Personhood

[BrokenQuill92]

So my mother got mad at me for referring to this






as an "it". She seems to think that once you're born you're automatically a person. And apparently I should be more sympathetic have a congenital cephalic disorder (hydrocephalus) of my own. but I told her that it doesn't have a brain therefore it doesn't think or feel, and so it's not a person. I also told her the woman that gave birth to it was selfish because all that time and medicine should have gone to actual children. What do you guys think? Is being "alive" enough to establish the title person? Am I being unnecessarily harsh?

[Nine]

The mother may be selfish but its not like you can turn love off, especially towards your own kids.

[BrokenQuill92]

The mother may be selfish but its not like you can turn love off, especially towards your own kids.

Well that was my point it's not really a kid, it's a body. Cases like this is why they shouldn't restrict the donor access of anencephalic "infants". People could have used those organs, and that medicine.

[No_God]

So my cousin who overdosed on heroin, who was completely brain dead, wasn't a person? He was an "it" because his brain didn't function? OR my daughter who was found to lack brain function when she was in utero?

This makes absolutely no sense to me... how can you call that baby an "it" and just write it off like it means less than dog shit. To me this seems heartless and just insulting. Abortion in these situations is completely subjective. It depends on the mother, her family, and her options at the time. Not everyone terminates pregnancies with birth defects. I did, but I would never judge another for their choices on terminating or not. I had an induction abortion at 27 weeks and I considered my daughter to be a person. I wasn't ready or even able to bring a severely mentally and physically disabled person into this world and neither was her father, his family, or my family. She was a person, not an it, I saw her... So, I take this as an insult when you call this baby an "it".

How could you be so insensitive? I think you should really think about using a little more empathy and being more sensitive to people's feelings on the matter. You never know who you are talking to or who knows more than you on these subjects.

[BrokenQuill92]

So my cousin who overdosed on heroin, who was completely brain dead, wasn't a person? He was an "it" because his brain didn't function? OR my daughter who was found to lack brain function when she was in utero?

This makes absolutely no sense to me... how can you call that baby an "it" and just write it off like it means less than dog shit. To me this seems heartless and just insulting. Abortion in these situations is completely subjective. It depends on the mother, her family, and her options at the time. Not everyone terminates pregnancies with birth defects. I did, but I would never judge another for their choices on terminating or not. I had an induction abortion at 27 weeks and I considered my daughter to be a person. I wasn't ready or even able to bring a severely mentally and physically disabled person into this world and neither was her father, his family, or my family. She was a person, not an it, I saw her... So, I take this as an insult when you call this baby an "it".

How could you be so insensitive? I think you should really think about using a little more empathy and being more sensitive to people's feelings on the matter. You never know who you are talking to or who knows more than you on these subjects.

It didnt have a brain. Holo-anencephalia means it only had a brainstem. That's a LOT different than ODing on heroine. Your family member had a brain with functions and thoughts, my point is that how can something be a "person" without the ability to think?

[c172]

NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

[No_God]

Because it is a living human being that has been born. In the United States that baby has the same rights (personhood) as you and I no matter what his or her cognitive abilities or disabilities may be.

I don't see how this is a hard subject to grasp.

[BrokenQuill92]

NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

Losing the ability to think and never having it in the first place are two different things.

---

Let's see if i can state the question again. "If you don't have a brain are you a person?"

[No_God]

I don't mean to be an asshole about this but it really hits home with me. It would be a shame if this little baby was robbed of it's dignity and defined as "not a person".

[Nine]

I see multiple subjects here.

1: Without a brain/mind is a human a necessarily a person?
2: Is a human without the ability to think or feel worth the same as one that can?
3: Is it okay to sacrifice a human without the ability to think or feel to potentially save one that can?

As for the first it depends on what definition of person you use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology . an individual human being, especially with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy . a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.

With definition 1 yes the infant is a human and therefor a person. #2 I see as the same as definition 1. definition 3 I would say yes and no because although the infant can't interact with society others interact with him/her (I didn't watch the video). As for 4 he/she is unable be self conscious or rational so no. Finally #5 I would say no for the same reason as 4.

Now for the second topic I would have to hesitantly say maybe not. In a hypothetical situation where I could save either a kid thats able to think and feel or another that can't I would have to pick the one that can. I certainly wouldn't be happy with making the decision seems that regardless of the disability the parents love and care for each of them. Even so where do you draw the line? What if we start ranking all humans on what they are worth or how well they fit the definitions of human then deciding which live and die based on that? Thats fucked up.

I kind of already grazed the last subject but whether you think the infant is a person or not. That infant is loved by its family, and by saying that he/she is not really a person and doesn't deserve the organs and medicine you are essentially taking away their loved one. All that because they aren't person enough to deserve them.

I had to write that quickly so there might be a few mistakes.

---

NG's relative lost the ability to think, and therefore was "without the ability to think", just like this "non-person" you speak of.

Losing the ability to think and never having it in the first place are two different things.

I'm not sure why you think these things are so different.