Does personhood begin at conception?

[BeHereNow]

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?

[BeHereNow]

From another thread, more appropriate here.

NaturalWay: First, I've already tried to establish that it is a demonstrably separate body-- not her body.

To say it is not her body is not the same as saying it has personhood. If it has no personhood, it has no rights which trump hers.

Now, don't go down the road I predict you might, that it is entirely dependant on her for everything. Not only would it be irrelevant, but opens up the ethical possibility of infanticide, which would be a completely new topic.

No need to get into those issues. Whether it is dependent on her or not has no bearing on personhood.

Second, it is not force. For example, I almost always drive without a seatbelt. I do this even though it is illegal. (Sometimes I even drive above the posted speed limit Isn't the seat belt law an attempt to control my body? It fails to do so.

Not force? You haven’t told us what the penality will be for breaking this proposed law of yours, but I wager it will be grater than that $130 traffic ticket of yours. If you elevate a zygote to personhood, surely abortion will be murder, and we know what penality Christians want for murder. If penality of imprisonment and possibily death isn’t force, I’d like to know what is.

Let's not lose sight of the putative "goal" here-- reducing the number. There is precedent in civilised countries for such laws. Forced sterilazation is a barbaric, monstrous suggestion because it preempts the event of the pregnancy.

Surely not an ends justifies the means argument?
There is precedent in civilized countries for many barbaric things. Which others would you have us adopt besides executing (or imprisoning) a woman for terminating a pregnancy?

[otseng]

Since this thread is more of a debate topic, I'm going to move this out of the "Definitions and Explantions" subforum. Though I'm not quite sure where to put it, I'll be putting it in the "Philosophy" subforum for now.

[BeHereNow]

Thanks. I had the same quandary.

[ST88]

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...

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

Myself, I am suspiciously persuaded by MagusYanam's idea that personhood begins with brain activity. We now classify as brain dead those individuals who appear to have virtually all life functions except for conscious thought. So it would make sense that we would classify those fetuses as "brain alive" when brain activity indicating consciousness has been achieved. I believe this is generalizable to 15 or 16 weeks, but this number is in my mind and I haven't been able to substantiate it. It would possibly be necessary to carry out diagnostics in every single case.

[Nyril]

I'm with ST88 in this issue. I feel that brain activity is really the only accurate way to measure this sort of thing. Presently I'm okay with (and so are a lot of other people) killing brain-dead people, and it seems like the most objective boolean switch that we can throw between "alive" and "parasite".

[Dilettante]

I must admit I don't know when personhood begins. Saying that it begins at conception seems arbitrary, although no less arbitrary than pretending it begins after passing through the birth canal. So, in the absence of grave malformations or a threat to the mother's life, I tend to think "in dubio, pro foetus". The brain activity criterion, however, merits consideration. I'll think about it.

The attempt to define what a person is dates from the Christian councils debating the Trinity. It is in that context that the idea of "person" developed. Perhaps I'll go back and read some of those debates.

Slightly off-topic, someone wrote that forced sterilization was barbaric. I don't know what the context was, but I can think of at least one extreme case where it would seem the lesser of two evils (a person who was mentally incapable of sexually responsible behavior and couldn't be restrained in any other way). Besides, calling something "barbaric" is not very informative. Especially because many of the things we call "barbaric" are actually a product of civilization.

[Corvus]

Slightly off-topic, someone wrote that forced sterilization was barbaric. I don't know what the context was, but I can think of at least one extreme case where it would seem the lesser of two evils (a person who was mentally incapable of sexually responsible behavior and couldn't be restrained in any other way). Besides, calling something "barbaric" is not very informative. Especially because many of the things we call "barbaric" are actually a product of civilization.

Just so. Barbarians are people too! Barbarians have culture too! Raa!

Ahem. Anyway, I side with ST88 and Nyril. Naturalway has suggested the existence of a "right of self-ownership", and I am not too familiar with such a right, but I would think that self-ownership is a sort of reflexive function of conscious thought, not something granted or secured by government.

People are victims if they disapprove, or would disapprove, of a crime commited against them. I take take the very existence of conscious activity as a sign of a desire to live, or a will of some kind. Without such a will, I don't see how someone can be a victim.

[Dilettante]

Corvus wrote:

Just so. Barbarians are people too! Barbarians have culture too! Raa!

Exactly. Barbarians are literally just "foreigners".

As for the definition of victimhood, I basically agree, although I must admit I haven't thoroughly analayzed the issue (and I don't know the context in which Naturalway made the original assertion). However, I am not at all sure that there is such a thing as a "right of self-ownership". It sounds like an obscurantist, confusing concept to me, and besides I don't really see any basis for so-called "natural rights". That is not to say I am against human rights--I just don't think that what are commonly called "human rights" are rights at all, but ethical principles. BTW, I support those ethical principles.

[AlAyeti]

It is odd that examining minds do not conclude that life begins at conception. That that life is always only going to be one distinct individual. Like every single individual typing away at these keyboards.

Every single individual typist started as a fertilized ovum. Never ever not going to be the individual typist.

The intelligent and fair thing to do is to not allow an emotional reactionary judgment cloud the issue of what life is and when life starts.

Clearly the educated and rational thinking people among the human race can see the process of conception to birth to typist posting on a message board, as an empirical process to the worth of the fertilized ovum.

Once sperm broke through the shell of the ovum "I" existed. Never not going to be me.

The process of "I think therefore I am," cannot be arrived at unless the process of life and to life is left unmolested.

Let facts decide the issue of personhood, not convenience, emotionalism
and power over the helpless. Otherwise murder and societal rule is only in the hands of the political lexicographer with the biggest pen and gun, or the largest corporation or army backing them.