• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Beginning of Personhood

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Now that I'm done with my thesis and all the data has been processed, I'm curious to know what the rest of the world thinks about this. The following is a list of questions that were used to generate the twenty statements that eventually became the backbone of my study. If you're interested in seeing how the first twenty respondents replied go here: Ideas about personhood and when it begins

1. Does the definition of a person as "a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life" appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?

2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.

3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person? Why?

4. Prior to this time does a being have any rights? If so, which? Why?

Hypothetical scenarios...

5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?

6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?

7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
In my opinion the mother has the sole rights of the child until birth.
If the mother neglects a pregnancy to the point that a birthed child will suffer consequences from this neglect in his/her life to the point of becoming dependable on social securities. The mother is responsible.
The choice to birth should rest solely with the mother and not with third parties.
Once a child is born, it deserves to live wether the mother wants to or not.

Why?

I think that forcing labour will in many situations where children are unwanted, ultimatly result in far worse atrocities than abortion.

And since the only cases in which abortion is an issue. The only cases in which this subject is an issue. Are often, if not always, these forms of dire situations where a child would face an underqualitative life. I am of opinion that forced labour is far more sinister in the long term. Despite peoples best intentions.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Well, technically, many believe that a fetus has rights under the preamble of our Constitution (...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,...)

A woman should not be forced to carry a fetus to term if her life is at risk. I give precedence to the person who is already born and pays taxes.

I think the first trimester is touch and go for most pregnancies. If abortions were illegal, then I can understand investigating suspicious spontaneous abortions after the first trimester, but before that is nonsensical. However, that point is moot since abortions are legal.

More than anything, I argue for consistency. If abortions are legal and fetuses are not protected, then a man arrested with killing a pregnant woman should not be charged for 2 deaths.

I used to believe that a fetus is "alive" once the heart beats, or once it can survive outside the womb on its own. But since technology is advancing, we can save fetuses earlier and earlier. Personally, I really have no opinion on the matter other than a woman's body is her own and she may deal with moral, but not legal judgment.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
A woman should not be forced to carry a fetus to term if her life is at risk. I give precedence to the person who is already born and pays taxes.

this. a woman should not be forced to carry a child against her will basically. the question about whether a fetus is a person to me is irrelevant, as the answer will always find itself in the grey zone of subjectivity.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
The question is when do you believe a person becomes a person? The abortion debate is secondary here. The hypothetical scenarios were used only to test the intuitions, none of the answers to those questions were used in the formal study.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
And they say metaphysics is dead....

the coming-about-of-beingness is still highly questioned, even by scientists like juggernaut here who think they aren't philosophers too :D
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
fine.

i believe a person becomes a person when the mind has developed far enough to recognize its own existence. cogito ergo sum.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
fine.

i believe a person becomes a person when the mind has developed far enough to recognize its own existence. cogito ergo sum.

Not a bad answer, but where does that put infants or other members of the species that lack self awareness? How about the severely mentally handi-capped or brain damaged? Your response is, however, quite in line with the majority thinking of U.S. males in the 18-24 age group. Females answered a little differently.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I believe a person can be considered a person from the moment it interacts with the world on its own. Which is basicly the moment of birth. At that point, when the person starts to breath, slowly starts to see, feel and learn, is when a person begins to exist.

Self awareness of the individual isn't important in this. Not everything in the world revolves around self awareness of ones individual. There is also the self awareness of others around the individual to consider. Thus, a person starts being a person once it sets foot in the world and interacts or can be interacted with by others.
 

Wade Wilson

New member
Joined
Oct 17, 2008
Messages
411
MBTI Type
INTP
I believe people are always people. Life is secondary to birth/death. It's in a constant state of forward motion. If life flows like water, beings are akin to bottles. Therefore, I don't think there's a point where they suddenly exist. They've always existed, just without a material form, without singular focus.

Awareness of surroundings is just a stage in life, not a defining moment.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
Not a bad answer, but where does that put infants or other members of the species that lack self awareness? How about the severely mentally handi-capped or brain damaged? Your response is, however, quite in line with the majority thinking of U.S. males in the 18-24 age group. Females answered a little differently.

it would probably be inhumane to not consider them persons, but then again, i do not consider myself a person anymore. from here on out, it becomes a highly philosophical discussion. let me know if you want to listen.

When it becomes an entity separate from its host. So, at birth.

curious. what reasons do you put behind this belief?

I believe people are always people. Life is secondary to birth/death. It's in a constant state of forward motion. If life flows like water, beings are akin to bottles. Therefore, I don't think there's a point where they suddenly exist. They've always existed, just without a material form, without singular focus.

Awareness of surroundings is just a stage in life, not a defining moment.

this rings surprisingly true.
 

Fluffywolf

Nips away your dignity
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,581
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I must stress that my point of view is mostly based on carefully weighed political and societial repurcussions of whatever definition is to be used in law.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
it would probably be inhumane to not consider them persons, but then again, i do not consider myself a person anymore. from here on out, it becomes a highly philosophical discussion. let me know if you want to listen.

Any discussion of personhood is always going to be highly philosophical, regardless of what definition is ultimately settled upon for reasons of practicality. :) That's why I put this thread here.

I'm always willing to listen.
 

professor goodstain

New member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,785
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7~7
i believe the beginning of personhood is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. 99% of the time, when this process up to the point of birth....is left to nature, a new person walks the earth.

i also believe that the father should also restrain himself from drugs and alcohol during this phase. i have no idea of why, except maybe karma, fairness or good psychology. And NO, i'm not livin in leave it to beaver land. i'm well aware that fatherless situations are quite common. Not refering to you with that juggernaut, just folks who may think i'm not aware of the reality of fatherless scenerios:)
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
curious. what reasons do you put behind this belief?

Because up until that point, it shares all systems with a host body. It is not independent - it may as well be a tumor. At birth, it still needs to be taken care of, but its life is not physically dependent upon, or symbiotic with, a specific host.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
A woman should not be forced to carry a pregnancy that poses lethal consequences to her own health because *willingly* allowing a woman (or man, for that matter) to die under any circumstance that could be reasonably prevented is morally more wrong than terminating a pregnancy. However, I don't think that terminating a pregnancy as a form of birth control is okay, either.

A woman who miscarries usually miscarries due to things beyond her control i.e. viruses, genetic conditions, other random health factors. However, women who smoke, drink and engage in other types of risky behavior during pregnancy should be strongly discouraged if they plan to carry the pregnancy to term. . Women who smoke and drink while saying they're actually going to have the baby make me physically ill, but that's just my personal feelings on the manner. I also don't think fathers should smoke around the mother while she's pregnant, and optimally would not be drinking or doing drugs while trying to conceive.

My personal feelings also indicate to me that I would never have an abortion unless my own life was seriously in danger. Although "humanity" may not technically begin at conception, life does. I don't even like to set up mouse traps or step on slugs, so I certainly couldn't have an abortion...unless my own life was seriously threatened, and by "threatened" I don't mean inconvenienced.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
Any discussion of personhood is always going to be highly philosophical, regardless of what definition is ultimately settled upon for reasons of practicality. :) That's why I put this thread here.

I'm always willing to listen.

i'll write something in a bit, i need time to relocate my thoughts.

Because up until that point, it shares all systems with a host body. It is not independent - it may as well be a tumor. At birth, it still needs to be taken care of, but its life is not physically dependent upon, or symbiotic with, a specific host.

that's a well protected logical statement. i assume you define birth as being released from the host body?
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Because up until that point, it shares all systems with a host body. It is not independent - it may as well be a tumor. At birth, it still needs to be taken care of, but its life is not physically dependent upon, or symbiotic with, a specific host.


How about fetuses that are developed enough to sustain life outside the womb but have not yet been born? Aren't nursing infants dependent on their hosts?
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
When the newborn first takes air into it's lungs, breathes on its own, then it seems to be a very defined independent self. There's a lot of debate and gray areas before this but this seems to be a defining line that I'd have trouble denying.

When a unborn child would be able to breathe on its own outside the mother's body but just hasn't yet been born, it's death in the womb due to attack upon the mother's body should count as a murder/assualt. Parents should be able to sue for emotional damages in loses of child at this stage, etc.
 
Top