Private property, most basically, is property not owned by the state but by an individual or group of individuals and not merely for personal use. There is no contradiction in saying that there can be both private property and cooperative ownership of the means of production. And indeed, this state of affairs exists right now. There are cooperative businesses, factories, etc operating without having abolished private property.

It also gives the well water that much desired new baby smell. — Hanover

If you can't defeat a position, at least disarm it with absurdity.

I'm just fooling around. It's important to keep a sense of humour, even about topics like abortion and infanticide; after all, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what's the point of forcing women to bear children.

Why? I think you're assuming a bit much to perform your reductio. One pretty important aspect of personhood is being a separate entity developing within an environment. One way of parsing that would be birth. I've already noted that birth is simply by convention -- and as you say, decisions must be made, etc. etc. What's the difference, then, between birth, and before birth that is so important when you say decisions must be made on the safer side of things?

If you can't defeat a position, at least disarm it with absurdity.

I'm just fooling around. It's important to keep a sense of humour, even about topics like abortion and infanticide; after all, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what's the point of forcing women to bear children. — Soylent

Yes

What's the difference, then, between birth, and before birth that is so important when you say decisions must be made on the safer side of things? — Moliere

I buy into the essentialist argument when it comes to what a person is. As one disassembles a ship, at some point it is no longer is a ship. It's never clear which board is the deciding board or if there is any one particular element that stops it from being a ship. It is clear though that a fully formed ship is in fact a ship and that a single board is not a ship. At some point, though, we have a ship and at some point we don't.

I would say the same applies to humans. I can't say when the magical moment of development occurs that makes the fetus a person and when it doesn't. I can only go on generalities, like can it think, feel, perceive, etc. I don't consider the ability to live without assistance on one's own to be an important factor in determining personhood. But, I'd agree, as with deciphering what the critical essential element of any entity is, whether it be a rock, a ship, or a plant, we can never specifically say. It's a mixture of all sorts of ingredients, with no one being necessary, but I do feel comfortable saying that we have the appropriate mixture for a person when we have a newborn child.

This retort makes no sense, even as a joke.

whoosh!

I don't know what the essentialist argument that you are referring to is, but when you say there's no specific moment when a fetus turns into a person I can say I agree with you. So it seems to me that we just draw the line at different times.

I would say, absent religious notions, that we'd have to look at clear examples of persons to draw conclusions about what it takes to be a person. Where there is no question of personhood is in the case of able-bodied adults. That doesn't mean that personhood can't encompass other sorts, but these are the cases where there is no dispute.

I think being separate, having a history, having both a social and physical environment which you develop and interact within are all important parts of being a person. A fetus has none of these things. What's more I could even see the argument that newborns are not persons in the metaphysical/moral sense, but we have a workable convention which prevents any mistakes -- birth. Sometime after birth, so I would say, is when you acquire enough attributes of the norm to be counted. But prior to birth? No, I really don't think so.

Please leave me alone. Thank you.

You're welcome.

So, you think that people are too stupid to drive responsibly, but not too stupid to use guns responsibly?! Give 'em cars and they'll kill each other with cars. Give 'em guns and they'll kill each other with guns.

Ban ammunition — Michael

Meow!

GREG

Guns are a good way to distribute power in the event there is a concentration of power in the hands of a state, or if there is a political army that is generally oppressive. Arming people to resist the state or said gang is a much more arduous task if the state itself has all the guns. Look at the Syrians who are unable to fend off ISIS for instance. As for the argument of preventing people from getting guns to stop crazy people, this logic has stopped the event of crazy gun murderers almost zero times. The truth is that if someone really wanted a gun, they will almost always be able to find a way to get a gun.

Guns are a good way to distribute power in the event there is a concentration of power in the hands of a state, or if there is a political army that is generally oppressive. Arming people to resist the state or said gang is a much more arduous task if the state itself has all the guns. Look at the Syrians who are unable to fend off ISIS for instance. — discoii

Ok, but given the situation here in the UK, I think that the chance of it getting to a stage in which we'd need to arm revolutionaries is very unlikely, and that the cost of currently giving citizens access to arms - all of the resultant deaths - outweighs the benefit. If there's a workable middle ground in which the citizenry can be armed only in the case of an emergency, then I'm in favour of that.

As for the argument of preventing people from getting guns to stop crazy people, this logic has stopped the event of crazy gun murderers almost zero times. The truth is that if someone really wanted a gun, they will almost always be able to find a way to get a gun. — discoii

Upon what evidence are you basing those conclusions? Obviously gun murderers have obtained a gun somehow, so the law wouldn't have prevented them from doing what they did - I'm not disputing that. But how do you know how many would-be gun murderers have been hindered or prevented because of gun laws? It's relatively hard to get a gun here in the UK, so I'd expect there to be less gun murders, and there are. It's relatively easy to get a gun in the US, so I'd expect there to be more gun murders, and there are. That is telling.

Even if you're right that you can get hold of a gun if you're determined enough, that's a terrible argument for lax gun controls. And if that is the case, then I'm sure there'd be plenty of determined enough people in the case of a tyrannical government to fight against. Let them get hold of a gun that way, rather than arming them in peacetime.

In some societies, newborns are not considered "persons" the moment they are born. The reluctance to grant personhood earlier may be a response to high infant mortality. A baby who is 1 year old is more likely to make it. Or, perhaps they see a baby as not having the necessary attributes of person hood -- too unformed. At 1 year, personhood is much more specific and definite.

I'm not recommending this approach, just mentioning it.

It's no odder to wait a year to establish personhood than to establish it the moment a sperm happens to meet an egg, move in, and set up housekeeping together.

I don't approve of this approach, again just mentioning it.

The issue is that if you look at gun homicide rates by country, there is no correlation whatsoever with the gun laws and the related gun homicide deaths. Places where guns are completely illegal or nearly illegal for private citizens can still have incredibly high gun homicide rates, while other places where gun laws are relatively lax have low gun homicide rates, and vice versa. For example, Mexico and Brazil have really restrictive gun laws, and they still have really high homicide rates.

For the record, I am not in support of 'lax gun controls', I do agree there needs to be some agreed upon regulations. But I also think that people should be armed.

@Moliere The only argument for allowing abortions of 8 1/2 month fetuses, seeing as they have fully developed nervous systems, can feel pain, and lack no special cognitive abilities newborns have, would be something like "out of sight, out of mind". In other words, pure laziness of thought with some philosophical blather about person-hood to make it sound respectable. I really think the left in their enthusiasm not to be the right is messed up on this issue. You either value human life or you don't and that goes right across the spectrum. There is no scientific justification for the idea that a fully developed viable fetus is any less human than a new born. The idea that one should be totally expendable and one totally protected on the basis of nothing other than semantics is contemptible.

What counts as a "fully developed nervous system" (and, for that matter, "feel pain", and cognitive abilities -- what, precisely, are you referring to)? What, in your estimation, is the scientific justification of humanity? We can say "human", or "person" -- I'm just utilizing the language of those who generally advocate against abortion. It's an attempt to meet people on their terms.

Abortion is one of my favorite philosophical topics because it trips across so many basic questions that people take for granted, and it has easily recognizable implications. Anytime people disagree on abortion they tend to believe the other party is contemptible. I am quite familiar with this sort of ire -- but I can assure you that my position is not the result of, as you seem to imply, a desire to express correct left-thinking, but has been reasoned to by way of the philosophical literature. In fact I had been much less pro-choice prior to reading philosophy on the topic and I began to question my own presuppositions and find them to be baseless. I am quite pro-choice not because of my left political orientation, but because of the work of philosophers.

I really think the left in their enthusiasm not to be the right is messed up on this issue. — Baden

Oh god, is Moliere's position representative of a significant portion of the left? If so, I'll gladly disassociate myself from this group within the left. My reaction was exactly the same as Hanover's. And I agree with the gist of your post as well. I doubt that any amount of philosophical blather about person-hood would convince me that it's acceptable to alter the law to make it legal to abort 8 1/2 month old foetuses.

I did not set out to persuade you. I was called into question, and am defending my position from the claim that it is absurd. I don't think philosophy is good for persuasion -- it's a self-reflective exercise more than a tool for persuading others. If your mind is made up then I expect you to continue believing as you do. But just because you, and others here, believe as you do that does not then imply that those who believe otherwise are either absurd or simply speaking opinions because they are the correct opinions to expect in certain political circles.

As for whether or not my position is popular -- I rather doubt it. Personhood, as i mentioned to Baden, is the concept put forward by those who want to restrict abortion. Usually those who want to allow abortion focus on autonomy more than personhood.

The issue is that if you look at gun homicide rates by country, there is no correlation whatsoever with the gun laws and the related gun homicide deaths. Places where guns are completely illegal or nearly illegal for private citizens can still have incredibly high gun homicide rates, while other places where gun laws are relatively lax have low gun homicide rates, and vice versa. For example, Mexico and Brazil have really restrictive gun laws, and they still have really high homicide rates. — discoii

No correlation whatsoever? So, you believe that if, here in the UK, as of tomorrow, the law enabled practically anyone over a certain age (eighteen or twenty-one, for example) to go out to their local store and purchase a firearm and the ammunition to go with it, that gun crime wouldn't skyrocket? Because I find that hard to believe.

For the record, I am not in support of 'lax gun controls'. I do agree that there needs to be some agreed upon regulations. But I also think that people should be armed. — discoii

Ok. I don't think that they should unless and until the need arises. Otherwise my prediction is that gun crime would go up. And the need hasn't arisen over here for a long, long time. There hasn't been a civil war against government forces in hundreds of years. It hasn't been peachy, but the government hasn't been tyrannical enough to provoke violent revolution.

I did not set out to persuade you.

...

I don't think philosophy is good for persuasion -- it's a self-reflective exercise more than a tool for persuading others. If your mind is made up then I expect you to continue believing as you do. But just because you, and others here, believe as you do that does not then imply that those who believe otherwise are either absurd or simply speaking opinions because they are the correct opinions to expect in certain political circles. — Moliere

Eh? What did I say to provoke this red herring about persuasion and implications that I haven't made? I think that it's absurd because it is absurd.

I was called into question, and am defending my position from the claim that it is absurd. — Moliere

I don't think you're doing a very good a job of it.

As for whether or not my position is popular -- I rather doubt it. — Moliere

That's somewhat reassuring.

Personhood, as I mentioned to Baden, is the concept put forward by those who want to restrict abortion. Usually those who want to allow abortion focus on autonomy more than personhood. — Moliere

I don't think that the terminology matters anywhere near as much as what's actually at stake here. This is literally a matter of life and death; and at 8 1/2 months old, that life is sufficiently advanced to rule out abortion as a legal option. I think that the consensus arises from this basis; not that it's right because there's a consensus. Sorry, but there's no ad populum fallacy here for you to easily knock down.

Eh? What did I say to provoke this red herring about persuasion and implications that I haven't made? I think that it's absurd because it is absurd. — Sapientia

This is what I was reacting to --

I doubt that any amount of philosophical blather about person-hood would convince me that it's acceptable to alter the law to make it legal to abort 8 1/2 month old foetuses. — Sapientia

(I was reacting, in particular, to "would convince")

For the record this is already legal in some states in the U.S. -- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=0

I don't think you're doing a very good a job of it. — Sapientia

I'll note that in my Sapientia-grade-book ;).

I would say that a position with rational justification is not absurd. I think that was presupposed in my reply. So in providing rational justification for my belief I would be defending it from the charge that it is absurd. What is it you mean by "It is absurd"?

I don't think that the terminology matters anywhere near as much as what's actually at stake here. This is literally a matter of life and death; and at 8 1/2 months old, that life is sufficiently advanced to rule out abortion as a legal option. — Sapientia

I disagree with your conclusion, though I agree with you in what's at stake. That's another reason why I don't mind talking in terms of personhood -- because if those who advocate against abortion are correct then there's currently legally justified murder of innocent people. That would be horrific, and worthwhile to stand against.

What makes a 8 1/2 month old fetus "sufficiently advanced"? What is sufficiently advanced life?

I think that the consensus arises from this basis;

I don't think there is a consensus. If you'll take a peak at the link I posted earlier you'll see a chart of 50 states who place the line along different times.

As for my take, I don't think states should be making such decisions. I agree with those who say that abortion is a weighty moral decision, but I don't think it should be prevented prior to birth by the power of the law. I think that it is something which a woman should be able to choose in accordance with their own moral compass and life circumstances (it is a moral choice only if it is a choice, after all).

This is what I was reacting to --

I doubt that any amount of philosophical blather about person-hood would convince me that it's acceptable to alter the law to make it legal to abort 8 1/2 month old foetuses.
— Sapientia

(I was reacting, in particular, to "would convince") — Moliere

Ah, I see. Well, regardless of whether or not you set out to persuade me, or whether philosophy itself is good for persuasion, the fact is, you made a controversial claim on a philosophy forum, and naturally this sort of thing attracts attention. But if philosophy isn't good for persuasion, then how did it come to pass that you were persuaded by philosophical literature on this subject? And not only were you persuaded, you were persuaded to adopt a position which is arguably absurd, and is evidently viewed as such by many, so it must have been quite a feat.

I would say that a position with rational justification is not absurd. I think that was presupposed in my reply. So in providing rational justification for my belief I would be defending it from the charge that it is absurd. What is it you mean by "It is absurd"? — Moliere

I mean that, in light of scientific evidence, and in accordance with humane values, the consequences of enacting such a law are contrary to reason. But I also think that some of the other connotations of the word "absurd" are not too far off: ridiculous, sensless, preposterous, ludicrous.

That's another reason why I don't mind talking in terms of personhood -- because if those who advocate against abortion are correct then there's currently legally justified murder of innocent people. That would be horrific, and worthwhile to stand against. — Moliere

That argument only applies to a portion of those who advocate against abortion, and not a particularly reasonable portion, and I am not one of them. Either 8 1/2 month old's are not people, or they are, but not in any sense which would fail to legally distinguish between cases of abortion, child destruction, and murder. (Any country which doesn't have a legal framework along those lines is indeed objectionable and worth taking a stand against). Either way, I think that whether or not an 8 1/2 month old is deemed a person is of secondary importance. What really matters is the 8 1/2 month old itself, and it's attributes, and what that entails, given our knowledge and values.

What makes a 8 1/2 month old fetus "sufficiently advanced"? What is sufficiently advanced life? — Moliere

Good question. I'll get back to you on that one.

I don't think there is a consensus. If you'll take a peak at the link I posted earlier you'll see a chart of 50 states who place the line along different times. — Moliere

I will check it out.

What are the differences among a 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus?

1. Can they survive outside of the womb...
2. If they can survive outside the womb, are they able to survive with typical at-home care...

1. The closer to full term (39 to 40 weeks) the better the baby's long-term prospects are. The further from full term, the more likely are developmental delays, behavioral problems, learning difficulties, physical abnormalities, and so on. The earlier the prematurity, the more costly the child's survival--with or without difficulties.

Wikipedia

Baby Frieda, born in Fulda, Germany in 2011, at just under 23 weeks, weighing 1 lb, survived, and is apparently more or less normal at 5 years of age, though rather small and fragile. Most babies born this prematurely die. Baby Frieda and one or two other very premature babies are extreme outliers.

2. Late pre-term babies often require some neonatal care -- perhaps for 2 weeks or so, before they are able to be cared for at home without complex technological assists. The larger the number of weeks before full term is reached, the greater the likelihood of developmental problems. About 1/3 of the babies brain-mass is added during the final few weeks of pregnancy, before full term is reached. Most premature children have disabilities, though those resulting from late-preterm birth can be subtle behavioral and learning disabilities.

Home care means that the child can suck, swallow, and breathe normally; bowel, kidney, and bladder functions are normal; the brain has reached full development and will begin immediately getting a handle on "reality"; temperature regulation is present; and so on. Baring disease and injury, the baby will develop into a normal adult.

When the need arises, it will be too late, just like in Syria. As for gun homicides skyrocketing, I'd suspect that they would skyrocket and the other forms of homicide would decrease. So you'd see a similar number of homicides but with guns instead. Anyways, to me that is a necessary trade-off. I guess when robots become more commonplace in national militaries, then having guns at all is probably a waste of time and we'd have to look to more potent forms of protection.

Premature personhood...

It seems reasonable to assign personhood to a fetus who is very likely to survive if born at such and such week prematurely, though perhaps with disabilities. It seems less reasonable to assign personhood to babies with minimal chances of survival. Baby Frieda was born with very scant chances of survival. Rather than being allowed to die, she was place in an intensive neonatal care unit for 17 weeks. Was she a person or a mass of tissue receiving very expensive care? Presumably, we don't provide very expensive care to tissue masses, regardless of their provenance, for more that 24 hours or so (like a heart on ice flying to its hoped-for successful rendezvous with a heartless body).

Baby Frieda's outlier status is a conundrum. If one baby can survive at 22 or 23 weeks, presumably others can as well. What is the cut off 21 Weeks? 20 Weeks? The last week that survival chances are zero?

I am in favor of women or parents having the right to chose to terminate a pregnancy. Is this principle relative to survival or absolute, such that during the last day of the 38th or 39th week an abortion would be OK? The latter position seems inhumane, insensitive, and rule bound: Not born quite yet? Abortion is still possible. If it is relative to survival, how much do the chances have to be? Salvaging a fetus at 25 weeks, but endowing it with a lifetime of crippling disabilities hardly seems like a "pro-life" position.

Is a chance of survival above 60% without severe disabilities a reasonable requirement for blocking abortion? Chance of survival 95% without severe disabilities? 98%? 99%? Does severe disability matter? (I think severe disability should be avoided, by abortion or being allowed to die, if necessary).

I'm not swayed by survivability as a criteria for law. It strikes me as being very similar to potential-personhood arguments, which I similalrly don't think work. Survivability is also variable with both technology and circumstance, so much so that it makes more sense to put said choices in the hands of those who are in the circumstances rather than from afar with the power of law. And, third, survivability doesn't necessarily negate personhood -- sometimes, even if chances are stacked against a person, it would not be good to simply give up. If the fetus is a person, with all the rights and respect which that entails, then we should treat said fetus in the same manner as we do other people -- which often includes trying to help survive what is, statistically at least, unsurvivable.

It would still be a moral failure were the fetus a person, if we just gave up on a person because, eh, chances aren't all that great anyways -- might as well let the person die because chances aren't in our favor.

Ah, I see. Well, regardless of whether or not you set out to persuade me, or whether philosophy itself is good for persuasion, the fact is, you made a controversial claim on a philosophy forum, and naturally this sort of thing attracts attention. — Sapientia

Certainly. There is a difference, though, between defending a position and persuading others to it. No?

But if philosophy isn't good for persuasion, then how did it come to pass that you were persuaded by philosophical literature on this subject?

Because I was reflecting on my own beliefs and questioning them. This is what I think philosophy is good for.

And not only were you persuaded, you were persuaded to adopt a position which is arguably absurd, and is evidently viewed as such by many, so it must have been quite a feat.

You'd have to supploy the evidence to make hte claim that many view what I believe as absurd -- and, I think, you'll find that there is not such widespread agreement as you seem to believe on what counts as a whom.

What really matters is the 8 1/2 month old itself, and it's attributes, and what that entails, given our knowledge and values. — Sapientia

Could you unpack that, then? I don't know what you mean, if this is different from anything I've said so far.