Take into account the fact that inanimate objects like a rock or an animal are missing something crucial - personhood that one quality that confers on those who possess it what we've fondly come to know as rights. — TheMadFool

What's a two month fetus have on a 10 year old chimp?

fetuses are persons — TheMadFool

Fetuses physically resemble human people, just like the moon sometimes looks like a face but it's really just a hunk of rock.

A human != a person.

What's a two month fetus have on a 10 year old chimp? — Coben

As far as language is concerned they're both "it" just as a piece of rock is one. Abortion then isn't murder. Just as you take off your shoe and turn it upside down to get rid of that irritating pebble that found its way inside your shoe with no moral consequences so can a pregnant woman pay a visit to the nearest abortion clinic without ruffling anyone's feathers.

Fetuses physically resemble human people, just like the moon sometimes looks like a face but it's really just a hunk of rock.

A human != a person. — darthbarracuda

Tell that to a mother who wants her baby.

To think, to legislate, to act with intelligence, one has to draw a line in the sand as to what is a person or not a person, or what is alive or dead, or what has rights or no rights. Try not to pretend, though, that these distinctions are as sharp and absolute in the world as they are in the mind. Acorns become oak trees; we know the difference, and we know the sameness.

The neuter genitive would be the natural locution for a foetus whose sex is unknowable and whose survival is uncertain. Infant mortality is so low as to be neglected in people's thinking these days, but of yore, one did not over-invest in the humanity of that which may well not survive to speak.

Tell that to a mother who wants her baby. — TheMadFool

What will you tell a mother who has lost the baby she wanted? The Catholic church has a doctrine on these matters, but other philosophers should manage without.

ake into account the fact that inanimate objects like a rock or an animal are missing something crucial - personhood — TheMadFool

Can you give the manifestations of this personhood by which we can say that an entity has the quality personhood i.e that some entity is eligible for personhood.

Can you give the manifestations of this personhood by which we can say that an entity has the quality personhood. — philosopher004

Personhood

Personhood — TheMadFool

Philosopher Thomas I. White argues that the criteria for a person are as follows: (1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. While many of White's criteria are somewhat anthropocentric, some animals such as dolphins would still be considered persons.[16] Some animal rights groups have also championed recognition for animals as "persons".[17]

In this case the fetus doesn't qualify as a person but:

A person is recognized by law as such, not because they are human, but because rights and duties are ascribed to them. The person is the legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. An individual human being considered to be having such attributes is what lawyers call a "natural person."


In this case the fetus can qualify as a person. I am in a state of cognitive dissonance and I think I have to put more effort to figure it out.

I don't refer to "it" when speaking about animals either. If I know it's gender, I'll use that. Otherwise most animals are either grammatically female or male in the Dutch language and then we use that.

foetus — unenlightened

An embryonic nemesis?

In summary, an analysis of language suggests that babies, ergo fetuses, don't have personhood and therefore abortion should be ok but the way people in general and mothers in particular resent people who refer to their babies as an "it" indicates the opposite - fetuses are persons.

What gives? :chin: — TheMadFool

That despite reason there’s an inescapable intuition of life and kinship.

To think, to legislate, to act with intelligence, one has to draw a line — unenlightened

Or two lines. If far enough apart they can be as blurred as you please, yet maintain an absolute distinction.

Fetus’ are human beings in their earliest stages of life. We all used to be one. And we accept that there may be a conflict of rights between a person in its earliest stages and post birth. It certainly is a problem and an argument worth having. What pronouns we use might not be as important a topic.

The neuter genitive would be the natural locution for a foetus whose sex is unknowable and whose survival is uncertain. — unenlightened

I thought of that but it doesn't solve the problem. We know the sex of the dogs we have as pets and yet they're "it".

What will you tell a mother who has lost the baby she wanted? — unenlightened

No words can be adequate for such a tragedy, assuming of course that she wanted the baby.

If I know it's gender, I'll use that. — Benkei

Please read my reply to unenlightened. Also, don't forget that animals, despite your exemplary humanity, don't have the same rights as we humans do. Would you petition for the death penalty if someone tortured your beloved pet to death in a horrific manner? Even if you did, would anyone take you seriously?

That despite reason there’s an inescapable intuition of life and kinship. — praxis

Yes, but this "intuition" has to be reconciled with our other "intuition" that baby's only deserve an "it" when we refer to them.

To tell you the truth, what I feel is critical to this discussion is the fact that mothers who want their babies assign personhood ergo, conferring the right to life to fetuses, from the moment of conception or the time they discover they're pregnant which is quite early, much before they become viable and are thus qualify for abortion.

I doon't know how accurate this information is but I've heard of parents who want children talk to their fetuses, make them listen to music, etc. What does this tell you? Is personhood in re fetuses just a matter of whether you want children or not??

What pronouns we use might not be as important a topic — NOS4A2

Words betray our thoughts.

So you’re pro life and the state deciding wether or not women are allowed to abort a pregnancy?

I doon't know how accurate this information is but I've heard of parents who want children talk to their fetuses, make them listen to music, etc. What does this tell you? Is personhood in re fetuses just a matter of whether you want children or not?? — TheMadFool

I think that is the case. But from the moment the thing in the uterus can be called a fetus it entails the entitlement to Fetal rights.

No words can be adequate for such a tragedy — TheMadFool

My point is that a few generations ago this was a commonplace occurrence. At that time, and all previous times, one could not afford for 'no words' to be 'adequate'. The way we think and the way we feel has been changed by modern medicine.

So, for example, the unbaptised dead were not admitted to salvation and heaven, and this attitude survived well into the C, 20th, and affected the burial of the dead and the treatment of the living.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home

Bear in mind that these institutions are the bastions of anti-abortion.

So you’re pro life and the state deciding wether or not women are allowed to abort a pregnancy?

I am opposed to abortion but do not think the state should decide.

Is personhood in re fetuses just a matter of whether you want children or not?? — TheMadFool

TMF!

'personhood' is indeed a non sequitur to those who want to justify abortion (I'm a moderate independent/am ok with certain exceptions/endangerment of the mother, etc.). Where possible. I advocate the adoption-option.

Anyway back to the non sequitur argument “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”:

All existence requires time
Human beings exist
Human beings require time for their existence

So the thinking there is 'personhood' is irrelevant and a non sequitur because logically, the process that's involved in the creation of a being (verb), requires time for its own existence. (In other words, it doesn't matter where you are along in the process...)

But of course, this whole argument has more to do with emotions than logic :wink:

Words betray our thoughts. — TheMadFool

They also may betray our confusion, ignorance or lack of understanding of language, its meaning and use. Or, they may apply in some context, and not in others. The use of the word "it" may be suggestive in some ways in some cases, but not in others.

Also, don't forget that animals, despite your exemplary humanity, don't have the same rights as we humans do. — TheMadFool

There's that annoying word "rights" again. Do you refer to legal rights, or non-legal rights? Sadly, dogs don't have the right to vote (worse yet, cats don't have the right to vote). I'm uncertain whether this is ethically significant, though. Are you addressing the legal rights of a foetus, or some other "rights"?

I am opposed to abortion but do not think the state should decide. — NOS4A2

Exactly my position on metaphysics.

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't a foetus that absorbs its twin be trialed for manslaughter? or maybe for first degree murder?

In summary, an analysis of language suggests that babies, ergo fetuses, don't have personhood and therefore abortion should be ok but the way people in general and mothers in particular resent people who refer to their babies as an "it" indicates the opposite - fetuses are persons. — TheMadFool

And ships and nations are often referred to as "she," yet neither have personhood nor vaginas. We call hurricanes things like "Katrina," but I don't know if I'd call the hurricane a she, although I might now that I've been forced to think about it. When grandpa dies, we don't look upon the corpse during the viewing and say "It looks so peaceful," but we say "he" despite grandpa having no rights or personhood. If I see your body walk by the window, I will say I saw "it," not "him" because for some reason your body has no gender, but gender belongs to your being, and that is different from your body somehow. So complicated. What does all this mean? Probably nothing metaphysical, but just how we communicate.

I'm pro choice because I don't think a sperm attached to an egg is a person, but I do believe a nine month old fetus that is just finding its way out of the birth canal is (as opposed to who and her). That's at least how I go about determining personhood from not, as opposed to looking at how we talk.

Not all mothers resent when a fetus is referred to as it. I’m willing to wager most don’t care. I believe fetuses do not in fact have personhood. They can hardly be said to be conscious in the first months of pregnancy and at least before a nervous system and brain begin to develop, they can’t feel pain. I think it is agreed that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain starting at the third trimester.

If no harm is done through abortion then why should it be considered immoral? And no I do not believe that “denying someone life” is a form of harm or else everyone who is not having babies 24/7 would be harming others in some way which just sounds ridiculous to me.

I believe that as long as a nervous system hasn’t developed abortion should be indisputably alright. Afterwards it is almost indisputably wrong. Especially considering that in most cases it is done because the family can not afford to raise the child.

I think that is the case. But from the moment the thing in the uterus can be called a fetus it entails the entitlement to Fetal rights. — philosopher004

So, the issue was never about whether a fetus is a person or not. It was only a matter of whether a woman wanted children or not. There is no objective sense in which a fetus could be a person; a fetus' personhood depends on nothing substantive but on the whims and fancies of women.

My point is that a few generations ago this was a commonplace occurrence. At that time, and all previous times, one could not afford for 'no words' to be 'adequate'. The way we think and the way we feel has been changed by modern medicine.

So, for example, the unbaptised dead were not admitted to salvation and heaven, and this attitude survived well into the C, 20th, and affected the burial of the dead and the treatment of the living.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon_Secours_Mother_and_Baby_Home

Bear in mind that these institutions are the bastions of anti-abortion. — unenlightened

Well, from what I gather losing children mothers' wanted is relevant to the abortion debate only to the extent that it shows women are, at best confused, at worst being whimsical as regards the personhood status of fetuses. Read below:

They also may betray our confusion, ignorance or lack of understanding of language, its meaning and use. Or, they may apply in some context, and not in others. The use of the word "it" may be suggestive in some ways in some cases, but not in others — Ciceronianus the White

That's exactly the problem. It's not necessarily the case that this situation - referring to babies with "it" - is a state of confusion. It could reflect an intuition/insight that people have on the personhood of fetuses. Personally, I prefer not to call babies "it" but I find it unlikely that pro-choicers can find a good enough reason not to.

There's that annoying word "rights" again. Do you refer to legal rights, or non-legal rights? Sadly, dogs don't have the right to vote (worse yet, cats don't have the right to vote). I'm uncertain whether this is ethically significant, though. Are you addressing the legal rights of a foetus, or some other "rights"? — Ciceronianus the White

I haven't heard of non-legal rights so, I guess we're talking about legal ones. What is this right to life people talk about? I mean rights in that same sense for fetuses.

TMF!

'personhood' is indeed a non sequitur to those who want to justify abortion (I'm a moderate independent/am ok with certain exceptions/endangerment of the mother, etc.). Where possible. I advocate the adoption-option.

Anyway back to the non sequitur argument “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”:

All existence requires time
Human beings exist
Human beings require time for their existence

So the thinking there is 'personhood' is irrelevant and a non sequitur because logically, the process that's involved in the creation of a being (verb), requires time for its existence. (In other words, it doesn't matter where you are along in the process...)

But of course, this whole argument has more to do with emotions than logic :wink: — 3017amen

Au contraire, I feel personhood is the heart of the issue; after all pro-choicers have to prove that abortion isn't murder and the immorality of murder is based on the concept of personhood.

As for emotions, you're right, women seem to be assessing the issue emotionally rather than rationally - those who want children and are thus emotionally invested think of fetuses as persons and those who don't want children lack the emotions to think of fetuses as persons.

If a foetus is a person, shouldn't a foetus that absorbs its twin be trialed for manslaughter? or maybe for first degree murder? — Daniel

Interesting question but manslaughter involves committing an unlawful act that led to death, negligence in the performance of a duty, or an intent to harm all of which a fetus is incapable of.

Probably nothing metaphysical, but just how we communicate. — Hanover

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I have this nagging feeling that the way we use words [may] reflect our intuitions regarding the subject/issue we use them in.

Not all mothers resent when a fetus is referred to as it. I’m willing to wager most don’t care. — khaled

Explain this then:

The genitive form its has been used to refer to human babies and animals, although with the passage of time this usage has come to be considered too impersonal in the case of babies — Wikipedia

I think it is agreed that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain starting at the third trimester — khaled

Please examine pain more carefully.

If no harm is done through abortion then why should it be considered immoral? And no I do not believe that “denying someone life” is a form of harm or else everyone who is not having babies 24/7 would be harming others in some way which just sounds ridiculous to me. — khaled

Life, as far as this discussion is concerned, requires fertilization - the union of sperm and egg. From that point on, personhood matters and the specter of murder looms over the heads of pro-choicers. When you say that you find it ridiculous that people should engage in the procreative act 24/7 if they're not to deny life then you should know how equally, if not more, ridiculous it is to say that you should use Hydrogen and Oxygen to put out a fire because water is H2O. The fire-extinguishing property of water is acquired only after Hydrogen and Oxygen have combined and not before. Likewise, the question of personhood - the possibility of murder - arises only after fertilization has occurred.

Well, from what I gather losing children mothers' wanted is relevant to the abortion debate only to the extent that it shows women are, at best confused, at worst being whimsical as regards the personhood status of fetuses. — TheMadFool

Fuck me! If that's what you gather, stick to hunting.

Fuck me! If that's what you gather, stick to hunting. — unenlightened

:brow:

So, the issue was never about whether a fetus is a person or not. It was only a matter of whether a woman wanted children or not. There is no objective sense in which a fetus could be a person; a fetus' personhood depends on nothing substantive but on the whims and fancies of women. — TheMadFool

Yeah and giving freedom of choice to the mother is the aim of pro abortion:smile: .

Yeah and giving freedom of choice to the mother is the aim of pro abortion:smile: . — philosopher004

only if it's not murder.

Where does conscience come in all of this, you know, the ability to know right from wrong?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I have this nagging feeling that the way we use words [may] reflect our intuitions regarding the subject/issue we use them in. — TheMadFool

I think you might be reading too much into it. We use words to communicate to the people around us and it's doubtful everyone is clued into all the nuances that might be impregnated into every word choice. The point being, maybe I meant to use the term "impregnated" here for the double entendre or maybe I was oblivious for a fleeting moment that we were talking about aborting pregnancies and it was just a distracting word choice.

My guess is that it depends upon who's doing the talking and some might mean some things that others did not. I would assume there are languages out there that lack the personal pronoun altogether (as I'm told is the case for Japanese), but I don't think we can then say the Japanese don't fully recognize the difference between people and hats.

Au contraire, I feel personhood is the heart of the issue; after all pro-choicers have to prove that abortion isn't murder and the immorality of murder is based on the concept of personhood.

As for emotions, you're right, women seem to be assessing the issue emotionally rather than rationally - those who want children and are thus emotionally invested think of fetuses as persons and those who don't want children lack the emotions to think of fetuses as persons. — TheMadFool

TMF!

For the sake of argument, if it is true that human beings require time for [to maintain] their own existence, and to get to point B (birth), there logically must be a point A (conception), then how does one "prove personhood"?