CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[320 Years of History]

How many ways does this claim of yours have to be refuted?

Biologically; ". . . denial that human embryos are human beings in the embryonic stage of development cannot be sustained in light of the scientific facts. Modern embryology and human developmental biology establish beyond any doubt that human embryos are wholes and not mere parts, that they are indeed determinate individuals; and that they are organisms that endure throughout the developmental process, that is, both during gestation and after birth." - Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

Legally; "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. - U.S. Code 1841

Your denials have been refuted.

I don't know. I know only that I find none of them sufficiently convincing.

You seem to have an assumption/premise that I give a damn about the existence of any potential human life that is not one for which I'm the cause of it's existence. I don't.

You see I can make my own decision about whether to have an abortion or not, but I am equally capable of refraining from judging others for their choice on the matter. I don't have difficulty keeping my nose out of their personal affairs that don't involve me.

You see I live by the "Golden Rule:" Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. I'm okay with that even though being okay with it means that at times others may make choices I would not make. (or vice versa) That rule will drive whether I would or would not personally permit a fetus I create be aborted. I expect you and everyone else to stay the hell out of my business on that matter just as I keep my nose to myself when they are faced with that decision.

That conservatives/Republican and theists feel and act on their undying need to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it is precisely why I do no participate in any organized religion and why I am a registered independent. I don't want them unbidden intervening in my personal business and I don't want to be in theirs, asked to or not usually.

 

[Stephanie]

A human being becomes a person when a family accepts it and gives it a name.

 

[Fishlore]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very fact that the human soul is considered immortal means that it is non-material and cannot be weighed or measured. In fact, it cannot be detected by science in any way. The immortal human soul created by God may or may not, in fact, exist, but science isn't going to have anything to say about it one way or the other. The Doctor was deluded.

 

[JoeMoma]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

320 said: Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

I can understand why society/governments tend to use the birth event as the official starting point of that person’s life. It is simply an easy to document starting point which makes accounting easy. The day and time of birth are easy to record, and it’s an event that is usually witnessed by several people. Most countries already have systems in place to issue birth certificates to document each person’s birth.

However, to say that there is no human prior to birth is like saying the electronic device I received from Amazon did not become a TV set until I took it outside of the box. Being moved from inside the box to outside the box no more turns the electronics into a TV set than moving the baby from inside the mother to outside the mother makes the baby a person.

Bottom line: If we as a society want to use "birth" as the official start of a person's life because it's an easy event to pinpoint and document, fine! But lets not delude ourselves into believing that there is some transformation that occurs at birth that transforms the baby prior to birth into a living human being. It's simply the bureaucracy of the system.

 

[320 Years of History]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

320 said: Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

I can understand why society/governments tend to use the birth event as the official starting point of that person’s life. It is simply an easy to document starting point which makes accounting easy. The day and time of birth are easy to record, and it’s an event that is usually witnessed by several people. Most countries already have systems in place to issue birth certificates to document each person’s birth.

However, to say that there is no human prior to birth is like saying the electronic device I received from Amazon did not become a TV set until I took it outside of the box. Being moved from inside the box to outside the box no more turns the electronics into a TV set than moving the baby from inside the mother to outside the mother makes the baby a person.

Bottom line: If we as a society want to use "birth" as the official start of a person's life because it's an easy event to pinpoint and document, fine! But lets not delude ourselves into believing that there is some transformation that occurs at birth that transforms the baby prior to birth into a living human being. It's simply the bureaucracy of the system.

I suppose it may seem that way when you try to isolate that statement from all the others I made in that post. But my view on this matter isn't derived from just one remark, but from the totality of the remarks I made. Moreover, what your verisimilitude attempts to do is draw a comparison between the process of creating life and the process of creating an inanimate object. Quite simply, there's just no legitimacy to that sort of comparison because at no point is a television or its parts ever alive.

You see, I'm not rejecting the idea that a sperm and egg are living things because it's obvious that they are indeed alive. I'm rejecting the premise that at the instant of their conjoining they become a person because it's equally obvious that they are not; they are at that point and for months following a proto-person, an embryo or fetus, not a person.

 

[320 Years of History]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The very fact that the human soul is considered immortal means that it is non-material and cannot be weighed or measured. In fact, it cannot be detected by science in any way. The immortal human soul created by God may or may not, in fact, exist, but science isn't going to have anything to say about it one way or the other. The Doctor was deluded.

Red:
Nor will it or should it until science can find the thing and show deductively that it exists and does so transcendently of the viability of the body in which it originally resided.

 

[JoeMoma]

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

320 said: Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

I can understand why society/governments tend to use the birth event as the official starting point of that person’s life. It is simply an easy to document starting point which makes accounting easy. The day and time of birth are easy to record, and it’s an event that is usually witnessed by several people. Most countries already have systems in place to issue birth certificates to document each person’s birth.

However, to say that there is no human prior to birth is like saying the electronic device I received from Amazon did not become a TV set until I took it outside of the box. Being moved from inside the box to outside the box no more turns the electronics into a TV set than moving the baby from inside the mother to outside the mother makes the baby a person.

Bottom line: If we as a society want to use "birth" as the official start of a person's life because it's an easy event to pinpoint and document, fine! But lets not delude ourselves into believing that there is some transformation that occurs at birth that transforms the baby prior to birth into a living human being. It's simply the bureaucracy of the system.

I suppose it may seem that way when you try to isolate that statement from all the others I made in that post. But my view on this matter isn't derived from just one remark, but from the totality of the remarks I made. Moreover, what your verisimilitude attempts to do is draw a comparison between the process of creating life and the process of creating an inanimate object. Quite simply, there's just no legitimacy to that sort of comparison because at no point is a television or its parts ever alive.

You see, I'm not rejecting the idea that a sperm and egg are living things because it's obvious that they are indeed alive. I'm rejecting the premise that at the instant of their conjoining they become a person because it's equally obvious that they are not; they are at that point and for months following a proto-person, an embryo or fetus, not a person.

320:
Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

320:I suppose it may seem that way when you try to isolate that statement from all the others I made in that post.
The logic of the statement isolates it from the others. Before birth there is no human and after birth there is according to your statement. So, what is it exactly that occurs at birth that makes the organism a human.

Does someone cease to be human if he goes on life support for a few hours to become human again when he no longer needs the life support?

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

320 said: Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

I can understand why society/governments tend to use the birth event as the official starting point of that person’s life. It is simply an easy to document starting point which makes accounting easy. The day and time of birth are easy to record, and it’s an event that is usually witnessed by several people. Most countries already have systems in place to issue birth certificates to document each person’s birth.

However, to say that there is no human prior to birth is like saying the electronic device I received from Amazon did not become a TV set until I took it outside of the box. Being moved from inside the box to outside the box no more turns the electronics into a TV set than moving the baby from inside the mother to outside the mother makes the baby a person.

Bottom line: If we as a society want to use "birth" as the official start of a person's life because it's an easy event to pinpoint and document, fine! But lets not delude ourselves into believing that there is some transformation that occurs at birth that transforms the baby prior to birth into a living human being. It's simply the bureaucracy of the system.

I suppose it may seem that way when you try to isolate that statement from all the others I made in that post. But my view on this matter isn't derived from just one remark, but from the totality of the remarks I made. Moreover, what your verisimilitude attempts to do is draw a comparison between the process of creating life and the process of creating an inanimate object. Quite simply, there's just no legitimacy to that sort of comparison because at no point is a television or its parts ever alive.

You see, I'm not rejecting the idea that a sperm and egg are living things because it's obvious that they are indeed alive. I'm rejecting the premise that at the instant of their conjoining they become a person because it's equally obvious that they are not; they are at that point and for months following a proto-person, an embryo or fetus, not a person.

320:
Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.

320:I suppose it may seem that way when you try to isolate that statement from all the others I made in that post.
The logic of the statement isolates it from the others. Before birth there is no human and after birth there is according to your statement. So, what is it exactly that occurs at birth that makes the organism a human.

Does someone cease to be human if he goes on life support for a few hours to become human again when he no longer needs the life support?

Red:
The act/process of birth itself is what occurs that makes the organism a human. That is a singular and defining event in the overall process of being human. Death is the singular defining event that marks the end of personhood. Both events occur once and only once in the course of a life and they are final and irreversible.

I know some folks will immediately upon reading the last sentence above think of so-called "near death" experiences. Those are, however, exactly that, near death, but not death. Their temporary nature is what shows them to be not death.

Blue:
That's an interesting question. I didn't think you'd go there, but you did, so I'll address it.

The process by which humanness ends isn't the same as, nor is it the reverse of, that by which it begins, so no, going onto life support does not bring about the end of personhood. If a person is born and placed on life support systems, it is nonetheless a person. I'm perfectly find with considering the point of birth as being that point at which a fetus emerges from the womb; how or when it emerges -- "naturally" or by contrivance, early or late -- does not matter for me. It's emergence marks the beginning of its personhood and from that point forward, I and the rest of society have an obligation to regard it as such and accord it all the rights and privileges appertaining to personhood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Slaves were treated and recognized as living human beings in America. They were not, however, equal under the Constitution with other humans in that day and age. Chuz makes definitions about slavery and person hood that defy traditional terms and understandings and good logic. That is your right, but you are absolutely wrong. The 3/5 political trade off on Representation is an example that recognizes slaves' political inferiority but in no way is a reflection on the legitimacy of their humanity and person hood. A fetus under the law has never been given the definition of a living person. Chuz's suggestion above would have been treated as bizarre back then as it is today.

 

[Chuz Life]

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

Fallacy of false derivative analogy. They were considered persons. Their rights as humans were being debated, not their personhood.

You are wrong about that. "Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." - Supreme Court Decision Dred Scott They were not recognized as "persons" equal to themselves under our Constitution.

No, you don't get to move the goal posts.

The argument was not about the equality of persons, but rather about personhood.

So try again.

It is a historical fact that slaves were not recognized or treated as persons.

It wasn't until 1787 that they were even considered to be 3/5th of a person for the purposes of voting and taxes. That was the closest they got to any legal recognition of their personhood at that time.

It should have been obvious to you in my original post - that the question of personhood is also a question of equality.

That's what the Constitution says and that's why I pointed it out that it is "INCLUSIVE" and not exclusive in its context.

Of course slaves were treated as living human beings with souls.

Funny, I thought they were treated like animals, chattel and property. What do you have to support your claim that they were treated as "human beings with souls?"

Also, as a sidebar, do you have any proof that souls actually exist? I've been kind of looking for someone (anyone) who has proof that souls exist.

They (slaves) were not, however, equal under the Constitution with other humans in that day and age.

Yes. I'm pretty sure I already said that.

You make definitions about slavery and person hood that defy traditional terms and understandings.

I made nothing of the sort.

In fact, when and where any definitions were used, they are linked to their source- so readers can see the source for themselves.

That is your right, but you are absolutely wrong.

You are trying to build on a false premise about what you think I posted instead of what I actually did post and link to.

A fetus was never the equivalent of a slave or a free human being.

Strawman Noted.

Cite the post where I have ever claimed that they were seen as the "equivalent" one to the other in our past.

Your suggestion today would have been treated as bizarre back then as it is today.

Appeal to Ridicule Noted.

 

[Chuz Life]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz's examples fall flat. Slaves were recognized as humans, fetuses are not.

 

[Valerie]

there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...




"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^^ that ^^^

 

[FA_Q2]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

My daughter was born (induced delivery) very early. Over six weeks early to be specific. She was not breathing when she was delivered and it was a long few minutes before we were able to coax her to draw her first breath.

I reject your claim that she was not a person before that first breath. She was my daughter, a human being and a person - long before that first breath.

Also, If your claim is that a person is not a person until they draw their first breath. . . what then is the basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws? Not even viability is required for a murder charge under those laws.

Such laws are nothing more than nonsense.

Law is not always consistent nor do they always make sense. Laws that charge for 2 deaths in the case of

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

First off, corporations are not people and for one to claim rationality there is no reason to bring that up in this conversation. CU did not make corporations people or even deem it so - it deemed that people did not lose the rights of free speech when they came together and formed a corporation.

Also, as already mentioned, the 'bookkeeping' that governments do does not really have any rational place in this debate as well. The date that the government records is meaningless outside of bureaucratic needs.

As far as a 'proto person' and a person I am interested on why birth itself is the delineating factor here. Looking at this from a rational standpoint, there is quite literally no difference in the 'person' in question one second before birth and one after other than location. That is the sole difference. I find that, IMHO, a very irrational basis for the idea of person hood. It is simply convenience, not rational.

I personally ascribe to the Neurological view myself - the mind is the one defining thing that makes humans distinct from other life on the planet. The change here is one of functionality of the brain rather than that of location and I find that a much more rational idea to base person hood on than location in my opinion. Of course, this debate really is an exploration into the legality of abortion otherwise there is little to no reason to bother with defining the exact point that 'person hood' begins. In that context, I think it is important to recognize that there is a balancing act here in the rights of those that are developing and those that are carrying the child. Even Roe recognized that there is an interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. Partial birth abortions are illegal in most places because of that recognition as they should be (medical reasons not withstanding).

 

[FA_Q2]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

I do not follow what you are asking here.

The constitution does not say anything at all about what point a person is a person or should have gained rights. All it states is that all people have inherent rights.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz's examples fall flat. Slaves were recognized as humans, fetuses are not.

Human beings in the fetal stage of their life are too recognized as human beings. They are recognized as such by our fetal Homicide laws and even by our United States Patent laws which forbid patients on human beings.

 

[Chuz Life]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

I do not follow what you are asking here.

The constitution does not say anything at all about what point a person is a person or should have gained rights. All it states is that all people have inherent rights.

You are correct in that our Constitution doesn't say when a person's rights should begin. However it does say that all persons are equally entitled.

So, that is a pretty inclusive idea. Isn't it? And as such, it leaves no room for discrimination.

Right?

Like you said. . . It says ALL people.

So, writing laws and definitions to EXCLUDE any group of human beings would be contrary to what the Constitution says.

Correct?

 

[FA_Q2]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

I do not follow what you are asking here.

The constitution does not say anything at all about what point a person is a person or should have gained rights. All it states is that all people have inherent rights.

You are correct in that our Constitution doesn't say when a person's rights should begin. However it does say that all persons are equally entitled.

So, that is a pretty inclusive ideal. Isn't it? And as such, it leaves no room for discrimination.

Right?

Like you said. . . It says ALL people.

So, writing laws and definitions to EXCLUDE any group of human beings would be contrary to what the Constitution says.

Correct?

Any group of PEOPLE, yes. That is why these debates on abortion always turn to 'person hood' as that is the constitutinal basis that some want to outlaw abortion with. It is irrelevant if the 'person' is not defined as at conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...




"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.