for all of us. So... when we speak of "personhood", we are in fact talking about a wide spectrum of content, from "empty" to "full rights", with people (but not chimpanzees) changing their position on that spectrum with time and circumstances. The interesting thing is that the ages at which we acquire different rights vary enormously, over time and from place to place. That kinda makes me think that these "steps" are arbitrary, rather than natural. They all probably do exist, but the appropriate moment for their application is... in the eye of the beholder... A person may vote for President, but may not buy a beer? Seriously? When does the most basic of all rights, the "right to life" become applicable? Why is one moment more significant than another? Across human history, there have been many answers to these apparently simple questions. "The right answer" is a lot like a "to be consumed before..." date on a can of Spam. What happens to that Spam at midnight?? IMNAAHO, physical development is less relevant than psychological development. "Feels pain" is not a very useful criterion, since all animals feel pain, and there's some indication that plants have an equivalent. "Heart beats" eliminates plants and the simplest animals, but maintains even some microscopic beasties. Also... physical development continues long after birth, and long after everyone agrees that personhood has been reached. Archaic societies knew a lot about mammalian gestation: they saw lots of stillbirths at all stages. I know of none that considered a ZEF a person. There were often laws for redress for provoking a stillbirth, but these were not expressed in terms of redress for the ZEF; but rather for the parents' loss. Many archaic societies did not even consider a newborn to be a person. This may indicate that they considered that personhood arrived later... or that so many newborns died shortly after birth that it just wasn't practical to take them seriously in consideration until later. A Hebrew baby's status changed one month after birth, with criminal penalties for causing its death rising notably. There were other cultures that "named" a child when it began to walk or talk, thereby entering society. Personally, I think that the most significant moment comes when the baby achieves self-awareness. But that's still just one of many stages. Its significance is mainly in its happening well after birth, creating a very solid, rational argument for setting the last limit for abortion... a few months after birth. That gives time to verify the medical prospects of the newborn, while it is still not really a person. And terminate if the outlook is bad. Are you shuddering with revulsion after reading that? That's because we are not really "rational" creatures. We are advanced mammals with a very powerful "protect and nurture" instinct. Our brains melt at the sight of a baby. So: - personhood comes a while after birth - the idea of "aborting" a newborn is repulsive therefore: - the last acceptable moment for abortion is at birth.
Personhood is a status bestowed upon live birth. Not that it matters, as no person has the right to use another's body for life support against their will anyway.
Interesting and well presented argument ... however it has one very large flaw, the status of the foetus isn't relevant.
There's an interesting Star Trek episode which addresses how this stuff might play out in the future. Two characters are using a matter transporter at the same time, when the equipment glitches. They're fused into one entity as a result. This new entity starts confused, then over the course of some days develops a sense of self ... entirely distinct from the two source entities. When a way is found to undo the 'problem', the new entity is suddenly aware that this means he will effectively die. Quite the dilemma, what with the Prime Directive and all. Can't remember what the resolution was, though And of course there's Commander Data. AI android, with full personhood.
Would you support an abortion at 8 and a half moths just because the mother feels like it (no other reason given). Just curious.
Why "upon live birth"? What is so special about the moment of birth? My objective in posting this OP is to discuss the nature nature of personhood, and on that basis, try to draw some conclusions.
IMHO, both of your examples are useful thought experiments, in an effort to escape from our religious straitjacket. We -- almost all of us -- grew up in a Judeo-Christian culture. We carry Judeo-Christian values, regardless of our membership in any congregation. We feel that humans are "special" animals, even while we deny the existence of a "soul". So it is useful to have thought experiments like yours, to help us break out of the "specialness" of being human. AI is in the news these days. Some very smart people apparently expect intelligence to arise at some point. (Robert J Sawyer's "WWW" trilogy is brilliant.) So I think it is useful to ask ourselves, "What will be the criteria that cause us to consider an arisen AI intelligence to be a person?" When we answer that... we probably should take another look at our Great Ape cousins...
It would easier to show you the rationale than to repeat it here - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/363145-abortion-choice-consent.html
No matter when a "person" become a "person"... ...a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...when and for the reasons SHE deems appropriate...NO MATTER WHAT. I would hope no woman waits until a few weeks or days before term...BUT if circumstances lead a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy occurring within her own body...she should be free to do so at will...and should be able to do so with the aid of a physician willing to help with that termination. Once again...I hope no woman would wait long into the pregnancy to make a decision to terminate...and I suspect not very many do at all.
I am against the govt. banning it at any stage. - - - Updated - - - Ask those who made the laws. I can't read their minds.
Right on, Fox. Until birth...a fetus...IS A FETUS...not a person. That is why we call it "a fetus." When it is an egg...we call it an egg. When it is a fertilized egg...we call it a fertilized egg. (Or a blastocyst or zygote) Then it becomes an embryo...we call it an embryo. Then it becomes a fetus...we call it a fetus. NOBODY that I know loves abortion...damn near everyone I know cringes at it. But often it is a reasonable procedure...and whether it is or isn't... ...if a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her own body...she should be allowed to do so...and to do so as safely as possible. Abortion is most often opposed on religious grounds...which is an absurdity.
Before birth, the fetus is utterly dependent on the mother. After birth, the newborn is utterly dependent on... someone. The newborn is no more independent than the fetus. Without care, death is only a few hours away. The situation of the fetus/newborn hardly changes at all. The situation of the people around the fetus/newborn changes a great deal. The mother is no longer sole sustenance. All other adults may replace the mother. So... why is the baby suddenly a person? Because the role of the people around it has changed?
Contrary to what you believe, there is profound change in the fetus as it's born. You do not seem to understand that it is physically dependent on the woman it's in, it is connected, it needs her body to sustain it's life while inside her. Once born it no longer is attached, no longer needs her body to sustain it's life. The newborn is independent as it no longer needs to be physically attached to the woman. The people around it have no bearing on whether it's a person or not and I find that a strange comment. Please get a biology book and learn what happens at birth, the fetus just doesn't slide and "be born".
No biology book will speak of personhood, because that is not a scientifically quantified condition. The purpose of my OP is to discuss the criteria that might be quantifiable. A newborn is just as dependent as a fetus. It may be cared for by more people than just the mother, but without care it will die very quickly. The big change at birth is not for the infant. The big change is for the people around the infant. Before Ms Jones gives birth, neither you nor I can care for the fetus. After birth, either of us can do all that is required. We become co-responsible at birth, and that is why we are revolted by "abortion after birth".
That is absurd. The umbilical being cut IS the big change. And if you cannot see that (or are not ethical enough to acknowledge it)...this thread becomes a joke.
Yes. Exactly. The mother is free! Now... tell me what, exactly, changes for the infant. Can it feed itself? Can it clean its bum? It was helpless before birth; it is helpless after birth. For the infant, very little has changed... You repeat that the umbilical cord has been cut. My response to that is... Yes? So what? That means the infant must suck on whatever it is offered, rather than be fed by the umbilical. So what? How does that change confer personhood? C'mon, Frank! Simply repeating "The umbilical has been cut!" doesn't explain anything at all.
Simply denying that it matters...doesn't explain anything, Bob. In any case, it is my opinion that "personhood" begins at birth. If you disagree...fine with me. We are both sharing our opinions.
I have explained why I see no great importance for the infant at birth: totally dependent before and after, with no change psychologically. I have explained why I see a huge change for the adults around the infant: mother going from almost alone to potentially disconnected; everyone's protect-and-nurture instinct engaged. I contend that birth is the last limit for abortion... because of us adults... not because of the infant. If we do not understand why we hold the opinions that we hold, those opinions cannot have much value, especially for ourselves.
