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

[MarathonMike]

At the very early stages of development, abortionists have a case for 'non-personhood'. If it's pre-heartbeat, and pre-functional brain, you have a case. Not much of one, but I can at least see your perspective during that early stage of development. But I am reading that there are abortionists who believe that even AFTER delivery, the child is not a person because it hasn't drawn a breath. Are you serious, that meaningless technicality gives you the right to stab a baby in the head because it hasn't yet drawn it's first breath of air? All that I am asking is that you really think about what you are saying. Don't cite law, or hide behind vague terms. That baby has a right to life.

 

[320 Years of History]

Before I reply to specific remarks you made, let me be clear: I'm not trying to change your mind and I can assure you that you won't change mine. So as far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion for the sake of having the discussion and sharing ideas and thoughts, sort of as folks might do in the process of getting to know one another.

Not all "pro-lifers" would give the parents a pass on their part in their child's death via an illegal abortion.

I don't agree that is discretionary. Any "pro-lifer" who thinks that we can recognize the personhood of children in the womb and NOT have legal consequences for anyone who kills one in a criminal act (like an illegal abortion) is not being rational.

You really should consider getting your facts straight before you make these kinds of assumptions. . . especially about someone like me who is not the typical "pro-lifer."

The set of remarks above make it clear to me that your and the position of the so-called mainstream conservative and pro-life movement aren't the same things. I didn't earlier notice the nature and extent of the distinction that exists between theirs and your position.

I appreciate your having clarified your position for me and drawn the line between it and the mainstream position which, given this past week's news, takes exception with the idea that the expectant mother who is party to an abortion should not be viewed as an accessory to murder and treated accordingly. To the extent that you carry the penal extants accruing from murdering a fetus, I recognize you are not among the "have their cake and eat it too" folks who comprise the "mainstream" of the pro-life movement.

While I do not agree with what you seek to achieve as a pro-lifer, and I will not support it, I assert that that part of your position has integrity. Kudos. I have yet to any conservative politician who has the balls to own the full scope of what it means to deem a fetus a person.

(I don't know if you are a conservative, only that you are a pro-lifer.)

Not only do some people call themselves "pro-abortion" our dictionaries already recognize and define the term as well. A person who is a proponent on gay marriage is considered to be "pro-gay marriage." A person who is a proponent for legalized drugs is called - "pro-drug." Same goes for the "pro-gun" crowd, etc. So, why the double standard for proponents for legalized abortion?

With regard to the term "pro-abortion" and its own specific context:
Because, at least for now, the proponents of legalized abortion have already won that battle. Abortion is legal. Thus their current charge is to preserve the right to choose or not choose to have an abortion; their fight is also to leave the ethical/moral decisions, choices, pertaining to whether one has the procedure performed, left to the individuals who are faced with whatever life circumstances inspire them to consider undergoing it. Calling them "pro-abortion" would be acceptable were the fight one over which the discussion is whether abortion is legal or not, but that is not the nature of the battle at this time.

Because it simply is not so that pro-choice folks necessarily favor or prefer anyone using abortion as a means of birth control. There are literally millions of pro-choice people who expressly would not choose abortion as their means of managing an unwanted pregnancy.

Because calling someone who says, "I won't have an abortion, but I respect that is my choice not yours, and vice versa when it comes to your having to make a decision in that regard," is to connote that they think/espouse/advocate for something that person may not.

With regard to your personally using that lingo:
Because the natural extension of the integrity you've articulated as I noted above in this post, a level of integrity that demands I regard your remarks as personal to you and not reflective of the position of a whole movement, also requires that you "fairly present in all material respects" the pro-choice position without painting it, however subtly, as its advocating for something that currently it does not.

Note:
I used the "fairly present" language largely because I'm a CPA and see the theme/spirit of that phrase as being applicable to far more than just accountancy.

That's funny because you haven't actually discussed the details of what it takes to qualify for "personhood" yet.

I made that very clear in one of my earlier posts. My sole qualification in order to obtain personhood status is one's live emergence from the womb. I don't care when that event occurs, when it does, the "thing" that emerges alive becomes a person.

Do you hold that view for any other forms of child molestation?

I don't consider abortion as child molestation because I don't consider an unborn fetus to be a person, so I cannot and will not answer your question as it's posed.

And that is why the "anti-choice" label that pro-aborts use is such a farce. Whether there are to be legal consequences for aborting a child or not. . . (as you said above) people would still be free to make their own choices every day.

See above.

Same response as earlier: "I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement"

You clearly do. You also clearly did not understand my remarks about not giving a damn over whether it's problematic or not. Your personal position on what should be the legal consequences of one's having an abortion -- that is that you think there should be legal punishments for doing so -- are not problematic, but yours is not the position of the "mainstream" pro-choice movement.

I don't find there to be a philosophical/rational problem with your personal stance on the matter. I do have a problem with your wanting others to face punishment for theirs. And yes, the whole basis for the difference in yours and my differing legal positions has to do with what you and I see as the defining point of personhood's coming to be just that. That's why I know you and I, at the end of the day will never agree on the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I'm not ever going to be convinced that an unborn baby is a person due all the rights appertaining to a born baby, and you are not going to ever be convinced otherwise.

 

[alang1216]

There's no way around it. Most of what happens during pregnancy has happened by month 8.

I'm pro-choice but I will agree that by 8 months you're dealing with a person and the only reason to terminate that person is to save the life of the mother. If she hasn't made her choice by then, she missed the boat.

I do believe that somewhere between conception and 8 months there is an arbitrary line when the developing fetus becomes a person. I'm not sure where that is but I'm certain a fertilized egg is NOT a person.

Though I'm pro-choice but I'm also anti-abortion. I like the way Bill Clinton put it, abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

 

[Chuz Life]

Before I reply to specific remarks you made, let me be clear: I'm not trying to change your mind and I can assure you that you won't change mine. So as far as I'm concerned, this is a discussion for the sake of having the discussion and sharing ideas and thoughts, sort of as folks might do in the process of getting to know one another.

Like I have posted before. I don't believe this issue will be resolved over the internet. My belief is that the best chance that we have to get the Supreme Court to revisit Roe will come via the appeals to the criminal convictions of those charged under our Fetal Homicide Laws.

So Far, the SCOUTS has declined to take up any of those challenges to Roe. However, the pressure on the Court is only going to increase as the numbers of convictions climb.

I appreciate your having clarified your position for me and drawn the line between it and the mainstream position which, given this past week's news, takes exception with the idea that the expectant mother who is party to an abortion should not be viewed as an accessory to murder and treated accordingly. To the extent that you carry the penal extants accruing from murdering a fetus, I recognize you are not among the "have their cake and eat it too" folks who comprise the "mainstream" of the pro-life movement.

That is precisely one of the reasons why I prefer the moniker "anti-abortion" to "pro life."

While I do not agree with what you seek to achieve as a pro-lifer, and I will not support it, I assert that that part of your position has integrity. Kudos. I have yet to any conservative politician who has the balls to own the full scope of what it means to deem a fetus a person.

I have found others who feel the same as I do - even on this site. Specifically in the "Carson defends Trump's comment on abortion" threads.

(I don't know if you are a conservative, only that you are a pro-lifer.)

Anti-abortion independent, realist. . . buy why split hairs?

Not only do some people call themselves "pro-abortion" our dictionaries already recognize and define the term as well. A person who is a proponent on gay marriage is considered to be "pro-gay marriage." A person who is a proponent for legalized drugs is called - "pro-drug." Same goes for the "pro-gun" crowd, etc. So, why the double standard for proponents for legalized abortion?

<long rant on labels omitted for brevity>

We will have to agree to disagree on that.

That's funny because you haven't actually discussed the details of what it takes to qualify for "personhood" yet.

I made that very clear in one of my earlier posts. My sole qualification in order to obtain personhood status is one's live emergence from the womb. I don't care when that event occurs, when it does, the "thing" that emerges alive becomes a person.

In accordance with the Constitution (14th amendment,) that is the definition for what a "citizen" is. Not a person.

Do you hold that view for any other forms of child molestation?

I don't consider abortion as child molestation because I don't consider an unborn fetus to be a person, so I cannot and will not answer your question as it's posed.

That's not what I asked you. You essentially said that abortions are none of my business and if I don't like abortions, I shouldn't have one.

So, my question (rephrased) is this.

"Do you take that same approach to any other violations of children?"

Like the violations of children who ARE born?

Why are their molestations and killings any of MY (society's) business? Why shouldn't your same approach of "if you don't like it don't do it" apply to any violations of them?

And that is why the "anti-choice" label that pro-aborts use is such a farce. Whether there are to be legal consequences for aborting a child or not. . . (as you said above) people would still be free to make their own choices every day.

See above.

Same response as earlier: "I reject the notion that the idea of abortions being murders is something that can simply be considered, argued against and possibly rejected because (as you said) it's just too problematic for the rest of us (Society) to implement"

You clearly do. You also clearly did not understand my remarks about not giving a damn over whether it's problematic or not. Your personal position on what should be the legal consequences of one's having an abortion -- that is that you think there should be legal punishments for doing so -- are not problematic, but yours is not the position of the "mainstream" pro-choice movement.

I hope not.

I don't find there to be a philosophical/rational problem with your personal stance on the matter. I do have a problem with your wanting others to face punishment for theirs.

We don't live in a society where each and every one of us gets to decide for ourselves who is and who is not a "person." Our lawmakers and courts make that determination. All I have (as well as what everyone else has) is the 1st Amendment right to speak my views on it , to assemble and to petition the government for redress.

I reject the notion that a question for justice and personhood recognition is tantamount to a desire to punish others who don't share my views.

As you stated yourself, earlier. . . the majority of pro-lifers don't even seek to PUNISH women who have abortions in a setting where abortions have been deemed to be murders.

Punishment is simply not the goal. It is an unpleasant aspect to banning abortions for sure. . . but punishment is not the "goal."

And yes, the whole basis for the difference in yours and my differing legal positions has to do with what you and I see as the defining point of personhood's coming to be just that. That's why I know you and I, at the end of the day will never agree on the pro-choice/pro-life debate. I'm not ever going to be convinced that an unborn baby is a person due all the rights appertaining to a born baby, and you are not going to ever be convinced otherwise.

I gave up on trying to convince others that they should adopt my views, decades ago. I have learned to settle with presenting my points of view and the basis for my views in a way that (I hope) readers can understand and appreciate - even if they don't adopt them.

 

[Chuz Life]

Chuz, SCOTUS in rulings as noted above on Roe disagree with you in terms of law.

Well that didn't age well.

Did it.

 

[Sparker]

Brain dead patients are routinely disconnected from life support and allowed to die. Personhood starts in the brain, but is not quite all of personhood. A fetus is dependent on the mother. A fetus birthed prematurely will never be as developed as a full term baby. As life becomes harder and more hazardous with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, hospital care becoming unaffordable, etc., preemies will be more likely to die young or be too disabled for physical labor. We may return to the ancient standard of waiting a month to see if a baby survives. The population becoming more agricultural may void the whole abortion debate as most families want more kids for farm work. Many families will face hard choices of parenting disabled kids.

 

[Hafar1014]

Any answer is going to be arbitrary and apply different standards. So then
A person must be self aware that they are a person. Humans cant do that until 6 months after birth. Infants live as part of the mothers psychology. See the work of Fred Pine, Annie Bergman, and Margret Mahler. I realise many of you srent familiar with child development at this level.

So one could argue that abortions are OK 6 months after birth. I wouldnt. Law defines a person as soon is birth occurs. That includes premature births.

I would also argue that a womans body is her property and the fetus is connected to her body and consequently her property as well.
Now can one do whatever they want with their property? No.

So some where in this mess is a solution few will agree with.

Its going to be time limit for abortion on demand. Thats what it comes down to.

16 weeks works for me even 20. Then a specific reason is required.

OK problem solved

 

[Chuz Life]

I necroed this thread and poll (my first on USMB) because the point I tried to make here (that the definition of personhood should be inclusive) is made more explicitly in this (more recent) thread about personhood.

Please answer the question in the OP.

I understand everyone has their own ideas about on what a person is and when it should begin.

But that is not what this thread is about!

Should the definition be "INCLUSIVE or EXCLUSIVE?"

Zone1 Thread 'A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, breathe on their own, feel pain, to ever become self-aware, etc. is a "person."'

Aug 8, 2025

A child afflicted with anencephalia, with no ability to think, no ability to breathe on their own, no ability to feel pain, no ability to ever become self-aware, etc. is a never-the-less a "person."

• Chuz Life
• Replies: 160
• Forum: Clean Debate Zone

 

[ding]

Personhood is important and relevant to many debates because we are a nation governed by laws with the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land and the constitutional basis for any other laws that are passed.

The word person is mentioned several times in our Constitution.

The 5th Amendment says; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note that the 5th Amendment uses the word "person" and not "citizen" in it's wording. That's because not all "persons" are citizens of the United States but all "persons" within the United States are entitled to this right.

Personhood Matters.

The 14th Amendment also mentions personhood and it says; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Please pay close attention to the distinction the 14th Amendment is making between "citizens" (persons born or naturalized) and "persons" who are not "citizens" but have a right to their life, liberty, property, due process and the equal protection of our laws. . . be they a "citizen" or not.

That is what the Constitution says and that's why "personhood" matters.

It is clear and irrefutable that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, it was not applied fairly nor equally to all "persons" in the United States. Slavery was still legal and was being upheld by our courts and women did not have equal rights to men.

Those injustices have been corrected over time and largely so because it is inarguable that women and African Americans are human beings. They are "persons."

The legal definition for what a natural person is - is simply "a human being."

That is a fairly inclusive definition. Is it not?

Likewise for the sections of the Constitution quoted above. Those are fairly inclusive statements too. Aren't they?

I would like for the discussions in this thread to stay close to the quotes and definitions above. This is not simply about abortion as most people agree that abortion can be debated either way. . . whether a prenatal child in the womb is legally recognized as a "person" or not.

Personhood is also an issue for illegal aliens and their rights while in the U.S. for example.

Conception