Let me make this simpler.

I would actually consider someone a person as soon as they develop a conscience, if I were to come at it from a neuroscientific angle. But that's a problem, see, because one's conscience generally doesn't surface until many months later after birth.

But still, I would assume, even before that age human babies exhibit certain behaviours different from other animals at the same point in their lives. Distinctly so. So should we call them human because of that then? But that still has to do with the brain, it's patterns and functions. If you want to delve deeper, we're talking about genetics. So shouldn't we, rather, talk about fetuses as persons as soon as they develop brains with distinctly human features such that distinguishes them from other animals?

I have a feeling this problem should be put to rest by (neuro-)science rather than by such an ephemeral thing as law. Not to mention the obvious downside inherent in drawing your moral philosophy solely from the one your government enforces on you at any given moment...

That's the justification behind limiting or banning late term abortions.  That the fetus has developed enough at some point x to make us hold the knife.  OFC, not every fetus will be at that point when the female seeks the procedure.  In fact, the crushing majority (91%) of abortions are performed in the first trimester, before any such development has occurred. Science informs, a law would have to be set regardless, because science dos not compel. Even so, people would simply break the law regardless of where we set it. The same could be said of any law regarding circumcision...but would then -also- have to be said about any other form of genital mutilation, to either sex.

Personhood -is- a legal status, btw. I'm not selling you a damned thing, lol. I know it seems like -anything- can be argued....but sometimes, just sometimes...there's simply no room. When you read the opinions which form thes cases, and the term person or personhood is referred to, they don;t mean it in the sense of "whatever EP might happen to call a person" - they're referring to a legal status. We don't even get that full status until the age of majority. That moment when, at the stroke of midnight on your eighteenth, magic happens (except you still can't drink, because reasons).

(October 9, 2016 at 3:10 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's the justification behind limiting or banning late term abortions.  That the fetus has developed enough at some point x to make us hold the knife.  OFC, not every fetus will be at that point when the female seeks the procedure.  In fact, the crushing majority (91%) of abortions are performed in the first trimester, before any such development has occurred.  Science informs, a law would have to be set regardless, because science dos not compel.  Even so, people would simply break the law regardless of where we set it.  The same could be said of any law regarding circumcision...but would then -also- have to be said about  any other form of genital mutilation, to either sex.

Personhood -is- a legal status, btw.  I'm not selling you a damned thing, lol.

Personhood may be a legal term, that's not all it is, though. Personhood may also be used outside of its legal connotation to be discussed as an idea, whether casually or philosophically. Come on now, seriously?

Well, ok, then, about the abortion debate. Thanks for educating me, I guess.

Do I find it a little hard to believe that we can already tell when a fetus' brain becomes sufficiently developed for us to be able to distinguish it from other life forms in some significant way that is to pave the way to it becoming a human?(- Yes, I do) Otherwise, what is, in your mind, the difference between killing an unthinking animal and an unthinking human, whether in womb or otherwise?

We might be getting off-topic with this, but I find it a good topic to talk about. Just as long as we can all agree that just because there are already laws concerning all of these things, doesn't mean our discussion about them should be confined, intellectually, within those limits as set by those laws(i.e. personhood starts at birth, so says my government, now stop talking about it).

I'll be happy to stop talking about abortions now. Sorry I did as it is. And sorry for leaving this discussion in its midst, right after I had the last word(I think). I'll give you yours, if you want, though.

(October 9, 2016 at 3:24 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Personhood may be a legal term, that's not all it is, though. Personhood may also be used outside of its legal connotation to be discussed as an idea, whether casually or philosophically. Come on now, seriously?

You can use it in any sense that you like, but using it in some other sense can't speak to the legal sense....in fact, you're not even talking -about- the same thing...which is where and why the problem of drawing inference between two disparate meanings of the word begins.  

Quote:Well, ok, then, about the abortion debate. Thanks for educating me, I guess.

Do I find it a little hard to believe that we can already tell when a fetus' brain becomes sufficiently developed for us to be able to distinguish it from other life forms in some significant way that is to pave the way to it becoming a human?(- Yes, I do) Otherwise, what is, in your mind, the difference between killing an unthinking animal and an unthinking human, whether in womb or otherwise?

It's not about it becoming human.  It's about it becoming conscious.  There's no doubt that a fetus in the first trimester isn't conscious.  There's some doubt that even a newborn is fully conscious.  

Quote:We might be getting off-topic with this, but I find it a good topic to talk about. Just as long as we can all agree that just because there are already laws concerning all of these things, doesn't mean our discussion about them should be confined, intellectually, within those limits as set by those laws(i.e. personhood starts at birth, so says my government, now stop talking about it).

No ones trying to confine a conversation.  Your means of inference was not valid because you did not -address- that to which you objected.  Now, if you wanted to make the argument that personhood should be granted to a fetus, fine....but "it's gonna be a human one day" won't do that either.  Again, a fertilized egg, day one, will become a human (that's the life begins at conception route), and even a 17 year old doesn't get full personhood...despite having "already become a human". Long story short, that end of it is pretty fuckin complicated...but isn't seen as the most compelling interest in the case of abortion in any case. To bar the mother from aborting is to use the power of the state to sentence her to carry the child to term. At which point she could abandon the child to our foster care system...or be further sentenced to motherhood.

None of these outcomes are actually positively weighted. We don't think that abortion is "good". We don't think that piles of orphans are "good". We don't think that sentencing someone to motherhood is "good". We do think that the last two are worse than the first. By we I only mean our laws, our courts, our system.

(doesn't really matter if we derail, btw, we've already determined that the circumcision issue is one where people either don't give a shit, or believe weird things about circumcision that they're just going to act on anyway, that sort of shit is intractable,lol)

Well, I've already given up on the subject. I did have some more to say, but I don't see the point now. I understand your position and I was merely going to point out where our apparent disagreements lie and why.

In comparision I have an almost 2 month  daughter and there is the tradition of piercing baby girls ears at this time to them wear earrings, cause its pretty. I vehemently objected for the same reasons we agreed upon on baptism. My wife is a catholic and she agreed with my reasoning. She can pierce, tattoo, baptize whenever she wants on her will to do it.

I won't impose on my daughter anything, except things that will help her survival, like vaccines, medical care.

Other than that, I am just here to clean her poo. And she makes the most wonderfull poo that I've ever seen.

(October 9, 2016 at 5:46 am)LastPoet Wrote: In comparision I have an almost 2 month  daughter and there is the tradition of piercing baby girls ears at this time to them wear earrings, cause its pretty. I vehemently objected for the same reasons we agreed upon on baptism. My wife is a catholic and she agreed with my reasoning. She can pierce, tattoo, baptize whenever she wants on her will to do it.

I won't impose on my daughter anything, except things that will help her survival, like vaccines, medical care.

Other than that, I am just here to clean her poo. And she makes the most wonderfull poo that I've ever seen.

Yeah, piercing girls' ears (without their consent) is also a form of intrusion on one's bodily rights. No matter how extremely mild the damage may be, you're still forcing holes through their ear lobes or wherever, and for non-medical reasons (often either out of self-interest or indifference). I remember when my mother did it to my sister when she was around 7 (because ... tradition), and seeing my sister wince in pain got to me a little, but I just didn't have any authority as a kid to prevent it. I love my mother by the way, and in the case of ear piercings, the pain is probably very fleeting and non-persistent, but there was no excuse for that.

(October 9, 2016 at 6:18 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 9, 2016 at 5:46 am)LastPoet Wrote: In comparision I have an almost 2 month  daughter and there is the tradition of piercing baby girls ears at this time to them wear earrings, cause its pretty. I vehemently objected for the same reasons we agreed upon on baptism. My wife is a catholic and she agreed with my reasoning. She can pierce, tattoo, baptize whenever she wants on her will to do it.

I won't impose on my daughter anything, except things that will help her survival, like vaccines, medical care.

Other than that, I am just here to clean her poo. And she makes the most wonderfull poo that I've ever seen.

Yeah, piercing girls' ears (without their consent) is also a form of intrusion on one's bodily rights. No matter how extremely mild the damage may be, you're still forcing holes through their ear lobes or wherever, and for non-medical reasons (often either out of self-interest or indifference). I remember when my mother did it to my sister when she was around 7 (because ... tradition), and seeing my sister wince in pain got to me a little, but I just didn't have any authority as a kid to prevent it. I love my mother by the way, and in the case of ear piercings, the pain is probably very fleeting and non-persistent, but there was no excuse for that.

I have been given the same arguments "if its done early is better, babies wont remember etc etc. Perhaps. I dont remember jack shit prior to 3 years. Still no excuse. What is important here is to not make irreversible procedure in a human being of its own right, without the NEED to, prior to their ability to consent.

I have bigger worries. I dont get deep sleep cause I am on alert to her breathing. I get up 10 times a night just to check on her, cause I heard an odd breathing and babies make scary sounds. This is what means to be a parent.

(October 9, 2016 at 1:27 am)BrokenQuill92 Wrote: And speaking as as a person born at twenty-four weeks...

I'm sure you were just as much a person/human being when you were born as you are now.