Life begins at conception - when does personhood?

[eleanorigby]

Originally Posted by Fish

The point of abortion [legal or otherwise] is that it is a choice, one of many a pregnant woman must make. Her options, in order of difficulty and cost, are

• Have a baby, raise the child, and be a mother for 18+ years. This is a huge, vast, life-changing decision, constituting hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, 24-hour-a-day vigilance, and legal culpability.
• Adopt the baby out. This still requires the mother to pay to have the child, and jump through other hoops to make the baby available.
• Have an abortion. This can be the least expensive and least time-intensive solution, depending on whether the mother chooses a ... erm, home remedy or a professional, although it is the most emotionally difficult and physically painful.
• Disrupt the pregnancy early. This would be something like the so-called "morning after" pill.
• Not get pregnant. I realize this isn't an option for someone who's already pregnant, but it is an option for women, so let's consider various methods of birth control (abstinence, condoms, the Pill, etc). This is cheapest and easiest.

So many attacks on abortion start by making the bottom items on the list harder. They deprive teens of sex education, protest at teaching them about birth control in any form except abstinence, refuse to permit a morning-after pill, and place high hurdles for getting abortions. This makes no sense, because any hurdle less than 18+ years and half a million dollars is still cheaper than raising kids. Women will have abortions, period, full stop, no argument.

Why don't we instead offer a) education for not getting pregnant, b) assistance for actually having children, and c) help women choose adoption? All of these would reduce the number of abortions significantly. Instead of making anti-abortion walls higher, make the other walls lower.

QFT. Well said, Fish!

Raising the price or taxing later abortions would only incentivize them as has been said. As it is, preventive medicine is not reimbursed at anything near the rate that invasive, almost left it too late procedures in all medicine.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

Besides, what do you think a doctor is going to do? Perform a simple procedure at 20 weeks for $Y, or put off the procedure until 24 weeks and get $ZZ?

If the price is to increase, it'll be because the government has levied a fee, not because doctors raise their price.

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

Don't you think that medical care should be simpler, not more complicated?

You mean my idea is more complicated than determining when a human can be called a person? Personhood is a continuum and regulations carved in stone are simplistic and inappropriate.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I meant a sliding scale of costs- day one is cheaper/more subsidized than day two and so forth...

No, NinetyWt is correct. Assuming the goal is to reduce later-term abortions, the correct way to rig the incentives is by a flat-rate reimbursement for all abortions, irrespective of time, trimester, and complexity. This gives doctors every incentive to perform the abortions early, while the profit margins are best. The time and complexity for the procedure are as low as they're ever going to be. The patient already has an incentive to decide as early as possible, because of the cost of prenatal care.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

If the price is to increase, it'll be because the government has levied a fee, not because doctors raise their price.

Call it a fee, or call it a tax — if it's less than the cost of childcare, you're not stopping a single abortion. Most women will simply choose the cheaper home-remedy abortions rather than the monitored, regulated professionally-provided ones. What're you going to do, put RFID chips on every vagina?

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

The patient already has an incentive to decide as early as possible, because of the cost of prenatal care.

If those incentives are indeed compelling then this debate shouldn't even be taken seriously. If those incentives are indeed compelling, there wouldn't exist a serious problem of women getting abortions past the point where personhood has been achieved anyway.

...and I don't think there is. As far as I'm concerned, this is all purely speculation for the sake of fun. I don't think there is an abortion problem that begs an answer to the question of personhood.

Originally Posted by Fish

Call it a fee, or call it a tax — if it's less than the cost of childcare, you're not stopping a single abortion.

the goal isn't to stop a single abortion. It's to get them to happen sooner.

[eleanorigby]

Not just the cost of prenatal care, but the emotional toll. Very few sadistic women out there who would delay their abortion. More than a few sadistic churches etc that will do all they can to delay the woman's choice. We had a case a many years ago--thank god I was not involved. 12 year old impregnated by her stepfather. "Dad" and "Mom" (quotes there to convey irony) delayed bringing her in so that she couldn't have an AB. She was home-schooled and not out in the public eye much.

Gosh but their sanctity of life principles shone through that. Really walked the walk there.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by eleanorigby

Not just the cost of prenatal care, but the emotional toll. Very few sadistic women out there who would delay their abortion.

Even more of a reason to not worry about jacking up the cost of superfluously delayed abortions.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

You mean my idea is more complicated than determining when a human can be called a person?

The implementation of your idea would be costly and would serve little purpose.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

As far as I'm concerned, this is all purely speculation for the sake of fun.

Aye, there's the rub. It's a philisopical exercise for you, it's my life as a (potentially pregnant) woman for me.

[jali]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

When I said "late-term" I didn't mean according to any third trimester, set definition for "late-term". I meant a sliding scale of costs- day one is cheaper/more subsidized than day two and so forth- with exceptions taken for medical problems and whatnot, sure.

What was the date of your last period?
I dunno.

When did you conceive?
We have sex every day. I dunno.

What day is day one in this case?

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

The implementation of your idea would be costly and would serve little purpose.

I agree that it serves little purpose, because I don't think women have serious problems with unnecessarily late abortions. just like I think defining when personhood begins serves little purpose. I disagree that it would be costly, because I don't really think women need extra incentives.

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

Aye, there's the rub. It's a philisopical exercise for you, it's my life as a (potentially pregnant) woman for me.

I agree that it doesn't have a whole lot of relevance in my life, but I am very much trying to avoid bringing philosophy into the debate.

Originally Posted by jali

What day is day one in this case?

Pssssh I dunno. I'm sure professionals can come up with a reasonable estimate.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Even more of a reason to not worry about jacking up the cost of superfluously delayed abortions.

Look at what you're proposing. At a certain stage, it's possible to determine that the child will not be viable. A mother can either have the abortion, or have the baby and watch it die, or have the baby and watch it die slowly and expensively over the course of a year. That last method could flush $50,000–$150,000 down the drain, enriching doctors unnecessarily and burdening insurance companies, for the same end result (viz, one dead baby). The only question is whether you'll get that result cheaply, or dearly.

Prenatal care: $0 to $2000
Cesarian: $0 to $9000
Vaginal delivery: $0 to $9000
Raising child for 1 year: up to $12000
Medical care for a sickly infant: astronomical

First-tri abortion: $400
Week 13-14: $500
Week 15-16: $600

Some women already have good health insurance, which covers all of the above — the prenatal care, the delivery, or the abortion itself. (Most private insurance actually reimburses better than Medicaid, to the point where some abortion clinics no longer take it. Medicaid, I'm told, doesn't even reimburse many abortions at or above the cost to perform them.) For those women, their cost is roughly equal no matter what they choose; their cost is basically the cost of the insurance premiums. For the insurance company, early abortion is an easy choice; it reduces their overall expenses enormously.

For women who depend on charity and public funding, they have virtually no incentive to delay their choice. Every week they wait adds more expense. What need is there to provide even more disincentive?

P.S. The "day one" is established by the costly prenatal care we're looking at. An ultrasound gives the doctor an approximate fetal length and estimated weight. He consults a chart and says "statistically, this falls into a confidence interval for X weeks of growth." In other words, scaling abortion costs by trimester means you have to charge the mother money in order to find out how much money to charge her.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

What need is there to provide even more disincentive?

I'm not aware of any. What need is there to define when personhood begins? Assuming there was a need, for we're addressing this question which will ultimately limit availability of abortions, I'd rather discourage than regulate.

[Fish]

As far as I know, there is no "need" to define personhood except that the OP was curious and wished to enter a philosophical debate. If you're not interested in bringing philosophy into a philosophical debate, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

As far as I know, there is no "need" to define personhood except that the OP was curious and wished to enter a philosophical debate. If you're not interested in bringing philosophy into a philosophical debate, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

"taxing" abortions is an idea I derived from my response to the OP's philosophical question: I have no idea when personhood begins, so I'd rather discourage later abortions than regulate them. I brought my philosophy and attempted to move on because I assumed the underlying topic was abortion.

[Pere]

Defining personhood is a philosophical question, but that doesn't mean it's abstruse and academic. Taken seriously, philosophy can and should inform all kinds of practical choices, for individuals and societies. Even if it doesn't amount to a practical difference in the specific case of legal abortion (as I said above, I uphold the right to choose across the range where I think personhood, by reasonable definition, must begin), there are other places where a coherent understanding of what makes us people can be applied. Many of the horrors of history were enabled by one set of humans defining another out of their humanity. It's not an inconsequential question.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I don't think there's a nice, clean dividing line between full-fledged person and blob of cells with human DNA. I think any solution to the abortion debate that attempts to find a line will fall short.

That's why I approached the question as looking for a plausible range, rather than a bright line. We can't now say exactly when a person begins, but we can make reasonable safe statements about when we can consider that it hasn't happened yet, and--after a margin--when we can consider that it has. (I think there's a similar range of uncertainty at the end boundary, too; some people have been resuscitated after reaching brain states once defined as dead.)

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Like the brainwave crowd- I don't like that the only thing preserving my human dignity is my magical mystical brainwaves imbuing me with transcendental 'personhood'. Some humans have brainwaves, some don't.

So what does make you a person, in your view?

[Fish]

If the debate were framed as, "How should the government define personhood?" we could contemplate the effects this should have upon abortion law and full voting-rights citizenship (and, indeed, upon corporate law and political donations). If we were discussing personhood vis a vis genetic differentiation from ongoing experiments, I'd expect we'd bring up cloning, man-made genetic chimeras, and speciation. As it is, we're just all over the place with "what is personhood?"

[Pere]

That's just it. Wouldn't it be nice to have a unified coherent understanding of what a person is, to apply to all those questions?

[Fish]

Nice? No, because I doubt we'd like the answer of "we're all too dumb and limited, with a primitive binary concept of personhood, to ever apply a linguistic label to a fluid and variable condition."

[Pere]

I don't see why fluidity and variability should shut down the search for understanding. The precise boundaries of the ocean and fluid and variable, but we can still say with confidence that some places are in the ocean and some are not--and the difference between the two is pretty important. And that if, in a particular context, our interest is in not getting wet, we can draw a safe outer boundary of oceanhood to stand beyond.

[Fish]

Your analogy is a good one. If the goal is "not to get wet," we first have to define "what is wet?" How many droplets of water make one wet, versus merely moist? Is damp more or less wet than moist? Is soggy more than wet, or equal? Then, in what other locations may we find wetness apart from within the boundaries of the ocean — spray from the surf, for instance — and does that also count as wetness? What about lakes, rivers, or ponds? What about clouds? Fog? What about becoming wet from things other than water?

In linguistic terms, it is the paradox of the heap: at some stage, our language is insufficient to make a fine distinction between "small amount" and "heap," just as we have a hard time differentiating between "wet," "damp," and "dry." How do we define "human" when we know it's damned hard to define anything so indistinct? We're just not smart enough — or we're saddled with a language insufficiently expressive.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Defining personhood is a philosophical question, but that doesn't mean it's abstruse and academic.

I'm very skeptical of its importance. I'm not even 100% sure on what "personhood" entails, let alone when it occurs.

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

That's why I approached the question as looking for a plausible range, rather than a bright line.

And I take it one step further and call it an entire damn continuum. I think one becomes a person by degrees.

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

So what does make you a person, in your view?

I haven't the slightest idea except what Fish says:

"we're all too dumb and limited, with a primitive binary concept of personhood, to ever apply a linguistic label to a fluid and variable condition."

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

The precise boundaries of the ocean and fluid and variable, but we can still say with confidence that some places are in the ocean and some are not--and the difference between the two is pretty important. And that if, in a particular context, our interest is in not getting wet, we can draw a safe outer boundary of oceanhood to stand beyond.

Except for a couple things: First, I'm much more foggy on the difference between a human and a person than I am the ocean and dry land.

Second, the ocean isn't going to come to me and bomb my office if I get this vague distinction wrong.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Fish

How do we define "human" when we know it's damned hard to define anything so indistinct? We're just not smart enough — or we're saddled with a language insufficiently expressive.

Okay, so it's hard. We're not "smart enough" yet. But I maintain that it's a hugely important question, an answer worth working toward. You laid out some of the territory to be mapped very well yourself.

Originally Posted by Fish

I realize that it becomes problematic in the case of disability, PVS (persistent vegetative states), mental incapacity, and so on, not the least of which is achieving a definition which includes the most incapable human but excludes the most capable ape. At some point we'll have to admit (or redress) the inherent speciesism whereby only humans can be people, but for now, DNA + consciousness must do.

Problematic? Yes. That's why we need to work on it.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

But I maintain that it's a hugely important question, an answer worth working toward.

Every single one of us is a person yet none of us can pinpoint, or even articulate in anything but the most vague terms, what makes us so. That tells me that it is not terribly meaningful or relevant in our lives. Much smarter people than ourselves have been debating the issue for millenniums. That tells me that we wouldn't do much better of a job than our ancestors, even if it was relevant and meaningful.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Every single one of us is a person yet none of us can pinpoint, or even articulate in anything but the most vague terms, what makes us so. That tells me that it is not terribly meaningful or relevant in our lives. Much smarter people than ourselves have been debating the issue for millenniums. That tells me that we wouldn't do much better of a job than our ancestors, even if it was relevant and meaningful.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit, every word.

Real progress has been made on this question, and it has been damned important to a lot of people--for example, the (not quite completed) abolition of slavery is predicated on the recognition that slavery is incompatible with human rights, and that all the categories of humans once relegated to slavery are people fully deserving of those rights.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Second, the ocean isn't going to come to me and bomb my office if I get this vague distinction wrong.

Yes, it will. Ever hear of storm surge? If you guess wrong at the potential limits of the ocean and build your office too close to it, it will bomb you (with water), and may destroy you.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Real progress has been made on this question, and it has been damned important to a lot of people--for example, the (not quite completed) abolition of slavery is predicated on the recognition that slavery is incompatible with human rights, and that all the categories of humans once relegated to slavery are people fully deserving of those rights.

I disagree. Here's how:

What is it specifically about the abolition of slavery that restored personhood to those groups?

I'd call it dramatic social, cultural, and political progress. Progress towards a grand unified theory of personhood? Not even close.

[Panacea]

Here's something timely which appeard in my mailbox. Some organization called Personhood USA is trying to get states to pass amendments which establish personhood at conception.

Not only is this group anti-abortion, they also oppose certain birth control methods. Passage of the amendment would outlaw certain forms of the pill and IUD.

If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 - Abortion will be outlawed. Unborn children will no longer be killed "legally". Mothers in crisis will be protected from a harmful medical procedure.
If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 - human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and other forms of medical cannibalism would be effectively stopped - which would focus the attention of medical researchers on approaches that have been proven to actually work (like adult stem cells) and do not require the killing of an innocent Person.
If Mississippians vote Yes on Amendment 26 we will be honoring God and loving our neighbors in our law system.

Reason: We are opposed to those birth control methods which act as abortifacients. These could include forms of the pill which act to prevent implantation of the newly formed human into the lining of the womb; forms of the IUD, which can act the same; and prostaglandin suppository drugs, which act to cause delivery of whatever size baby the uterus contains.

No abortion even in the case of rape or incest:

Reason: Whereas we understand the trauma involved in such situations, the unborn child conceived is no less human than one conceived under more favorable conditions. In the case of rape, we assert the need to educate women to seek immediate medical attention after they are victimized. Instead of the further violence of abortion, we believe women should be provided with compassionate, competent emotional and health care. In the case of incest, we stress the need to help the entire family correct the situation, which led to the pregnancy. In cases of incest, studies have shown that in the vast majority of cases the perpetrator pays for the abortion so as to assure continued access to the child. Again, the unborn child is an innocent party and should not be destroyed as a ''solution'' to all the complex problems involved.

Cheezus.

[Fish]

It's foolishness. They forget that some fertilized eggs never attach to the wall of the uterus — by this definition, said George Carlin, every sexually active woman is a serial killer.

As for this:

In the case of incest, we stress the need to help the entire family correct the situation, which led to the pregnancy. In cases of incest, studies have shown that in the vast majority of cases the perpetrator pays for the abortion so as to assure continued access to the child.

The abuser does a lot of unsavory things to assure continued access to the child, most of which are illegal already — bigamy, statutory rape, assault, imprisonment, and domestic violence against the spouse. Making it illegal won't make it stop. And incest isn't the only time abortion is used to cover up a crime. How many Catholic schoolgirls have had, or would have, an abortion to keep scandal out of the family?

[Panacea]

I just can't believe this has any traction at all around here. The Republican candidate for Governor is (apparently) a supporter of this thing.

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by iampunha

When a woman in your life gets pregnant, do you think early on (say, in the first trimester), "She has a large collection of cells growing in her uterus,"

Yes.

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by Fish

It's foolishness. They forget that some fertilized eggs never attach to the wall of the uterus — by this definition, said George Carlin, every sexually active woman is a serial killer.

Ironically, some have suggested that natural family planning (NFP) a.k.a. the fertility awareness method (FAM) a.k.a. the rhythm method* actually increases the liklihood of an egg being fertilized but not implanting. Having sex on the outer fringes of the fertile period could be more likely to result in fertilization that occurs too late for implantation. Therefore all the proper and good Catholics who believe that fertilized eggs are life and condoms are from the devil "interfering with the body's natural processes"** may be unintentionally killing more people that Heathens with Trojans.


* An argument can be made that while these terms are used interchangably by some, there are differences in what they entail and what their success rates are. I'm not interested in that argument. My point is "having sex when you're hopefully not fertile" is the only "acceptable" method of family planning in some circles.

** During the mandatory pre-marital counseling sessions held by my parish priest, a shy, sweet man around the same age as my parents, the issue of "the welcoming of children into the marriage" came up on his checklist. His take on the matter (while blushing furiously): "There are those who say that the Catholic church is against birth control, and that's not strictly true. The church is against any method that interfere's with the body's natural processes of reproduction. If you want to know more about that you can talk to your doctor. Moving on. . . "

[Ken S.]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Abortion joke.

Naw but seriously, I'm not talking about an across the board abortion tax, but taxes to discourage late term abortions.

How are you defining a "late term abortion?" That's a phrase used by Lifers to designate anything past the first trimester. It's not a phrase used by medical professionals. Lifers use it as a trick to give the impression that certain kinds of statistics refer to third trimester abortions when they really refer to second trimester.

In actuality, third trimester abortions are extremely rare (less than 1/10 of one percent of all abortions), and are only performed for urgent medical reasons, often when the fetus is already dead.

You don't have to do anything to discourage third trimester abortions (though why you think ANY abortion is your business, I have no idea). They don't happen anyway unless they have to.

[Panacea]

Originally Posted by Fish

It's foolishness. They forget that some fertilized eggs never attach to the wall of the uterus

They have an answer for that:

the difference is that naturally occurring abortions or miscarriages happen in concurrence with the permissive will of God and not by the active, purposeful decision of a mother to kill the infant person growing within her womb, which child is definitely not given their choice in the matter. The children in the womb are very real people with their own desire to live.

To which someone replied:

I seriously doubt that a group of six cells has conscious thought or a "desire to live."

[Solfy]

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

They have an answer for that:

It must have been God's will for someone to have sex in the first place, then, otherwise that egg never would have been fertilized.

"God wants you to sleep with me. Who are we to argue?"

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

How are you defining a "late term abortion?" That's a phrase used by Lifers to designate anything past the first trimester. It's not a phrase used by medical professionals.

I will confirm this. There is no "late-term abortion" listed in the Current Procedural Terminology manual. Procedures are defined by time, complexity, and equipment used, not so much by politics.

Originally Posted by NinetyWt

They have an answer for that:

Ah yes, "God's will," the all-purpose catchphrase for "I get to make up whatever bullshit rules I want, because I can speak for the invisible, omniscient man in the sky." They can't explain why the abortion itself isn't also God's will, can they? Or, as Solfy said, if God hadn't wanted that woman to get an abortion, he wouldn't have allowed her to get pregnant or have sex.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Ken S.

How are you defining a "late term abortion?" That's a phrase used by Lifers to designate anything past the first trimester.

I never even defined "late-term" in my head. That pro-lifers/choicers/medical professionals actually do have a real definition for the term never crossed my mind. I mean the phrase exactly as vaguely as "later than society thinks is appropriate".

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

Every single one of us is a person yet none of us can pinpoint, or even articulate in anything but the most vague terms, what makes us so. That tells me that it is not terribly meaningful or relevant in our lives. Much smarter people than ourselves have been debating the issue for millenniums. That tells me that we wouldn't do much better of a job than our ancestors, even if it was relevant and meaningful.

1. Yes, we can pinpoint what makes us a 'person.' Our personhood, or what makes us 'us' is defined by higher brain function. This is also the legal definition of personhood per the US Supreme Court. The only thing that we're not able to 'pinpoint' is the exact moment, and that's because every fetus develops differently. The best we can do is a very near guess.

2. Of course we are better able to answer than those who lived 'milennia before' we did. We have better information. It makes no difference whether or not those people were 'much smarter.' They did not have access to the advanced scientific methods and technology we have at our disposal.

3. 'Personhood' is meaningful on many levels, most notably legal and medical.

[u wan buy dvd?]

That doesn't address the shades of grey where a human being with very low levels of mental faculties is still treated with greater respect than clever chimps. My gut tells me, as I'm sure it does many people, that a human zygote with no brain at all is more special than a booger I peel out of my nose.

Just because certain factions of society might be more confident in saying what makes a person doesn't mean they are any more accurate.

Just because one applies scientific methods to the question of personhood doesn't mean their answer is better. You'd have to convince me that scientists have been working on questions less immune to empiricism than "what makes a person".

More importantely "personhood" doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia page. What does that tell you? Hmmmmmmm?

[Glazer]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

More importantely "personhood" doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia page. What does that tell you? Hmmmmmmm?

That you need to start one.

[WednesdayAddams]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

That doesn't address the shades of grey where a human being with very low levels of mental faculties is still treated with greater respect than clever chimps. My gut tells me, as I'm sure it does many people, that a human zygote with no brain at all is more special than a booger I peel out of my nose.

Just because certain factions of society might be more confident in saying what makes a person doesn't mean they are any more accurate.

Just because one applies scientific methods to the question of personhood doesn't mean their answer is better. You'd have to convince me that scientists have been working on questions less immune to empiricism than "what makes a person".

More importantely "personhood" doesn't even have it's own Wikipedia page. What does that tell you? Hmmmmmmm?

Yes. It does. Because they're a different species. Human=/=chimp.

For the purposes of this thread and specifically the OP, 'personhood' begins when higher brain functions engage. People can debate the minutiae as much as they like, but that's the medical and legal definition. I don't understand why I have to convince you of anything. It's your choice if you wish to view medical facts as opinion.

[Fish]

As Wens already pointed out, personhood is meaningful on different levels. By a calculation of brain function and DNA alone — a medical definition — a chimp is "more of a person" than a corporation, which has no brain and no DNA. Yet the chimp is not a person from a legal definition, pays no taxes, does not vote, etc. Should we ever reach the point where we develop artificial intelligence or a "braintape" simulation of a real human mind, we'll have to wrestle with a third possibility, that is, potential sentience in the absence of brainwave activity and DNA. We might also deal with cloning and have a fourth possibility — human DNA and brainwave activity, yet no independent mind to speak of.

There is also no Wikipedia for "statehood," but that doesn't preclude our understanding of what makes a state; nor does the Wikipedia page for "neighborhood" identify what a neighbor is.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

People can debate the minutiae as much as they like, but that's the medical and legal definition.

I don't see why the strict medical definition of personhood is more relevant to the OP's question than my own or anyone else. This is in PPR as opposed to Just the Facts. My normative opinion is just as relevant. Likewise, I'm sure most of the people in the 'higher mental capacities' crowd believe so not because it's the legal or medical definition. Their reasoning goes beyond that.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Yes. It does. Because they're a different species. Human=/=chimp.

No it doesn't. That's an entirely different line of reasoning besides the brain wave thing. How much human dignity does being a one day old zygote with every bit as 'human' DNA as myself afford one? The difference isn't the DNA.

[Glazer]

Chimps can have their rights when they speak up and demand them.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

As Wens already pointed out, personhood is meaningful on different levels.

Okay. I'll agree that personhood has great social significance because the abstract concept is hamstringed and forced into various aspects of civic life for no good reason. The thing itself has no significance whatsoever.

We can go on for ages: from a legal standpoint, this squiggly bundle of shit is not a person. From a religious standpoint, this squiggly bunch of shit is a person. From a medical standpoint, this squiggly bunch of shit is a person. From a philosophy xyz standpoint, this squiggly bunch of shit is a person. From a culinary standpoint, this squiggly bunch of shit is not a person.

I don't get how quoting the legal definition of "person" gets one closer to answering the OP than the religious definition. It's a concept not exclusive to any one particular part of life.

[WednesdayAddams]

Because the OP specifically asked where personhood starts with respect to fetuses. The medical and legal definitions address that.

I specifically said you could debate the minutiae. I'm not moderating, I'm discussing the OP. But I won't allow that opinions informed by superstition, 'gut feelings' and belief are equal to those informed by fact, science and research. They aren't, and we need to stop coddling people who believe they are.

As for the dignity question: I'm not sure why you're asking. Why does it matter? Personhood is defined for humans, not for chimps. It seems a bit irrelevant to bring into the discussion how drooling morons are treated better than chimps, but I think it could be a good topic on its own.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I specifically said you could debate the minutiae.

I don't believe that what I am debating is minutiae. Because medical professionals have decidedly given a 100% unambiguous definition of personhood doesn't make any opinion to the contrary minutiae. Medical professionals didn't invent the idea of personhood. Just because they are the ones who said it doesn't mean they are the ones who answered it.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

But I won't allow that opinions informed by superstition, 'gut feelings' and belief are equal to those informed by fact, science and research. They aren't, and we need to stop coddling people who believe they are.

I don't think your definition of personhood has any more of a foundation in reality than my own. The exception: I realize my definition, no idea, is bullshit so I'd rather focus on excluding the thing from public life entirely.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

Why does it matter?

Because if one aborts a fetus, one aborts a being with of the same species as myself. You are the one saying the species is an important factor. That's how come I can't say "treat this chimp like you'd treat a moron".

[Fish]

DVD, I've already pointed out that this is a Paradox of the Heap — a linguistic conundrum. We are assigning a binary "is a person, is not a person" condition to a distinctly non-binary array of states. It is not an argument that you (or anyone else) can win, similar to arguing whether Obama is "black" or "white."

My basis for beginning with DNA and brainwave activity is that both can be measured; hence, we are grounding the definition in the empirical. That definition is not 100% sufficient, but it's a good starting point. From there we proceed with the presumption of human intellect and competence, until it can be demonstrated otherwise to the satisfaction of a judge.

That's an entirely different line of reasoning besides the brain wave thing. How much human dignity does being a one day old zygote with every bit as 'human' DNA as myself afford one? The difference isn't the DNA.

Or, for that matter, a kidney being transported for transplant, or an embryonic stem cell being kept in cold storage.

[WednesdayAddams]

Ugh. Apologies in advance for the multi quote.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I don't believe that what I am debating is minutiae. Because medical professionals have decidedly given a 100% unambiguous definition of personhood doesn't make any opinion to the contrary minutiae. Medical professionals didn't invent the idea of personhood. Just because they are the ones who said it doesn't mean they are the ones who answered it.

The only thing unambiguous about the definition is the timing. Sorry; people aren't cars. Every body is different and develops differently. That's not medical science's lack of precision, that's your lack of understanding. And yes, if they have factual scientific data to back up their assertions to the point that it's recognized as the legal definition, it does in fact mean they're the ones who answered it. Whether or not that answer is to your liking doesn't matter.

I don't think your definition of personhood has any more of a foundation in reality than my own. The exception: I realize my definition, no idea, is bullshit so I'd rather focus on excluding the thing from public life entirely.

Bolding mine. Yes. I understand that. But again, my definition is based on and informed by scientific fact.

Because if one aborts a fetus, one aborts a being with of the same species as myself. You are the one saying the species is an important factor. That's how come I can't say "treat this chimp like you'd treat a moron".

...
I'm almost positive I'm missing something in what you're saying, and I do apologize sincerely, but I still am not understanding why we need to involve animals in the discussion. The OP is talking about human fetuses specifically, therefore applying personhood to other species, computers, etc. doesn't really apply.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Fish

My basis for beginning with DNA and brainwave activity is that both can be measured; hence, we are grounding the definition in the empirical.

You are attempting to ground in empiricism a concept that I don't think originated in empiricism- something that I don't believe has ever actually been observed. I think you are attempting to assign a totally non-binary concept to binary conditions without attempting to revise the non-binary concept into something testable.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

I'm almost positive I'm missing something in what you're saying, and I do apologize sincerely, but I still am not understanding why we need to involve animals in the discussion. The OP is talking about human fetuses specifically, therefore applying personhood to other species, computers, etc. doesn't really apply.

but "higher mental functions" might possibly include any number of species. If you want to revise your definition to mean an intelligent being of our own species then fine. Other people who have gone along with the brainwave argument have also brought up speciesism as an eventual problem with their definition (Fish). I suppose yours is different.

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

And yes, if they have factual scientific data to back up their assertions to the point that it's recognized as the legal definition, it does in fact mean they're the ones who answered it.

Backing up a nonsensical, metaphysical concept with scientific data doesn't make your answer empirical. Of course, I think more of scientists everywhere than to ever attempt to do such a foolish thing. How would you even begin to state a testable hypothesis for personhood? Unless you actually came up with a rational, observable concept for personhood. Oh wait- definition: personhood means brainwaves. Why? Because...brainwaves.

Which is all just fine and dandy, but it's not empirical.

[Solfy]

My only problem with the brainwaves thing is that it's limited by the abilities of our detection methods, and as such is still somewhat ambiguous. How do we know there aren't brainwaves at X weeks in a developing fetus that we don't have the sensitivity to detect?