Personhood of the fetus

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Why make the remark when it fails to further the discussion?

It furthers the discussion. I consider most of these attempts to 'personalize' human fetuses to be a form of kin-selection.

Not at all. I'm not implying anything but simply allowing for the possibility that there are other persons whereas you are ruling it out altogether by equating persons with humans.

Who says it's impossible that there be non-human persons? I certainly don't. I don't know a single materialist who does. I'm starting to wonder whether you read my posts tony. You've accused me of the genetic fallacy and begging the question on the basis of things I never said. Now you're telling me I equate persons with humans.

Why is it useful?

Because we want to know whether human fetuses are human persons, not persons in some undefined sense. We want to know whether they have the same rights and dignities human persons have.

You proceed to your preconceived conclusion that persons cannot exist without a brain when it is not a logical conclusion.

I never said persons can't exist without brains.

Medicine is not concerned with persons but with bodies. There are plenty of doctors who believe a person must have a soul in order to be a person.

Be that as it may, this is irrelevant to whether a thing must have a brain in order to be a human person. As I said earlier, belief in souls isn't at odds with this condition.

The reason why a fetus is a person is that he or she comes from the union of two persons and will develop into a mature person unless he or she dies naturally or is killed by a person. It is arbitrary to pinpoint any stage of development at which the fetus becomes a person subsequent to the moment of conception.

You can't just 'say' that pinpointing any stage of development subsequent to conception is arbitrary, otherwise I'll just 'say' your pinpointing conception is arbitrary.

Why think something is a person if it came from the union of two persons and will develop into a mature person...etc. Why not just say the fetus is a 'potential' person? I suspect it's because your theology won't let you.

[danserr]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

I think personhood is extremely important.

It's in virtue of this unique 'personhood' that people typically think it's morally permissible (albeit, heart-breaking) to put an animal down while thinking it's morally forbidden to put human persons down. (Cf. Euthenasia. Note, I'm not including capital punishment here.)

So, if it is established that human fetuses aren't persons, anti-abortionists would have a lot of foot-work to do, explaining why we should think it's morally forbidden to 'put fetuses down'.

(Personally, I suspect the (oft-emotional) inclination to regard fetuses as persons is the kin-selection imbued in us by natural-selection. It seems some of these mechanisms are poor at tracking-truth, but great for fitness)

Though there are some arguments that do suggests ways to handle this. Alexander Pruss has a couple articles against abortion that work even if the fetus is not a person.

Just for summary, he puts it this way:
1. I was once a fetus
2. If I was once a fetus, it was wrong to kill that fetus
3. If it was wrong to kill me as a fetus, it would be wrong to kill anyone as a fetus.

(longer version and pop. version)

As I read him, he points out that one reason it is wrong to kill me is that you deprive me of something, ie the rest of my life. But this would apply at least as much to me when I was a fetus.

What if I was not a person as a fetus? When then it would still be wrong to kill me, because you are depriving me of something even more, personhood.

Here: Killing me at time t0 would deprive me of the life that I would have otherwise led after t0. If t0 were earlier, the harm is, if anything, greater since I would have been robbed of more. The harm in the killing is the loss of the future life. Certainly, one need not be aware of having been harmed to have in fact been harmed.

And: Note that this paper does not attempt to establish conclusively that the fetus is a person, except in its remark that if personhood is an essential property then the fetus that I was was a person. All that the main arguments need is that the fetus was I, not that the fetus was a person. Observe that there is a sense in which abortion is often an even greater evil if the fetus were not a person (though in fact, I think being a person is an essential property and hence a fetus is a person). For, if one kills a person, one has not robbed her of all of the worldly personal life that she would otherwise have had. But if one kills the fetus, if a fetus is not a person and unless we are talking of a special case where the fetus could not have lived until attaining personhood (a case where I take it abortion would still be wrong by my right-to-life-is-an-essential-property argument, though perhaps to a lesser extent), one has robbed the fetus of all of her worldly personal life, and this is a greater theft, with numerically the same victim.

For other interested: Francis Beckwith on that fetuses are not "potential persons" but "persons with potential."
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/colu...n-article.html

[achmafooma]

Originally Posted by coolduude

...Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Well, how can you 'prove' anybody's personhood? Can you prove that you are a person? That President Obama is a person? That your 'pro-choice' friends are?

I would turn the question back on the questioner. How do they define personhood so as to exclude fetuses? What is their definition of the term? And why is it okay to kill a 'non-person' human being? Would it be okay to kill anybody else excluded by their definition?

One of the more common definitions I've heard from 'pro-choice' folks is: well, a fetus can't survive on its own, so it isn't a person. Okay. If that's the definition of personhood, then two-year old children, alzheimers sufferers, car accident victims on a respirator, and the mentally ill all aren't people either, since they rely on others to live. So can we kill them too when it seems convenient to do so?

Heck, could you or I really survive 'on our own' for very long? Are we people?

The natural assumption is (or should be) that any human being -- that is, any organism with human DNA -- is a human person, with the same human rights as any other person. The onus is on the challenger to explain why that isn't so, to explain the difference between 'human organism' and 'human person,' and then to apply their reasoning consistently.

Sadly, most seem to choose not to think about it...because it's very hard to come up with an ethical justification for abortion that doesn't also put other human lives at risk, if the same justification were applied across the board.

[HelenRose]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Trust me, I tried. It wasn't enough.

When people do not want to hear the truth they will not listen.

What is in a word? The word "person"only has meaning beyond a legal definition, if you believe in the sanctity of human life.

There are some people who who wish to bestow the title "person" to animals.

More often than not the best you can do is state, with love, the truth. "Human life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. This is the truth. This is what I believe. I will not play word games in the attempt to dehumanise the unborn child."

Before we can advance the the truth about the humanity of the the unborn child, we must understand that many people who accept abortion, do not even accept the concept that human life is sacred.

[HelenRose]

This whole business of conferring the title "person" to human beings really bothers me.

Are we "persons" only and if the government says so in a court of law?

What a miserable road that type of thinking will take us.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by danserr

Though there are some arguments that do suggests ways to handle this. Alexander Pruss has a couple articles against abortion that work even if the fetus is not a person.

Just for summary, he puts it this way:
1. I was once a fetus
2. If I was once a fetus, it was wrong to kill that fetus
3. If it was wrong to kill me as a fetus, it would be wrong to kill anyone as a fetus.

(longer version and pop. version)

As I read him, he points out that one reason it is wrong to kill me is that you deprive me of something, ie the rest of my life. But this would apply at least as much to me when I was a fetus.

What if I was not a person as a fetus? When then it would still be wrong to kill me, because you are depriving me of something even more, personhood.

Here: Killing me at time t0 would deprive me of the life that I would have otherwise led after t0. If t0 were earlier, the harm is, if anything, greater since I would have been robbed of more. The harm in the killing is the loss of the future life. Certainly, one need not be aware of having been harmed to have in fact been harmed.

And: Note that this paper does not attempt to establish conclusively that the fetus is a person, except in its remark that if personhood is an essential property then the fetus that I was was a person. All that the main arguments need is that the fetus was I, not that the fetus was a person. Observe that there is a sense in which abortion is often an even greater evil if the fetus were not a person (though in fact, I think being a person is an essential property and hence a fetus is a person). For, if one kills a person, one has not robbed her of all of the worldly personal life that she would otherwise have had. But if one kills the fetus, if a fetus is not a person and unless we are talking of a special case where the fetus could not have lived until attaining personhood (a case where I take it abortion would still be wrong by my right-to-life-is-an-essential-property argument, though perhaps to a lesser extent), one has robbed the fetus of all of her worldly personal life, and this is a greater theft, with numerically the same victim.

For other interested: Francis Beckwith on that fetuses are not "potential persons" but "persons with potential."
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/potential-persons-in-the-after-birth-abortfiiioagnn-article.htmAmagfix l

Superb reasoning! I don't envy the opposition.

[shoe]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Hello all,

I've been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can't break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I've heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

I think that science, genetically speaking, has shown that being a human being is a continuing process. Right from the beginning all the genetic characteristics of a person are "actually" present, not "potentially" present. And whether a person exists on the inside of the womb or on the outside, that individual person will "actually" pass through several different phases and stages of development as he or she matures: the zygote stage, the embryo stage, the fetus stage, the child stage, etc. And although an adult once was a zygote, for instance, the special thing that made that adult person a unique individual did not come from a zygote; and likewise, although an adult was once a child, the special thing that made that person a unique individual did not come from a child.

I think that the people who say a child inside the womb is not a person are using circular reasoning to rationalize their pro-abortion worldview; that is to say, in order to make themselves as comfortable as possible with their own belief system, they must assume that the life within the womb is not a person (even though all unborn children have human DNA like all humans) but rather some sort of parasite or non-entity.

[hannajomar]

I have really pushed people with the question, "If a fetus is not a person, when does personhood begin?" I really push them to be specific. Any answer they have besides "personhood begins at conception" is arbitrary and often based on emotions.

I've had people say person hood begins when the baby is born. I ask them, at what point does this happen - what if the baby is partway out in the air, and partway still in the birth canal? What if the baby is completely through the birth canal but the umbilical cord is still intact? Most of the time they haven't thought this answer out and don't know.

I've had other people say they believe person hood begins after the first trimester because the fetus is starting to appear human then. Trimesters were invented by doctors and have absolutely no bearing on nature. Also, person hood exists or it does not exist. It does not develop as the parts of the body develop over time.

With the abortion laws in USA are now, person hood of the fetus solely relies on the whim of the pregnant mother. If she wants to give birth to this baby, most people will generally accept the fetus as a person. If she doesn't want to give birth to this baby, then she has the choice to decide it's not a person and kill it at her own discression. In the history of mankind, the most evil events happen when one person gets to decide if someone else is or is not a person; or is or is not as much of a person. (Nazis, American slavery, abortion) It is so dangerous to allow person hood to be decided subjectively.

The vast majority of people will never change their minds on this, but I've succeeded in that now some of my pro-"choice" friends actually understanding that being pro-life has thought and logic behind it, not just a bunch of nutty people judging promiscuous women.

[Perplexity]

Originally Posted by danserr

Though there are some arguments that do suggests ways to handle this. Alexander Pruss has a couple articles against abortion that work even if the fetus is not a person.

Just for summary, he puts it this way:
1. I was once a fetus
2. If I was once a fetus, it was wrong to kill that fetus
3. If it was wrong to kill me as a fetus, it would be wrong to kill anyone as a fetus.

(longer version and pop. version)

As I read him, he points out that one reason it is wrong to kill me is that you deprive me of something, ie the rest of my life. But this would apply at least as much to me when I was a fetus.

What if I was not a person as a fetus? When then it would still be wrong to kill me, because you are depriving me of something even more, personhood.

Here: Killing me at time t0 would deprive me of the life that I would have otherwise led after t0. If t0 were earlier, the harm is, if anything, greater since I would have been robbed of more. The harm in the killing is the loss of the future life. Certainly, one need not be aware of having been harmed to have in fact been harmed.

And: Note that this paper does not attempt to establish conclusively that the fetus is a person, except in its remark that if personhood is an essential property then the fetus that I was was a person. All that the main arguments need is that the fetus was I, not that the fetus was a person. Observe that there is a sense in which abortion is often an even greater evil if the fetus were not a person (though in fact, I think being a person is an essential property and hence a fetus is a person). For, if one kills a person, one has not robbed her of all of the worldly personal life that she would otherwise have had. But if one kills the fetus, if a fetus is not a person and unless we are talking of a special case where the fetus could not have lived until attaining personhood (a case where I take it abortion would still be wrong by my right-to-life-is-an-essential-property argument, though perhaps to a lesser extent), one has robbed the fetus of all of her worldly personal life, and this is a greater theft, with numerically the same victim.

For other interested: Francis Beckwith on that fetuses are not "potential persons" but "persons with potential."
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/colu...n-article.html

(1) strikes me as false. "I" refers to a being that is essentially a person (Pruss at the time of writing), but fetuses aren't persons.

Further, why should we think it's wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person rather than just lamentable?

Should we think it's wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person? Well, that depends on whether fetuses have rights. If they have no rights, then we have no duties to them: we can't wrong them. I see no reason why we should think they have rights though.

[fred conty]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Hello all,

I've been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can't break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I've heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Try a little street theology.

Ask if he would want this same judgement about himself by his own parents when he was in his mother's womb. "Oh well, he is just human but not a person." Does that sound cold or does that sound cold. How would that make any son or daughter feel, "son, you were just human and not a person when you were conceived. We didn't consider you a person until many weeks later." That would surely make any son or daughter feel truely loved and wanted.

Just a thought.

[Poseidon]

I'm unclear on how personhood and humanity are different. I think that you are a person simply by virtue of the fact that you're human. How does one say "this one is a person, that one isn't?" I think that this might be the question at the heart of yours.

[vz71]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Hello all,

I've been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can't break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I've heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Personhood cannot be proven.
With all the information we have at our disposal, there is really no way to quantify what they call personhood.
You cannot prove my 'personhood.'
I likewise cannot prove yours.

Given that we cannot quantify this, we must discard it as a reliable measure for murder. We must rely upon what is clearly defined.

We cannot measure personhood.
But we can examine a genetic code.
We can determine life.
And we can determine that the fetus is human and alive.

And when it comes down to it, that is all that can really be proven of anyone.

[JaKael02]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Hello all,

I've been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can't break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I've heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not a stage of development within the species. Personhood is not defined by size, skill, or intellect.

If personhood is defined by size; then is a 7ft basketball player more human than a 4'6" cheerleader? What if someone 400lbs lost 200lbs, does that make them less human?

If intellect? Then are we less of a person when we sleep, or in a coma, or under anestheia? Is a 12th grader more of a person than a 1st grader?

Just a thought.

Kindly,

James

[HelenRose]

Originally Posted by Perplexity

(1) strikes me as false. "I" refers to a being that is essentially a person (Pruss at the time of writing), but fetuses aren't persons.

Further, why should we think it's wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person rather than just lamentable?

Should we think it's wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person? Well, that depends on whether fetuses have rights. If they have no rights, then we have no duties to them: we can't wrong them. I see no reason why we should think they have rights though.

When you were a fetus didn't you have the right to be born?

You were you. You were not any one else. You were the distinct separate human being that you are now. It is so strange to me that you can't see that. Your death as a fetus would be no different than your death would have been at three years old, ten years old or even now.

You came into existence at a precise moment and that person was you. Your death would have been a tragedy, just as all human death is.

[Rence]

Originally Posted by coolduude

Hello all,

I've been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can't break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I've heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

I know it would be difficult to convince someone who is concerned for the health of the mother, or in cases of rape. For example, in the Jewish faith, though they are pro-life and against abortion, the mother actually takes priority over the unborn, so if the health of the woman is at risk, it would be a sin against the woman to not allow her to do what she needs to protect and regain her health. Other Christian denominations fall short of being *completely* pro-life due to the health of the mother, and in cases of rape, where Plan B is used. Muslims are against abortion as well, but again, they make exception for the life of the mother. So it would be interesting to see how you could reach these demographics.