Alonzo Fyfe

Species-membership does not work for personhood. It allows for the possibility of two beings, with the same attributes, to have different status of a "person."

Personhood depends upon having desires.

However, there are additional problems with the concept of a "person". Many who debate the concept of a "person" do so in the context of an absolutist theory of ethics.

By combining the concept of personhood with absolutist ethics, you end up with strange results such that, if a dog and a child are both "persons", intentionally killing either one equally counts as murder.

The standard move to avoid these results is to fudge with the concept of a "person" -- to find some way to include the child and to exclude the dog.

But, as the history of this debate shows, such ad-hoc maneuvers cause even greater problems. Every attempt carries with it contradictions and inconsistencies that give the theory an appearance of being arbitrary and question-begging.

They appear that way, because all solutions that aim to fudge the criteria for personhood ARE arbitrary and question-begging.

The solution to the dog/child problem is not solved by some ad-hoc adjustment to the concept of a "person", but by what follows from the fact of being a "person." It does not mean being the holder of absolute rights, because there is no such thing as an absolute right. It means that one has morally-relevant interests, which may end up being outweighed by other, stronger, morally-relevant interests.

A dog has morally relevant interests -- but fewer and weaker interests than a child plus the interests of the community in the welfare of the child.

The dog's morally relevant interests is illustrated by the fact that, in a choice between killing the dog (to save the child) slowly and painfully, versus quickly and without pain, it would be wrong to choose the first option.

Those who want to "fix" the dog/child problem by some arbitrary manipulation of the concept of a "person" cannot handle this moral relevance.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

Dr Rick

It's not, at least not in any consistent manner that is acceptable to both the pro-choice and pro-life contingents.

The thead was titled with a question posed by one of the pro-lifers, yet was never answered by any of them. They aren't posting evidence that a fetus is a person, or even defining the terms; they are demanding pro-choicers prove that a fetus is not a person while rejecting out-of-hand any attempt to define "person."

That tactic led one pro-lifer to post these fallacious arguments:

Not only is this an argument from ignorance; it still fails to define the criteria for person. Absent a practical definition of person and a rational argument as to why that definiton is pertinent, there is no reason to accept the assertion de novo that "personhood is the lynchpin of the abortion debate."

Rick

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

babelfish

Is a fetus the same as a person?

My answer to all the anti-choice people out there is I don't think an embryo/fetus is a person, and neither do you.

Just imagine for a moment if abortion were criminalized, the way pro-life groups want. In this frightening new world, whenever a woman had a miscarriage, she would be required to be tested to make sure it was a "natural" abortion, that she hadn't indulged in a few extra birth-control pills or the "morning-after pill" in the 72 hours following sex. Also she'd need to be tested for the presence of RU486 in her bloodstream. If tests revealed she had chemically caused her own abortion, she'd have to go on trial for murder.

Any woman who had a back-alley abortion and showed up at a hospital ER with a perforated uterus would have to be prosecuted for murder.

Why are doctors who provide abortions the ones who are persecuted by pro-life groups? They aren't kidnapping women and forcing them to have abortions. If a person hires someone to kill her husband, she is as culpable as the hit-man. Why not the woman who hires an abortionist?

You can bury your dead cat in the back-yard, but not a (dead) new-born infant. Dead babies are usually given a casket and are buried in the cemetery, because they are PEOPLE. I've personally never heard of a trend among even Christian pro-lifers to retrieve miscarried embryos and give them proper burials, as would befit a person.

If your teenaged daughter was raped and got pregnant, you would have to force her to continue her pregnancy and bear the rapist's child. There would be no difference under the law between her rights and the embryo's rights. Now, I too have heard of women who have chosen not to abort a pregnancy caused by rape, and have kept and raised such a child, and everything has turned out great. That was their CHOICE. But it's an insult to remove this choice from a young woman and her family.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: babelfish ]</p>

The Other Michael

Under the law, aren't corporations considered "persons"? They are allowed to own property, enter into contracts etc in their own right.

We may wish to further clarify the definition of a person by specifying if we are defining personhood physiologically, morally/ethically, legally, or some other frame of reference.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

The Other Michael

Hi seanie,

I guess it is only fair that I post my answers too.

I vary from you by choosing the four cell and second trimester feti (octopus, octopi - but I never studied Latin - maybe fetii would be better) to get the axe first. They are at different stages of potential personhood as far as I'm concerned, and haven't made the cut as a person yet.

I'd then try and evaluate the information I have on the remaining people. If I don't have anything more than age (nothing about health, character, intelligence, possibility of making significant contributions to personkind, etc) then I'd pick the 90 year old as having had a fair run at life.

The child and the 30 year old are difficult in the absence of other information. If I thought the adult had demonstrated actual positive characteristics vs the child's potential I'd go for the proven case.

But without anything other than age to go on I'd probably have to go with a random choice as each would be equally likely, I'd think, to be just as good/bad, have more/less people who'd miss them, etc as the other. The age differences aren't that great, so each would potentially have a half-century or more of life ahead of them and I can't see quibbling over a year or three either way.

cheers,
Michael

DigitalDruid

Thanks for all of your input. After hearing the arguments (and doing some reading and thinking) it seems to me that there is no consensus-view on what a person is. Even if there is ever one, one still has to provide reasonable evidence that a fetus is a person by that definition.

Personally, I think an acorn (which is a fertilized egg) is not the same as an oak tree. I don’t mind that much when the neighborhood kids crush acorns on my yard. If they pull out a sapling which I planted hoping it would grow, I am a little more upset. But I would be very upset if they cut down my fully grown oak tree. Seems to me a fetus should grow in status and rights as it grows. That justifies morally treating the abortion of a two month old fetus differently from that of a full-term baby.

I would like to hear views that counter or support this. Thanks.

seanie

The idea of a foetus accruing rights as it develops is pretty much my opinion. That's why I'm reasonably comfortable with first trimester abortions, less comfortable with second trimester, and uncomfortable with third trimester. I think the viability argument is largely a way of rationalising exactly where the line is drawn.

However the idea of the foetus developing rights leads to difficult questions when the rights of the mother and child conflict. When it's a straightforward question of the right to life I'd say the mother always takes precedence (or at least it's her choice). However that still leaves open the question of whether in some circumstances the foetus's rights constrain the freedom of actions of the mother. I find that a difficult area.

Oh and my choice of the foetus over the 90 year old was the only one I had doubts over. In the end my judgement was coloured by my circumstances.

My wife is 16 weeks pregnant and my 94 year old grandfather is a curmudgeonly old bugger. I know which one I'd off first.