Uh, I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I was responding to someone who thinks there is no change in the fetus at birth since conception is all a growing process even to adolescence....he is wrong as I pointed out. I referred to teenagers as not being the same as a fetus since they do not use another person's body to sustain their life like a fetus does.
So you were not responding to me... since I said nothing of the kind. And I am sure that you would never stoop to selective misquoting. That is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty, so I am confident that you would not do it...
Before any of the events you describe may occur, there must be a nervous system. There must be a brain. Those appear much earlier. Why do you consider them to be less significant? And of course, prenatal "experience of the world" is very, very limited. A "person" is not just DNA and time. A person is also all the experiences that are met. Almost entirely after birth... Let's be clear. I would critique any other particular "moment" you might choose, like fertilization, first heartbeat, reaction to stimulus,... or whatever. As the OP's title says there is no moment of personhood. Personhood is a long ongoing process, beginning before birth and continuing afterwards.
No...society speaks for itself. Right now...society is tell you that personhood comes with birth...not with conception. But you are not planning to listen. You suppose you have a higher authority to answer to. Good luck with that, Bob.
"Society" has no means of expression on a topic as precise as "moment of personhood". I have a hard time imagining the questions that a poll might ask. But in any case, "what society thinks" is irrelevant. Certainly "society" thinks differently in different regions of the world. These cannot all be "true". Invoking "what society thinks" is a cop-out. If you have a position, then please express it.
I have expressed MY position a half dozen times in the current two threads on this topic. Personhood comes with being born...and having the umbilical severed. Without that tether severed...there is no person there except the host. And the host makes decisions for what she wants to do with her own body...and anything tethered to it. Clear enough?
Okay...but the person just born is still dependent on others for its survival. Since this is the case can this dependant life be allowed to be terminated?
I will play this game once, but not twice... I said (removing your bold and adding my own): Then you said (bold added): I said "several physiological changes" and you paraphrased that as "no change". There are two possibilities here: - You have severe reading comprehension problems. - You intentionally transformed my words. I'll be charitable and presume that you have reading difficulties. I encourage you to read several times before answering.
I'm glad you agree that birth is a momentous event involving a number of physiological changes in a life. We have not agreed upon "criteria for becoming a person" yet (though it appears the consensus from those here is birth), so I cannot speak to how significant those changes are in comparison, but they must occur for life to continue. There is no "individual" undergoing changes before birth, as the fetus is attached it cannot be an "individual." Human life continues to change for the duration of the life, but nothing is as dramatic and sudden as the changes occurring at birth.
And that is great ... for you, the issue with pro-life people is that they think that their desires should be enforced on to others. - - - Updated - - - I agree with everything except the first line.
It's clear in the sense "unambiguous". It is NOT clear in the sense "limpid". You repeat that birth is the "moment of personhood" and you give some justifications. But... When your justifications are disputed, you simply repeat yourself. Your belief appears to be what I call "backfilled reasoning". You started with a gut-feeling, and back-filled a "reasoned" justification. The result is that you cannot discuss "why" your chosen moment is so special.
There is probably no moment as loaded with physiological impact as birth. A lot of stuff happening in a short period. That said, the largest part of those changes involves the shift in breathing... just like ALL mammals. That is nothing special among the events leading to becoming a person. "Breathes air" is certainly not a significant criterion for deciding personhood. Our biggest problem when discussing anything about our own condition as "rational beings" is... that we are not, most of the time. Only in particular circumstances do we manage to evade our emotions' usual stranglehold. I assisted at the birth of my only child. It was probably the most intense moment of my life. How can I "think rationally" about birth?
A person (as in person-hood) develops over time but I am not convinced it can begin before the cerebrum is ready to work. Consider some parallels: How does a living organism develop? Fertilization is an event that activates a unique living organism. The new organism starts with minimal capabilities and has the potential, over time, to become a fully-formed organism. When the organism can no longer maintain life support, that physical life has ended. How does a person develop? Birth is an event that activates a unique mind (a unique person). The new person starts with minimal personality and has the potential, over time, to become a fully-developed person. When the mind can no longer function, that person has ended. Note that the first list is NOT unique to persons, but could describe any living organism in the universe. The timeline for development of the cerebrum suggests that there is no real opportunity for person-hood to begin before birth. Is the nervous system really what makes us persons? The nervous system is pretty important (like the life support systems) but consider this. If a baby is born with a genetic flaw that prevents it from experiencing any sensation except vision, does that mean it cannot be a person? I agree that person-hood is a long process, but I see no evidence that it could begin before the cerebrum has the mechanical capability to experience any sensations that might be collected by the nervous system. Even in the last four weeks or so of gestation (when the cerebrum might have the mechanical ability) I question whether we can consider the process "started" while the fetal brain is sedated.
If you do not understand the difference between being dependent and being attached by an umbilical cord...there is not much I can say. It is my opinion that there is no personhood until the birth and the cutting of the umbilical. I understand that intelligent, well-intentioned people are of different opinions...and that is fine with me. That question is an insult and is a huge part of the reason no accommodation is reached between the two factions in this issue.
That sentence of yours is absolutely unclear. That is almost all that can be done. IT IS MY OPINION THAT PERSONHOOD DOES NOT OCCUR UNTIL BIRTH...AND THE UMBILICAL IS CUT. How much less unclear and unambiguous can I be on that. Are you saying that you can "dispute" my opinion? IT IS MY OPINION. One...it is an opinion...NOT A BELIEF. You seem to be the one backfilling (as you put it)...by having an opinion that personhood begins somewhere earlier...and then trying to justify your opinion. You do not have to "justify" an opinion of that sort. It simply is your opinion. There is NO absolute that either of us can discover regarding when a bunch of dividing cells becomes a person. Oompah! Several people here have attempted to tell you why some of us choose birth as the basis for personhood...but you simply brush it aside because you have a gut feeling that personhood starts earlier. I suspect it is a religious motivation. Deal with it as you will. I've given my opinion...and I'll stick with it.
You get insulted easily. Since babies are born prematurely I think your yardstick is flawed. But I also believe a woman has a choice. But it should be a choice not taken lightly. I imagine the choice should be an agonizing one. And rightly so.
Ummm... I believe that I said your opinion is not ambiguous. An opinion must be based on something. Either on evidence or on faith. If you cannot or will not discuss the evidence, then I assume that your opinion is based on faith. I don't think I have stated any opinion on when personhood begins. I don't have one. As the title of the OP says, there is no moment of personhood. Personhood is a process, both physiological and psychological. At various arbitrary points in this process, we define the developing individual's status relating to the rest of us. A "child" is not an "adult". An unjustified opinion is just smoke. A justified opinion carries weight. Oompah! Several people here have attempted to tell you why some of us choose birth as the basis for personhood...but you simply brush it aside because you have a gut feeling that personhood starts earlier. I suspect it is a religious motivation. Deal with it as you will. I've given my opinion...and I'll stick with it.
Actually, I do NOT get insulted easily. But if you think that mentioning my position that a pregnancy can be terminated...and then questioning if I think infants can be terminated...or people with severe disabilities can be terminated...is not insulting, then you have a problem. You are allowed to think that. Just as I am allowed to think your reasoning on this issue is seriously flawed. Once they are born...they are persons. While they are not born...they are not persons, they are fetuses. I feel exactly that same way...and that is why I argue that people not attached to either party by an umbilical...ought to butt out of the decision. That is all I have been saying.
The remainder of that ambiguous statement of yours left me wondering what you were saying. My opinion IS based on the fact that a person is a person...and a fetus is a fetus. Until it is born...it is not a person. That is my opinion. Well...perhaps you ought to state one. As far as I am concerned, personhood is occasioned by birth. If it is something else for you (and it seems to be) put it out there. That is an interesting opinion, Bob. Do you have any justification for it? That is also an interesting opinion, Bob. Do you have any justifications for that one? Yup, I said that...and I stick with it. Did you have something to say about it?
The words "unambiguous" and "limpid" are two different expressions of "clear", the word you used originally. The statement "a soul is acquired at fertilization" is unambiguous. Each word has an unambiguous definition. The statement is not limpid because it uses the word "soul" which is unambiguous... but perhaps unreal. Words have meanings. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning. Which is a logical fallacy. Why would would I state an opinion that I do not have, on a topic that I consider without consequence? How many times must I repeat myself? Childish.
Yeah. You ought to consider that when you use them ambiguously. Anyway, you seem to be saying that... "Personhood comes with being born...and having the umbilical severed. Without that tether severed...there is no person there except the host"... ...is not 'clear' in the limpid sense! I'm hoping you are kidding...or just backed into a corner and unwilling to let it go. The statement, Bob...IS clear, concise and consistent with the rest of what I have said. If you see it as less than "limpid" (which I find hilarious)...the problem is with your sight, not with what I wrote. Not being unnecessarily modest here, Bob...but NOTHING I do is perfect. It was a bit circular...but I am just playing the game you are insisting upon. And enjoying it. Hope you are also. Beats me. I gotta wonder why you are spending so much time on the issue if it is, for you, without consequences. Until you tire. I won't. You wrote: An unjustified opinion is just smoke. A justified opinion carries weight. Those are both opinions...so I asked you for the justification. Now you call my request, "childish." C'mon!
