Personhood of the fetus

[tonyrey]

Though there are some arguments that do suggests ways to handle this. Alexander Pruss has a couple articles against abortion that work even if the fetus is not a person.

Just for summary, he puts it this way:

1. I was once a fetus
2. If I was once a fetus, it was wrong to kill that fetus
3. If it was wrong to kill me as a fetus, it would be wrong to kill anyone as a fetus.

(longer version and pop. version)

As I read him, he points out that one reason it is wrong to kill me is that you deprive me of something, ie the rest of my life. But this would apply at least as much to me when I was a fetus.

What if I was not a person as a fetus? When then it would still be wrong to kill me, because you are depriving me of something even more, personhood.

Here: Killing me at time t0 would deprive me of the life that I would have otherwise led after t0. If t0 were earlier, the harm is, if anything, greater since I would have been robbed of more. The harm in the killing is the loss of the future life. Certainly, one need not be aware of having been harmed to have in fact been harmed.

And: Note that this paper does not attempt to establish conclusively that the fetus is a person, except in its remark that if personhood is an essential property then the fetus that I was was a person. All that the main arguments need is that the fetus was I, not that the fetus was a person. Observe that there is a sense in which abortion is often an even greater evil if the fetus were not a person (though in fact, I think being a person is an essential property and hence a fetus is a person). For, if one kills a person, one has not robbed her of all of the worldly personal life that she would otherwise have had. But** if one kills the fetus, if a fetus is not a person and unless we are talking of a special case where the fetus could not have lived until attaining personhood** (a case where I take it abortion would still be wrong by my right-to-life-is-an-essential-property argument, though perhaps to a lesser extent), one has robbed the fetus of all of her worldly personal life, and this is a greater theft, with numerically the same victim.

For other interested: Francis Beckwith on that fetuses are not “potential persons” but “persons with potential.”
thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/potential-persons-in-the-after-birth-abortfiiioagnn-article.htmAmagfix l

Superb reasoning! I don’t envy the opposition.

 

[shoe]

Hello all,

I’ve been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can’t break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I’ve heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

I think that science, genetically speaking, has shown that being a human being is a continuing process. Right from the beginning all the genetic characteristics of a person are “actually” present, not “potentially” present. And whether a person exists on the inside of the womb or on the outside, that individual person will “actually” pass through several different phases and stages of development as he or she matures: the zygote stage, the embryo stage, the fetus stage, the child stage, etc. And although an adult once was a zygote, for instance, the special thing that made that adult person a unique individual did not come from a zygote; and likewise, although an adult was once a child, the special thing that made that person a unique individual did not come from a child.

I think that the people who say a child inside the womb is not a person are using circular reasoning to rationalize their pro-abortion worldview; that is to say, in order to make themselves as comfortable as possible with their own belief system, they must assume that the life within the womb is not a person (even though all unborn children have human DNA like all humans) but rather some sort of parasite or non-entity.

 

[hannajomar]

I have really pushed people with the question, “If a fetus is not a person, when does personhood begin?” I really push them to be specific. Any answer they have besides “personhood begins at conception” is arbitrary and often based on emotions.

I’ve had people say person hood begins when the baby is born. I ask them, at what point does this happen - what if the baby is partway out in the air, and partway still in the birth canal? What if the baby is completely through the birth canal but the umbilical cord is still intact? Most of the time they haven’t thought this answer out and don’t know.

I’ve had other people say they believe person hood begins after the first trimester because the fetus is starting to appear human then. Trimesters were invented by doctors and have absolutely no bearing on nature. Also, person hood exists or it does not exist. It does not develop as the parts of the body develop over time.

With the abortion laws in USA are now, person hood of the fetus solely relies on the whim of the pregnant mother. If she wants to give birth to this baby, most people will generally accept the fetus as a person. If she doesn’t want to give birth to this baby, then she has the choice to decide it’s not a person and kill it at her own discression. In the history of mankind, the most evil events happen when one person gets to decide if someone else is or is not a person; or is or is not as much of a person. (Nazis, American slavery, abortion) It is so dangerous to allow person hood to be decided subjectively.

The vast majority of people will never change their minds on this, but I’ve succeeded in that now some of my pro-“choice” friends actually understanding that being pro-life has thought and logic behind it, not just a bunch of nutty people judging promiscuous women.

 

[Perplexity]

Though there are some arguments that do suggests ways to handle this. Alexander Pruss has a couple articles against abortion that work even if the fetus is not a person.

Just for summary, he puts it this way:

1. I was once a fetus
2. If I was once a fetus, it was wrong to kill that fetus
3. If it was wrong to kill me as a fetus, it would be wrong to kill anyone as a fetus.

(longer version and pop. version)

As I read him, he points out that one reason it is wrong to kill me is that you deprive me of something, ie the rest of my life. But this would apply at least as much to me when I was a fetus.

What if I was not a person as a fetus? When then it would still be wrong to kill me, because you are depriving me of something even more, personhood.

Here: Killing me at time t0 would deprive me of the life that I would have otherwise led after t0. If t0 were earlier, the harm is, if anything, greater since I would have been robbed of more. The harm in the killing is the loss of the future life. Certainly, one need not be aware of having been harmed to have in fact been harmed.

And: Note that this paper does not attempt to establish conclusively that the fetus is a person, except in its remark that if personhood is an essential property then the fetus that I was was a person. All that the main arguments need is that the fetus was I, not that the fetus was a person. Observe that there is a sense in which abortion is often an even greater evil if the fetus were not a person (though in fact, I think being a person is an essential property and hence a fetus is a person). For, if one kills a person, one has not robbed her of all of the worldly personal life that she would otherwise have had. But** if one kills the fetus, if a fetus is not a person and unless we are talking of a special case where the fetus could not have lived until attaining personhood** (a case where I take it abortion would still be wrong by my right-to-life-is-an-essential-property argument, though perhaps to a lesser extent), one has robbed the fetus of all of her worldly personal life, and this is a greater theft, with numerically the same victim.

For other interested: Francis Beckwith on that fetuses are not “potential persons” but “persons with potential.”
thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/potential-persons-in-the-after-birth-abortion-article.html

(1) strikes me as false. “I” refers to a being that is essentially a person (Pruss at the time of writing), but fetuses aren’t persons.

Further, why should we think it’s wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person rather than just lamentable?

Should we think it’s wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person? Well, that depends on whether fetuses have rights. If they have no rights, then we have no duties to them: we can’t wrong them. I see no reason why we should think they have rights though.

 

[fred_conty]

Hello all,

I’ve been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can’t break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I’ve heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Try a little street theology.

Ask if he would want this same judgement about himself by his own parents when he was in his mother’s womb. “Oh well, he is just human but not a person.” Does that sound cold or does that sound cold. How would that make any son or daughter feel, “son, you were just human and not a person when you were conceived. We didn’t consider you a person until many weeks later.” That would surely make any son or daughter feel truely loved and wanted.

Just a thought.

 

[Poseidon]

I’m unclear on how personhood and humanity are different. I think that you are a person simply by virtue of the fact that you’re human. How does one say “this one is a person, that one isn’t?” I think that this might be the question at the heart of yours.

 

[vz71]

Hello all,

I’ve been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can’t break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I’ve heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

Personhood cannot be proven.
With all the information we have at our disposal, there is really no way to quantify what they call personhood.
You cannot prove my ‘personhood.’
I likewise cannot prove yours.

Given that we cannot quantify this, we must discard it as a reliable measure for murder. We must rely upon what is clearly defined.

We cannot measure personhood.
But we can examine a genetic code.
We can determine life.
And we can determine that the fetus is human and alive.

And when it comes down to it, that is all that can really be proven of anyone.

 

[JaKael02]

Hello all,

I’ve been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can’t break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? Peter Kreeft makes some good points in his Apple Argument against abortion and another article he wrote strictly about fetal personhood. However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I’ve heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

**Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not a stage of development within the species. Personhood is not defined by size, skill, or intellect. **

If personhood is defined by size; then is a 7ft basketball player more human than a 4’6" cheerleader? What if someone 400lbs lost 200lbs, does that make them less human?

If intellect? Then are we less of a person when we sleep, or in a coma, or under anestheia? Is a 12th grader more of a person than a 1st grader?

Just a thought.

Kindly,

James

 

[HelenRose]

(1) strikes me as false. “I” refers to a being that is essentially a person (Pruss at the time of writing), but fetuses aren’t persons.

Further, why should we think it’s wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person rather than just lamentable?

Should we think it’s wrong to deprive a fetus of becoming a person? Well, that depends on whether fetuses have rights. If they have no rights, then we have no duties to them: we can’t wrong them. I see no reason why we should think they have rights though.

When you were a fetus didn’t you have the right to be born?

You were you. You were not any one else. You were the distinct separate human being that you are now. It is so strange to me that you can’t see that. Your death as a fetus would be no different than your death would have been at three years old, ten years old or even now.

You came into existence at a precise moment and that person was you. Your death would have been a tragedy, just as all human death is.

 

[Rence]

Hello all,

I’ve been trying to catch up on my pro-life arguments but there is one wall I can’t break through. I have encountered pro-choicers who say that the fetus is a human but not a person; thus abortion is justified.

So what are some philosophical arguments for the personhood of the fetus? However, Kreeft stops his argument just short of being completely convince-able. One thing I’ve heard in my research is that all humans are persons but not all persons are humans, however this is hard to prove philosophically.

Back to my original question: how can fetal personhood be proven?

I know it would be difficult to convince someone who is concerned for the health of the mother, or in cases of rape. For example, in the Jewish faith, though they are pro-life and against abortion, the mother actually takes priority over the unborn, so if the health of the woman is at risk, it would be a sin against the woman to not allow her to do what she needs to protect and regain her health. Other Christian denominations fall short of being completely pro-life due to the health of the mother, and in cases of rape, where Plan B is used. Muslims are against abortion as well, but again, they make exception for the life of the mother. So it would be interesting to see how you could reach these demographics.

 

[Rence]

With the abortion laws in USA are now, person hood of the fetus solely relies on the whim of the pregnant mother. If she wants to give birth to this baby, most people will generally accept the fetus as a person. If she doesn’t want to give birth to this baby, then she has the choice to decide it’s not a person and kill it at her own discression. In the history of mankind, the most evil events happen when one person gets to decide if someone else is or is not a person; or is or is not as much of a person. (Nazis, American slavery, abortion) It is so dangerous to allow person hood to be decided subjectively.

The vast majority of people will never change their minds on this, but I’ve succeeded in that now some of my pro-“choice” friends actually understanding that being pro-life has thought and logic behind it, not just a bunch of nutty people judging promiscuous women.

Just a thought, but perhaps, the reason why the vast majority of people are not changing their minds on this is because if the fetus is given these rights, then those rights of the fetus will supercede the rights of the woman carrying it, which will result in someone else forcing medical decisions on her, such as a father, brother, uncle, husband, boyfriend, or anyone who wants to prevent her from making medical decisions that might result in a termination of pregnancy – perhaps even a neighbor or ‘friend’ or an in-law. Once the rights of consent or refusal of medical treatment/decisions is taken away from the mother, in favor of the fetus, then someone else will be forcing these decisions on her. There was a time when women didn’t have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and those decisions were made by a father or husband on her behalf, regardless of what she wanted or didn’t want. I dont’ think the majority of people want to go back to that. This would impact her decisions to consent to treatments to other unrelated medical issues while pregnant: what kind of medications she can take to treat illnesses, what kind of treatments she can have to treat illnesses, etc. Some people think that giving a fetus rights that trump the woman’s rights (and taking her rights to drive her medical care out of her hands, and given directly to someone else outside of herself) is dangerous territory, and once done will only lead to a cascade of health care delivery problems for women.

 

[tonyrey]

*(1) strikes me as false. “I” refers to a being that is essentially a person (Pruss at the time of writing), but fetuses aren’t persons.

Irrefutable!

 

[tonyrey]

Just a thought, but perhaps, the reason why the vast majority of people are not changing their minds on this is because if the fetus is given these rights, then those rights of the fetus will supercede the rights of the woman carrying it, which will result in someone else forcing medical decisions on her, such as a father, brother, uncle, husband, boyfriend, or anyone who wants to prevent her from making medical decisions that might result in a termination of pregnancy – perhaps even a neighbor or ‘friend’ or an in-law. Once the rights of consent or refusal of medical treatment/decisions is taken away from the mother, in favor of the fetus, then someone else will be forcing these decisions on her. There was a time when women didn’t have the right to consent or refuse treatment, and those decisions were made by a father or husband on her behalf, regardless of what she wanted or didn’t want. I dont’ think the majority of people want to go back to that. This would impact her decisions to consent to treatments to other unrelated medical issues while pregnant: what kind of medications she can take to treat illnesses, what kind of treatments she can have to treat illnesses, etc. Some people think that giving a fetus rights that trump the woman’s rights (and taking her rights to drive her medical care out of her hands, and given directly to someone else outside of herself) is dangerous territory, and once done will only lead to a cascade of health care delivery problems for women.

They are mistaken because the issue is not medical treatment but the life of a person…

 

[tonyrey]

**Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not a stage of development within the species. Personhood is not defined by size, skill, or intellect. **

If personhood is defined by size; then is a 7ft basketball player more human than a 4’6" cheerleader? What if someone 400lbs lost 200lbs, does that make them less human?

If intellect? Then are we less of a person when we sleep, or in a coma, or under anestheia? Is a 12th grader more of a person than a 1st grader?

Just a thought.

Kindly,

James

Cute and acute!

 

[Rence]

They are mistaken because the issue is not medical treatment but the life of a person…

Some would say that it is very much an issue for the woman though, who is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. Some would say those rights should be retained by the woman, not given to another person to make decisions for her, on her behalf, without her (name removed by moderator)ut and against her will.

 

[vz71]

Some would say that it is very much an issue for the woman though, who is the one with the right to consent or refuse treatment. Some would say those rights should be retained by the woman, not given to another person to make decisions for her, on her behalf, without her (name removed by moderator)ut and against her will.

“Some” would then be mistaken.
The women does have the choice. Unless the argument is one of extremes.

The women can choose if she should be pregnant or if she should not.
Once she has chosen to be pregnant, and becomes so, there is another life involved.
And she is obligated to consider the welfare of that life.

Pregnancy is a tremendous responsibility.
It should not be entered into lightly, nor should behavior that leads to pregnancy.

It is a shame popular society has indoctrinated so many into disasociating actions from their consequences.

 

[tonyrey]

It furthers the discussion. I consider most of these attempts to ‘personalize’ human fetuses to be a form of kin-selection.

Because we want to know whether human fetuses are human persons, not persons in some undefined sense. We want to know whether they have the same rights and dignities human persons have.
You have given no valid reason to believe human fetuses are not persons.

I never said persons can’t exist without brains.

It is implied in your argument that a fetus is not a person…

Medicine is not concerned with persons but with bodies. There are plenty of doctors who believe a person must have a soul in order to be a person.

Be that as it may, this is irrelevant to whether a thing must have a brain in order to be a human person. As I said earlier, belief in souls isn’t at odds with this condition.
It is relevant because doctors who believe persons have a soul also believe a fetus without a brain is a person who has a soul.

The reason why a fetus is a person is that he or she comes from the union of two persons and will develop into a mature person unless he or she dies naturally or is killed by a person. It is arbitrary to p(name removed by moderator)oint any stage of development at which the fetus becomes a person subsequent to the moment of conception.

You can’t just ‘say’ that p(name removed by moderator)ointing any stage of development subsequent to conception is arbitrary, otherwise I’ll just ‘say’ your p(name removed by moderator)ointing conception is arbitrary.
Conception is not a stage of development like subsequent stages it is the moment when a new individual begins to exist. To invoke the necessity of a brain or any other physical factor is merely an excuse for the convenient right to kill the fetus when it is regarded as an unnecessary burden or nuisance which interferes with the parents’ freedom and plans for the future. An unborn person’s life is deemed of lesser importance than the desires of persons who exist only because their parents regarded their life as worth having - as in the case of your parents…

Why think something is a person if it came from the union of two persons and will develop into a mature person…etc. Why not just say the fetus is a ‘potential’ person? I suspect it’s because your theology won’t let you.

Another ad hominem - which is also false. Theology has nothing to do with my reasons for regarding a fetus as an unborn person. It is matter of inexorable logic. Either all human beings and their offspring have a right to life or no one does. Any interference with the natural process of a person’s development is unjustified unless it is regarded as a lesser evil than the alternative consequences - such as the death of the mother who has other dependent children. Yet even then some mothers choose to die rather than allow their unborn child to die. The mother alone has the final right to decide because she is the one who is bearing the child and will die if the pregnancy is not terminated.

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

“Some” would then be mistaken.
The women does have the choice. Unless the argument is one of extremes.

The women can choose if she should be pregnant or if she should not.
Once she has chosen to be pregnant, and becomes so, there is another life involved.
And she is obligated to consider the welfare of that life.

Pregnancy is a tremendous responsibility.
It should not be entered into lightly, nor should behavior that leads to pregnancy.

It is a shame popular society has indoctrinated so many into disassociating actions from their consequences.

The principle of equality applies to the unborn as well as those have benefited from their parents’ decision not to prevent them from being born. Those who disagree expect to have one law for themselves and another for those who are vulnerable and cannot speak for themselves.

 

[atheistgirl]

Either all human beings and their offspring have a right to life or no one does.

By that logic, those Christian churches who do not outright condemn and oppose the death penalty, think no one has a ‘‘right’’ to life.

Sarah x

 

[Rence]

“Some” would then be mistaken.
The women does have the choice. Unless the argument is one of extremes.

Regardless of whether or not “some” would be mistaken, these are some of the reasons in answer to the OP, and why the majority of people (even those who call themselves prolife) make exceptions for when the woman’s health is at risk.

"
The women can choose if she should be pregnant or if she should not.

Not always.

It is a shame popular society has indoctrinated so many into disasociating actions from their consequences.

Agreed. But that horse has been out of the barn too long…