Does personhood begin at conception?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:32 pm

There are some who believe that personhood begins at conception.
I find this a curious position, based purely on emotion, whereas they feel there is a logical reason to believe this.

NaturalWay suggests that:

1) Secular philosophy alone can be used to establish that the condition of "personhood" brings with it the right of self-ownership.

Now if we can only define personhood.

2) Distinction of a human zygote from its human mother is a demonstrable, repeatable process which requires no faith.

And this is important because. . .?

3) The "personhood" of the zygote can be inferred from logic and this philosophy without appeal to personal beliefs or emotion.

I would be interested in seeing such logic. I have never seen this position successfully defended.

Is there a logical reason to believe that personhood begins at conception?

keltzkroz · Post by **keltzkroz** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:47 am

My current idea is that "personhood" is not a state, but an ongoing process. Conception marks the beginning of the process, and brain activity is only another stage.

I like this idea. I never thought of it this way, and it seems interesting to explore further.

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:55 pm

Dilettante wrote:My current idea is that "personhood" is not a state, but an ongoing process. Conception marks the beginning of the process, and brain activity is only another stage. It's a sorites-type paradox--while everyone knows what a tall person is, there is no universally accepted height (say, 182 cm or 6 foot) at which one crosses into "tallhood". Likewise, while I can recognize a person when I see one, I can't put my finger on the exact boundary.

Thinking about it more myself, I would agree that that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a single objective point where someone becomes a "person". To add to your examples, when does someone become a "baby" or a "child" or an "adult"? And just as well, "personhood" could come about more of a gradual process over time than a nothing-to-everything point in time.

So the question is, do we have a right to interrupt the process of personhood, and if so, when and in what cases?

A very good question. And here are some more questions:
- How can we determine when someone has achieved 100% personhood?
- Is someone that has achieved less than 100% personhood still a person?
- Does someone that has less than 100% personhood have any rights that is associated with someone who has achieved 100% personhood?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:20 pm

Dilettante: I define myself in opposition to the others who are not me. Without the others, I am not wholly myself.

This only means your personal identity is changed, but not removed or absent.

My current idea is that "personhood" is not a state, but an ongoing process. Conception marks the beginning of the process, and brain activity is only another stage.

What is it about conception that allows it to be considered personhood?

Perhaps personal identity is more important than anything else. But how can we distinguish personal identity from animal identity? Are animals aware of their own identity, and if so, can animals be considered persons? How about aliens, gods, angels, etc?

Certainly personal identity requires self-awareness.

Certainly self-awareness causes personal identity.

We might say personal identity is reserved for humans, and self-identity is for other sentient beings.
Animals can have self awareness, thus self-identity.
Ditto for aliens, etc.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:29 pm

BeHereNow wrote:

This only means your personal identity is changed, but not removed or absent.

In any case, what I do and how I fit in with others is a big part of who I am.

What is it about conception that allows it to be considered personhood?

I'm not equating conception with personhood. All I said was that it marked the beginning of the process, just like planting a seed marks the beginning of another process. I wouldn't say the planted seed is exactly the same thing as the full grown tree, but it's the first stage. If I uproot the plant when its roots are still small and weak, I will have interrupted that process. Perhaps I had a good reason to do so, or perhaps not. Perhaps I have a right to do so, or perhaps not.

Certainly personal identity requires self-awareness.

Certainly self-awareness causes personal identity.

So who am I when I'm asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware of myself?

We might say personal identity is reserved for humans, and self-identity is for other sentient beings.
Animals can have self awareness, thus self-identity.
Ditto for aliens, etc.

I feel tempted to agree, but maybe we should examine the issue more closely. What do you base that assertion on? Why couldn't there be--this is a hypothesis-- non-human persons? How about E.T.? Mr Spock (OK, he was partly human at least)? And why not Mr. Ed (since he could talk and interact with people just like a person)?

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:13 pm

Certainly personal identity requires self-awareness.
Certainly self-awareness causes personal identity.

So who am I when I'm asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware of myself?

Certainly I am not someone else.
There are times when we are less aware of our personal identity.
I believe that loss of personal identity does not happen by accident. It takes great effort. In some circles this would be called the doctrine of empty mind or no mind.
I might say the empty mind unites us with the eternal, but that would take us in a different direction.

Closer to topic, by my way of thinking, personal identity does not leave us (without great effort).
If I am a father when I am awake, am I a father when I am asleep? I would say yes.
By my meaning, once self awareness sparks or develops personal identity, it remains attached to the body. Weird science experiments offer all sorts of “What happens if. . .” scenarios. If my brain is in someone else’s body, is it still me? (rhetorical).

We might say personal identity is reserved for humans, and self-identity is for other sentient beings.
Animals can have self awareness, thus self-identity.
Ditto for aliens, etc.

I feel tempted to agree, but maybe we should examine the issue more closely. What do you base that assertion on?

Merely a way to pigeon-hole.
Most persons are so attached to the notion of human or person, that they want to differentiate from other sentient beings. “Personal identity” seems reserved for humans, but I have no stake in that claim. I was merely trying to anticipate dissention and avoid it.

Why couldn't there be--this is a hypothesis-- non-human persons?

I don’t follow here. It seems to be a simple matter of semantics. Humans are persons. Non-human persons is an oxymoron.

How about E.T.? Mr Spock (OK, he was partly human at least)? And why not Mr. Ed (since he could talk and interact with people just like a person)?

You’re headed somewhere, but I don’t know where.
A critter having some of the qualities of humanness does not make it human.
I might share qualities with Mr. Ed, but that does not make me a horse.
A zygote has DNA which is common with persons, but that alone does not make it a person.
In order to be a human, one would need all of the essential qualities of a human. Mr. Spock is certainly part human, and may be entitled to all of the rights of humans. As to what all of the essential qualities of a human/person would be, . . . .I’m not in on that one, but I’ll enjoy the lurking.

AlAyeti · Post by **AlAyeti** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:19 pm

1. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

2. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

/ / /

The above was written by an atheist. Well written I might add.

The zygote then possesses all of these characteristics. "It" is a "life." Actually possessing pure "life."

Logic, from "the" mind that can think rationally can trace "itself" literally its origin, back to the moment of conception. We now have overwhelming evidence to literally see.

As an example of the age-old (modern) argument about the right to life, the book "The Unaborted Socrates" by Kreeft, is an excellent treatise that bodes well for logic to cement the notion that "worth," literally "personhood," is the sum total from the start of life to finish.

That is to say, the "culture of life" is in the right.

Not only on it.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 11:27 pm

The zygote then possesses all of these characteristics. "It" is a "life." Actually possessing pure "life."

Yes, plants and zygotes. Dandelions deserve equal standing with zygotes. Again we agree.

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 8:53 am

BeHereNow wrote:

I don’t follow here. It seems to be a simple matter of semantics. Humans are persons. Non-human persons is an oxymoron.

That's one way of looking at it, but humanhood need not be synonymous with personhood. Some philosophers have argued that some humans are not persons, and the concept of person was refined in the context of theological debates concerning the three (non-human) persons of the Trinity. So "human" and "person" are not equivalent. As usual, it's a matter of concepts, not merely semantics.

You’re headed somewhere, but I don’t know where.
A critter having some of the qualities of humanness does not make it human.
I might share qualities with Mr. Ed, but that does not make me a horse.
A zygote has DNA which is common with persons, but that alone does not make it a person.
In order to be a human, one would need all of the essential qualities of a human. Mr. Spock is certainly part human, and may be entitled to all of the rights of humans. As to what all of the essential qualities of a human/person would be, . . . .I’m not in on that one, but I’ll enjoy the lurking.

The fact appears to be that different philosophical schools have different concepts of what a person is. See http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/B-PERSON.html for a few examples. We could try to explore them and decide which are best.

Brain waves usually are assumed to prove consciousness, but since brain waves are present even when consciousness is absent (such as during sleep) it seems that they are not a good indicator of consciousness.

We can try to each draw up our own list of the main characteristics of a person, and I bet most would include a sense of morality and social interaction.

BeHereNow · Post by **BeHereNow** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:09 am

I feel persons in a long term coma, who have no social interaction, would retain their personhood if they had it before the coma.
Do you agree?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:26 am

BeHereNow wrote:I feel persons in a long term coma, who have no social interaction, would retain their personhood if they had it before the coma.
Do you agree?

Perhaps, but would they have it if they had never had it yet? I would think that if personhood is something that is acquired and built up, it does not go away while there is still a chance that you will regain consciousness.