• 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

Sentura

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

not necessarily. granted, there are theories about not being breastfed leading to mental instability, but ultimately i don't think it would be impossible for an infant to survive in the wild. after all, some animals seems to be doing just fine.

it's a question about how much is written in instinctive instructions.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
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?

When an infant is born, anyone can feed it or care for it. It's life is not physically connected to a host body.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
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.

The number of spontaneous abortions is higher than the number of induced abortions.

And it is simply nature that ensures the high number of spontaneous abortions, not only in us but in other animals as well.

This simple fact of nature makes nonsense of the moral prohibition of abortion.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
When it becomes an entity separate from its host. So, at birth.

Bingo. Life may start earlier than that, I guess, but this is definitely the most simple answer, and I think that it would be the most beneficial for all parties legally.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
not necessarily. granted, there are theories about not being breastfed leading to mental instability, but ultimately i don't think it would be impossible for an infant to survive in the wild. after all, some animals seems to be doing just fine.

it's a question about how much is written in instinctive instructions.

I just meant for sustenance. Even infants that survive in the wild somehow would need nourishment provided by another being. That is to say, they would not be able to feed themselves and so would be reliant on a host.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Bingo. Life may start earlier than that, I guess, but this is definitely the most simple answer, and I think that it would be the most beneficial for all parties legally.

So the murder of a pregnant woman carrying a 38-week-old fetus is only one murder?
 

heart

heart on fire
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
8,456
I just meant for sustenance. Even infants that survive in the wild somehow would need nourishment provided by another being. That is to say, they would not be able to feed themselves and so would be reliant on a host.

They digest their own food though. So it is not as strictly parasitic (for lack of a better word) as being in the womb and dependent on the mother's body to digest the food, oxygenate the blood and clear the wastes away. Their internal systems become an independently operating entity.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
Does disease make nonsense of the moral prohibition of murder? :huh:

Do I strike you as the kind of person who hides what he thinks?
The :doh: is the "Doh" expression - it's the feeling you get when someone points out something you should have thought of before. Your analogy was spot-on and perfectly applicable. Whoever it was that you responded to definitely smacked their forehead when they read your reply.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Does disease make nonsense of the moral prohibition of murder? :huh:

The vast numbers of spontaneous abortions are certainly not a disease.

In fact the vast numbers of spontaneous abortions are another sign of the fecundity of nature.

It is nature itself that provides a huge oversupply of fertilized ova.

And nature does this right throughout the animal kingdom.

So once again natural science shows that religion is based on ignorance and superstition and the lust for temporal power.
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
Do I strike you as the kind of person who hides what he thinks?
The :doh: is the "Doh" expression - it's the feeling you get when someone points out something you should have thought of before. Your analogy was spot-on and perfectly applicable. Whoever it was that you responded to definitely smacked their forehead when they read your reply.

i think victor would be much more prone to cutting off limbs than to smack himself on the forehead.
 

Into It

New member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
664
MBTI Type
ENFP
So the murder of a pregnant woman carrying a 38-week-old fetus is only one murder?

That's a difficult question to answer.

The argument of "when a person becomes a person" will never be settled - even if we could pinpoint the moment that "life" begins - because people will always be on both sides of the debate with decent points. In light of this, I do not think that the problem is being solved the correct way. I don't think it's being solved at all, actually.

Since this is a very complicated issue, I will put morality to the side for now and deal only with legal ramifications if you will allow me. T

The question we should try to answer is not "when a person becomes a person." The definition of a person will waver, and the interpretations become subjective. The question we should ask is much simpler.

"How should we go about solving issues that need to be solved?"
In the instance you suggested, perhaps it would be double murder.
But if the mother was dying, and the only way to stop her death would be to kill the fetus, the government should not interfere with doctors assisting in this "murder." In short, they should be protected in some sense, but a fetus should not have all of the rights of all of our working, tax-paying citizens.

The murder of a man is "bad," unless he is about to kill you. In that case, it is "decent." Similarly, the deaths of fetuses in different circumstances should be treated differently. There's no reason to create some huge, overarching rules that must be followed in all cases. Reality is complex, and so should the law be.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Dammit, I just typed up a response and god knows where it went! In a nutshell, as a pragmatist, I am sympathetic to this position.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
i think victor would be much more prone to cutting off limbs than to smack himself on the forehead.

It's true, I had to smack myself on the forehead to wake myself from the MBTI scam.

But I have had practice.

As I had to smack myself on the forehead to wake myself from religious belief.

But I was helped by the Ryan Report, the Report of the Ireland Commission into Child Abuse.

And it is not only Religious who take advantage of the vulnerability and good nature of children, but Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers take advantage of the good nature of the gullible.

They tell me there is a sucker born every minute.

And that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless becomes as a little child.

Suffer the little children to come unto me - and they do.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
They digest their own food though. So it is not as strictly parasitic (for lack of a better word) as being in the womb and dependent on the mother's body to digest the food, oxygenate the blood and clear the wastes away. Their internal systems become an independently operating entity.

Are Siamese twins not two, distinct persons? The "self-aware" standard seems the best criteria in which to judge "personhood," though infants and extremely retarded people are certainly examples of human life and therefore equally entitled to the right to live (to hell with Peter Singer).
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Are Siamese twins not two, distinct persons? The "self-aware" standard seems the best criteria in which to judge "personhood," though infants and extremely retarded people are certainly examples of human life and therefore equally entitled to the right to live (to hell with Peter Singer).

Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?

Yes.
No.
Rights are associated with human life, not personhood; otherwise, relatively intelligent non-human animals would have more rights than infants or the severely retarded (hence my Peter Singer reference).
 

Sentura

Phoenix Incarnate
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
750
MBTI Type
ENXP
Enneagram
1w9
Does this mean that there are members of our species that have a right to life that aren't really persons? Is the definition of "person" inadequate?

yes, very. "being" would be more appropiate, in the sense that it would also encompass animals. this of course would not work legally, because law is obnoxious.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Yes.
No.
Rights are associated with human life, not personhood; otherwise, relatively intelligent non-human animals would have more rights than infants or the severely retarded (hence my Peter Singer reference).

yes, very. "being" would be more appropiate, in the sense that it would also encompass animals. this of course would not work legally, because law is obnoxious.

Fair enough, can we set aside the rights issue and go back to the beginning?

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?
 
Top