GeoTheo

This is a spin off from another very long thread in the political discussion forum that statrted as kind of a poll on people being pro-life or pro-choice. It morphed into an abortion debate.
I thought I would restart it here since the definition of what is a person came up.
I let my tone get out of hand on the other thread and would like to maintian more civility in this thread. I will not insult anybody for their views even if they apear to me to be cruel and barbaric.
Basically my position is that abortion is wrong because a fetus is a person and it is wrong to kill people. I would make exceptions in the case of pregnancies that seriously threaten the mothers life, but not rape or incest since the baby would be inocent of these crimes.
I asked Loren Pretchel to define a person and this is the response I got:
"Person: Something with a mind of at least near human potential. Fetus before 6 months--no working mind, it can't qualify. Fetus after 6 months, I don't know--and I think third-trimester abortions should only be done for medical reasons."

I objected on the grounds that by that definition many persons with mental retardation would not qualify as human.
Loren Pretchel retorted that people in a vegetative state are not human, but that retarded persons have the potential to have a high intelligence if we someday find a cure for the medical condition that affects their mind.
I find that totally unsatisfactory.
Are persons with severe MR then potential humans?
Or are they fully human because of their potential intelligence?
Does not a fetus have potential intelligence?
I would say a fetus has a much greater potential for intelligence since there is no guarantee mental retardation will ever be cured.
I find defining human beings on the basis of their developmental stage or IQ to be totally unsatisfactory. If humans are not persons until they reach their potential, then children would not qualify and people who are elderly whose potential is mostly used up would not qualify either.
I think perhaps the quality of being valued by others in whose care you have been placed in is the deciding factor of if you are a person or not.
I think that is very sad. The very young and the very old then cease to be people when people cease to want them around.

echidna

Defining personhood on any basis is a guarantee of intense disagreement, but I find that the worst comes from any attempt to define it on a purely functional basis.

Best keep it simple IMO, DNA defining membership to homo sapiens & demonstrable neural function so that dead people can stop paying income tax.

The Other Michael

Here are some threads in the MF&P forum from this year, some of which definitely have discussions on this topic:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000025" target="_blank">Are women who have abortions murderers or just misguided fools?</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000188" target="_blank">Abortion Question</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000211" target="_blank">Should we allow family to euthanize the brain dead and the severely retarded?</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000075" target="_blank">Abortion - Yes? No? Why?</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000126" target="_blank">Quality of Life versus Abortion</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000100" target="_blank">If a fetus is a "person", what else does that entail?</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000082" target="_blank">Morality of destroying extra IVF embryos</a>

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

CuriosityKills

I think the fetus becomes human when it is able to survive on its own, outside the womb. This may sound a little cruel and callous, but I don't believe that any woman should be subject to being a host for what is basically a parasite.

JerryM

As regards the context of abortion, I would define person in purely legal terms. In my opinion, the term "person" refers to any living human being who has been born, or if yet unborn, has a gestational age of 25 weeks, whichever comes first. In other words, one is a "person" whenever one is born, or if still a fetus, when one is naturally viable.

Dr Rick

This begs the questions: what makes a fetus a person? For that matter, what makes anything a person? Finally, what is the connection between personhood and abortion?

<strong> Why? If a fetus is a person, what is the justification for allowing it to be aborted under one set of circumstances but not another?

<strong> So does a gamete, then; shall we now make each sperm a "person?"

<strong> Your definition is no less subjective; how is it better?

<strong> The same could be said of sperm; must we now extend the title of "person" to each and every gamete?

Rick

GeoTheo

The only problem with viability arguments is that the greater our technology the earlier a fetus can survive outside the womb.
Therefore age of viability as a standard of defining personhood is no good.
If you want to make it based on "Natural viability" Then small babies are not really viable because they have no way of surviving on their own until much older. Also the personhood of other people kept alive through technology could have their personhood called into question. I'm not just talking about vegetables here either.

Alonzo Fyfe

A person is a bundle of desires.

If one has a desire to avoid pain, for example, then this is sufficient for at least a prima-facie reason not to be subject to pain.

If one has a desire to continue living, then this is sufficient for a prima facie reason not to be killed.

I wish to note that these are prima facie reasons. As such, they can be overridden by larger concerns. Thus, it is no objection against such a claim to say it implies that no pain may ever be inflicted against any creature. It merely means that, all else being equal, an action that inflicts no pain is better than an action that inflicts pain. Do not forget the 'all else being equal' qualifier -- it is of great importance.


From Geothermal

I think perhaps the quality of being valued by others in whose care you have been placed in is the deciding factor of if you are a person or not.

So, somebody is despised and hated for all, perhaps because of their prejudice against individuals with green eyes, would not qualify as being a "person."

The relevant question here is not whether people do or do not value the individual (at least value it enough not to kill it or cause it pain), but whether it has a right to demand such consideration (regardless of whether or not that right is respected).

If we make the existence of such rights contingent upon others respecting those rights, then there is never an actual case of a right not being respected, because any right not respected does not exist.

[Note: I use the term 'right' in a generic sense, as merely another way of stating that A ought not to do X to B -- that B has a right that A not do X to it. Do not read anything more into my use of the word 'right' than this.]


From CuriosityKills

I think the fetus becomes human when it is able to survive on its own, outside the womb.

First, being "human" is not the question. The question concerns being "a person" -- a being with rights. Being human is neither necessary nor sufficient for being a person.

As for "ab;e tp survive on its own", I fail to see any rationality behind such a distinction. This makes "personhood" a purely external trait, because "able to survive on its own" is more of a statement about our level of technology than any characteristic of the being in question. Some day in the future, I expect. we will be able to place a fetus is an artificial uterus.

If an artificial uterus is not seen as being sufficiently "on its own" for the author's purposes, please note that there is little difference between a uterus and an incubator, and between an incubator and the care and feeding required a newborn.


From JerryM

As regards the context of abortion, I would define person in purely legal terms.

And what about if somebody questioned the personhood of blacks in 1850. Would you then describe "person" in purely legal terms? This is what the Supreme Court did in the Dred Scott case.

The question is what the law ought to be. To then attempt to cast this 'ought' in legal terms is to end up with a vicious circle that starts nowhere and ends where it starts. In order to determine what the law ought to be you need to start somewhere with something outside of the law.

GeoTheo

Rick,
I would like to respond to each statement you made but it would take to much html work. So if I leave somthing out let me know.
First you say
"what makes anything a person?"
Are you saying since personhood is hard to define then it is Ok to kill others?
As to your second point the justification for abortion when it threatens the mother is self defense. I am being consistent here. People have a right to respond with deadly force if it is the only way to preserve their own lives.
Then yopu say my definition of a person is arbitrary. I am not aware I gave a definition.
As far as the personhood of gametes. I disagree.
A sperm is not a person. It does not have the qualities that babies in and outside the womb have in common. It is a portion of a persons body therefore it is a part of a person and cannot enjoy individual status as a person.
The same cannot be said of a fetus in the womb. It is a distinct entity from the mother and not just a part of her body. You don't seem to object to it being called a parasite. So I don't think you really disagree that a baby is a seperate entity than the mother. You have no justification for saying a fetus is not a person. It is just convenient to do so for your pro-life stance.

echidna

I guess you’re not a big fan of marriage then either …