Abortion.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll have a go...

IMO, these are the criteria for personhood:

1. Have human DNA
2. Be born
3. Possess a mind

(Because of 3, Siamese twins are two people, because they both have minds.)

Hmmmm....um, no.

It's pretty obvious that human "interaction" is for the purpose of making people, and we can know -these days- how they develop within the mother.
Not to get too sentimental, but there are some theories that classical music while a woman is pregnant helps calm the child...and added on to that, ask any mother whose child was a "kicker" whether they have a "mind" or personality.

"Darn that clump of cells, it keeps kicking for more food!"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Is it my dirty mind, or is 'human "interaction"' a euphemism?

*selfsmack*

ANYWAY, personhood...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'll have a go...

IMO, these are the criteria for personhood:

1. Have human DNA
2. Be born
3. Possess a mind

(Because of 3, Siamese twins are two people, because they both have minds.)

Number 2 I really, really don't get. It's just somebody in a different location, who's on life support. How does being in a different location and on life support mean that you're not a person?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

As for my own personal views? True, I don't see a third trimester abortion as killing a person, but I don't agree with them either. It is, like I said, in the grey area that I can't defend.

Well please think about it, for it is significant. And I'm interested in hearing what you come up with and why.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Lief, how bout you provide us with your account of what it means to be a person?

[Lief Erikson]

My view is that being "made in God's image" is what gives us personhood. So every human is a person, but no animal is. For God is the ultimate Person. The essence of personhood is the essence of being "made in God's image." So for me, the question could be rephrased as, "what is it to be made in God's image?"

For me, that would require a lot of very worthwhile Bible study that I haven't done yet. I don't know what it means to be made in God's image.

But let us beware in our present conversation . . . this thread must not diverge into a religious detour .


If one takes a non-religious definition of personhood, I think it is best to just define it as "any human." Because otherwise you judge some humans less persons than others, judging people based on their biology rather than their actions, and that gets very, very dangerous. It's treading in the same waters that have been treaded already by all racists, by many men who abuse and demand servitude from their wives, believing women to be less than them because of their biology, and by many murderers who have killed homosexuals and mentally disabled. That path leads straight into hell's gullet, to put it simply.

[BeardofPants]

I think the third trimester is problematic because the offspring can potentially survive outside of the mother's womb. I guess I think 'personhood' manifests itself gradually AFTER the baby is born, but by the third trimester, it becomes a lot harder to consider the unborn as merely a mass of cells.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I think the third trimester is problematic because the offspring can potentially survive outside of the mother's womb. I guess I think 'personhood' manifests itself gradually AFTER the baby is born, but by the third trimester, it becomes a lot harder to consider the unborn as merely a mass of cells.

The foetus has all the major organs by the end of the first trimester.

[GrayMouser]

A woman has a two-year-old child. The father has deserted her; she is young, poverty-stricken, with no prospects for a steady job, no health care or ability to provide for her child properly. She decides to hire a hit man and have her child killed.

A woman is pregnant in her first trimester.The father has deserted her; she is young, poverty-stricken, with no prospects for a steady job, no health care or ability to provide for her child properly. She goes to a clinic and has an abortion.

In the first case, I think we'd all agree that the woman (found clinically sane) should spend a long time in prison. Those who support the death penalty might say that she should be executed for such a crime.

So, for those who say a fetus is a child, a woman who has an abortion should also be imprisoned for years, or perhaps executed.

If not, why not?

[Insidious Rex]

Because a two year old isnt a three week old fetus?

[Janny]

Nor are you a two year old.

[Insidious Rex]

Some would disagree with that at times

[Janny]

Well fine then.

But you appreciate that saying a foetus in not a child because they're not the same, is equivalent to saying that an adult is not a child, because they are also not the same. The point about the significant, morality determining rites of passage which lie between those points still has to be argued.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

A woman has a two-year-old child. The father has deserted her; she is young, poverty-stricken, with no prospects for a steady job, no health care or ability to provide for her child properly. She decides to hire a hit man and have her child killed.

A woman is pregnant in her first trimester.The father has deserted her; she is young, poverty-stricken, with no prospects for a steady job, no health care or ability to provide for her child properly. She goes to a clinic and has an abortion.

In the first case, I think we'd all agree that the woman (found clinically sane) should spend a long time in prison. Those who support the death penalty might say that she should be executed for such a crime.

So, for those who say a fetus is a child, a woman who has an abortion should also be imprisoned for years, or perhaps executed.

If not, why not?

The only mediating factor in my mind is that some of the women who commit abortions are fully convinced that their children are not children. Thus they aren't aware fully of what they are doing. This same argument is a defense for the Nazis and racists and others. Sometimes they just don't know how hideous what they are doing really is. That doesn't make it not hideous, but it does absolve them from some of the guilt of the crime.

A first trimester child is developing all its major organs. It doesn't have them all yet, but it's developing them. Who are we to say when a human being is primitive enough to be ethically killed?

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Janny

Well fine then.

But you appreciate that saying a foetus in not a child because they're not the same, is equivalent to saying that an adult is not a child, because they are also not the same. The point about the significant, morality determining rites of passage which lie between those points still has to be argued.

you are right they are not the same, but you can't really say that one is more or less of a person than the other so that would really make them equal as persons.

obviously the two year old is bigger, more developed and in a different enviroment, and less dependant a month old fetus but so am I more developed than that two year old.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Janny

Well fine then.

But you appreciate that saying a foetus in not a child because they're not the same, is equivalent to saying that an adult is not a child, because they are also not the same. The point about the significant, morality determining rites of passage which lie between those points still has to be argued.

And in the end you have to draw a line based on certain criteria (development, physical connection to mother, etc.). But the problem is that the criteria is different depending on your moral/religious outlook. For me knowing the science of the matter is enough. For others the science is quite irrelevant.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The only mediating factor in my mind is that some of the women who commit abortions are fully convinced that their children are not children. Thus they aren't aware fully of what they are doing. This same argument is a defense for the Nazis and racists and others. Sometimes they just don't know how hideous what they are doing really is. That doesn't make it not hideous, but it does absolve them from some of the guilt of the crime.

It's a crime in your eyes. For some it is not.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A first trimester child is developing all its major organs. It doesn't have them all yet, but it's developing them. Who are we to say when a human being is primitive enough to be ethically killed?

We are who we are. All of us make choices all the time about life and death. I've discussed this somewhat offtopic, yet relavant, point before:

During wartime we take actions that we know will kill innocents (sometimes even babies) in the name of a greater good. None of us think it is okay, and we certainly try to avoid it, but we accept it as necessary in certain situations. Many will argue as to whether there are other choices, but very few dismiss the option entirely.

It is the same with abortion. Some people weigh the pros and cons of abortion vs. bringing a child into a situation where they will be unwelcome and maybe even hated by their parent. They judge that the life the child would be subjected to is worse than not living at all. Much like how, during war, the attacker decides that the loss of some innocent lives is acceptable to protect the lives and well-being of others.

You can argue about where the line is drawn, but all of us, even yourself, draws that line in one situation or another that involves innocent life, whether you admit it or not.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And in the end you have to draw a line based on certain criteria (development, physical connection to mother, etc.). But the problem is that the criteria is different depending on your moral/religious outlook. For me knowing the science of the matter is enough. For others the science is quite irrelevant.

Then you are saying that we have the right to kill humans who we perceive to be less developed than ourselves, and we have the right to decide where to draw that line.

Then the racists are justified. They judge people of other ethnic groups to be less developed than they are, and you say they have the right to do that. You also say that they have the right to draw that line, killing people who we think are inferior.

The Nazis even used scientific data, though in hindsight, we can see that it was certainly played with and biased (as I think much of our scientific data on abortion is, for the sake of political correctness).

You say that all kinds of the sickest people in humanity are justified when you say that we can judge people based on their biological development rather than by their actions.

Your statement about connection with the mother is just absurd. I can't understand why this biological life support mechanism means the mother has the right to kill her child. It doesn't make the slightest bit of logical sense.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It's a crime in your eyes. For some it is not.

Yep. And for some in Germany during WW2, the treatment of the Jews was a crime. For others it was not.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You can argue about where the line is drawn, but all of us, even yourself, draws that line in one situation or another that involves innocent life, whether you admit it or not.

Agreed, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Let me explain why.

With war, we do everything we can to avoid innocent deaths.

With our justice system, we do everything we can to avoid the innocent being condemned.

With our medical practices, we do all we can to prevent death. We know that sometimes accidents on the doctors' parts will happen that will result in death. We do everything we can to minimize the amount that this happens. Until abortion.

With abortion, the situation is could not be more different. We do not do everything we can to prevent the loss of innocent life, like we do with the other three forementioned. Rather, we legalize a mass slaughter of the innocents. "Everything that can be done to prevent innocent death" is not being done, like it is in the other three cases. Rather, we purposely kill off the innocents even though they are not threatening life- only lifestyle.

Here's the bottom line. With war, we do all we can to avoid killing innocents. We know that innocents will die, but we do all we can to avoid innocent deaths. With abortion, we purposely kill the innocents. Thus the two are completely different.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Number 2 I really, really don't get. It's just somebody in a different location, who's on life support. How does being in a different location and on life support mean that you're not a person?

Because you're part of another person's body, and thus not a person. The life support system is extremely significant.

Having an abortion, in my mind, is comparable (to a point anyway) to having your spleen removed. It's a big deal, and a serious operation, where you remove part of your body. After that the comparison falls apart.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well please think about it, for it is significant. And I'm interested in hearing what you come up with and why.

Oh I'm thinking about it alright.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Because you're part of another person's body, and thus not a person. The life support system is extremely significant.

It's just like a mechanical construct, except made out of biological material instead of plastic material, or rubber rubber or metal. Either way, it's just a mechanism. If I'm on a mechanical life-support mechanism, I'm still my own person. Being on a machine doesn't make me a non-person. The same is true with a child in the womb. Being on a biological machine doesn't make me a non-person. It's two people attached to one another, not one person with an odd growth .

I argue that you can be part of someone else's body and still your own person. Most mothers would tell you so as well, from their experiences with their children in the womb.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Having an abortion, in my mind, is comparable (to a point anyway) to having your spleen removed. It's a big deal, and a serious operation, where you remove part of your body. After that the comparison falls apart.

Except that a spleen doesn't have thoughts and feelings of its own, and thus no personality. No soul there. No person there. Just a part of the body removed. When a baby is eliminated, on the other hand, it may be a part of the body that's being removed but it's not "just" a part of the body that's being removed. There's far more to an infant than there is to a spleen.

By removing your spleen, you're also not killing anyone. The baby is alive, though.

I agree that "it's a big deal, and a serious operation, where you remove part of your body." But you're right also that after that the comparison falls apart, and the places where the two are different are very, very significant .