nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

When does a person become a person?

Thirdfox

I've come to the humanities forum to try and get some different perspectives on this matter.

This is of course couched in the abortion debate and next year's referendum. My friends who know my "liberal" views on euthanasia and marijuana would probably be surprised to learn that I intend to vote against change to the 8th amendment.

As an agnostic my concerns are not rooted in religious texts but rather the difficulty, for me, in drawing a line between unborn foetuses and human life - I understand that in the UK abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, in China apparently it's up to 10-12 weeks.

How do we distinguish between a protected foetus and unprotected one? 24 weeks and 1 second means legal protection from abortion and 23 weeks 6 days 23 hours 59 mins 59 secs does not grant legal protection? As a lawyer, I know we attach arbitrary time limits and constraints on certain matters - drinking, driving, marriage etc. But the right to life seems to me to be something that arbitrary (or are they medically backed?) time limits in what is "human" seems to be too important to draw such an arbitrary line. No one is likely to die if I can't drive until I am 17 but here the question can be a matter of life and death or termination (if people feel I am using emotive language I apologise - this is a minefield I know!)

Of course a zygote on the other end of the spectrum does not seem to be instinctively "human" - we shed billions of cells naturally everyday. But how do we draw the line (never mind how do politicians decide how a line should be drawn)? I have thought for quite a while on this matter and still cannot get over the arbitrary life definition hurdle, my sister who intends to vote yes to repeal views it as a medical matter - i.e. survival outside womb and thus it is an arbitrary time line that shifts continuously as medical advancements continue. In her world one day abortions won't be possible when a zygote can be raised to "full" human in a medical facility, outside of the womb. At that point would people all agree that zygotes can be accorded the right to life?

As someone who vehemently opposes the death penalty (state sanctioned killing), but is pro-euthanasia (personal choice) I feel like I've taken a consistent position on this subject. But I would imagine that most users on this forum might feel differently to me so I'm here to hear your views.

Looking forward to the humanities discussion on this - I guess it is one of the fundamental questions for humanity - what does it mean to be human and who/what qualifies?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Joe1919

I think your question and the whole 8th amendment debate can best be viewed in terms of emotivism or moral sentiment.
If this is the case, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' side, its just that people have different moral sentiments about the matter.
For that reason then, I think people should respect both sides.Where the line is ultimately drawn will I presume depend on which side can persuade the greatest number.

Thirdfox

Joe1919 wrote: »

I think your question and the whole 8th amendment debate can best be viewed in terms of emotivism or moral sentiment.
If this is the case, then there is no 'right' or 'wrong' side, its just that people have different moral sentiments about the matter.
For that reason then, I think people should respect both sides.Where the line is ultimately drawn will I presume depend on which side can persuade the greatest number.

But that is exactly what I am trying not to do (resort to emotion or morality arguments) - rather I'm trying to see what the cold hard facts or logic would say on this matter. Factually I think everyone agrees that a child delivered by natural birth is human and given human rights - I just wonder at what point do pro-choice proponents take this right away? 2nd trimester? Any time pre-birth? Before 1st trimester? And then I just can't get around the arbitraryness of that time definition (my x+1 day is not ok, x-1 day is ok comment).

Hoping to hear more from people who have thought about this and feel comfortable with x+1, x-1 and listening to your reasons.

Joe1919

Thirdfox wrote: »

Factually I think everyone agrees that a child delivered by natural birth is human and given human rights

Just to mention that historically newborn often had to go through some type of 'acceptance' or baptism etc before they were named or had rights. Some newborns had no rights or only only limited rights (e.g. illegitimate).
In some countries and civilizations, it was permissible to kill newborns and the killing of newborn still takes place today.

According to social activists, female infanticide has remained a problem in India into the 21st century, with both NGOs and the government conducting awareness campaigns to combat it

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

PS I am just the devils advocate here but why not be fully pro-choice and allow the mother terminate the life of a newborn within 2 weeks of its birth?

nozzferrahhtoo

Thirdfox wrote: »

I just wonder at what point do pro-choice proponents take this right away?

What do you mean "take it away"? Pro-choice people are not proposing taking it away. They are suggesting there are times at which the fetus has not attained it, and therefore there is nothing TO "take away".

The way you phrase the question makes it sound like pro-choice people are proposing the removal of something the fetus has, rather than the clarification of when it should be viewed to have it.

Thirdfox wrote: »

I just can't get around the arbitraryness of that time definitio

It is not really the definitions that are the source of it being arbitrary, but how law works.

Take sexual consent laws, or the age of being able to buy alcohol. Does it not seem equally arbitrary that you can not have sex or buy alcohol the day before some date, but it is perfectly ok the day after?

Having a temporal "line in the sand" is just how things sometimes work. It might seem arbitrary, but we do not live in the ideal world we might want to where every single incident is taken on a case by case basis.

I know, for example, some people who were ready for sex/alcohol YEARS before the date the law would allow. I know people in their 30s who I would consider not yet ready for either of them.

Thirdfox wrote: »

Hoping to hear more from people who have thought about this and feel comfortable with x+1, x-1 and listening to your reasons.

My reasons are basically that I do not believe rights, morals and ethics exist independently of minds. The Human mind (as we do not know of any other life forms outside our solar system) appears to be the sole source of these concepts.

I think rights and morality are in the business of increasing and maximizing the well being of sentient creatures. That is to say, that the mind is not only the source of rights and morals and ethics..... but the target of them too.

Therefore any entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of sentience and consciousness is not an entity to which I feel any moral or ethical concern.

The near totality of abortions by choice happen in or before week 16 of gestation. At this point in time the fetus is not only lacking said faculty, but many of the pre-requisites for it too.

The analogy I often use is that if consciousness = radio waves then the fetus at 16 weeks is a point when you can forget about finding any radio waves.... because the broadcasting tower has not even been built yet.

As for the X-1 stuff..... as I said we need SOME temporal line in the sand. That is, alas, how the world often works. It is not ideal, no, but it is how we work many things.

I think we are safe at 20 weeks, in fact I think we are likely to be safe at 24 week and POSSIBLY even beyond. But why risk it? The near totality of abortions happen in or before week 16, so why maintain a system the is superfluous to requirements if it becomes morally grey?

So I would pin my flag to the 16 weeks mast, with anything over that been taken to stringent review.

If I woke up tomorrow in a country allowing choice based abortion at 12 or 20 weeks however I certainly would lose no sleep over it.

Sesame

My theory is quickening, which is when the pregnant woman starts to feel movement.

I've also had this debate in my own mind many years ago as a young adult who thought about the decisions I would make in this position. This is how I drew my conclusion.

So a baby is precious, of course. We all know that and I would assume we all appreciate the value of life a a helpless baby and as a fully developed adult. Both are important.

Sex is a fact of life. We all have it for fun and not just to procreate. If we have the necessary chemical reaction which causes a fertilised egg to implant when we don't want it to happen, then the act of not doing anything will change that womans life forever and it won't be a life decision she made. She will risk her health and that of her child's (as she won't have been prepared with folic acid supplements, may have been drinking and smoking etc, ie, living a carefree, childfree life).

The implanted egg is the potential for life. It is not life yet. That process takes months. When women are sad about a miscarriage, its not because they lost a human child, its because they lost the potential for life, the dream, if you like.
In the same way a women mourns an abortion she needed to end a pregnancy with a fatal abnormality. The interviews show how upsetting it is for the families to return the remains to Ireland. But its not a life has ended. A child did not die (and having a child die is many times worse than that). They are upset about their dreamed future ending.

My next point is about choosing how far you decide your morals will consider acceptable.
In the cases of fetal abnormalities or rape, you may decide you would be willing to allow abortion in those cases.
As the pregnancy was conceived and the woman has suffered enough in either of those cases, you think she should be allowed to get an abortion.
But if I think that through from the point of view that the foetus is a baby, then a baby conceived through rape or having an abnormality is every bit as valuable as one that was conceived through regular sex or found to be developing well from a scan. So in my opinion, that argument is saying that the woman who is not suffering as much, should be prevented as she chose to have the sex so should be punished.
It's punishing the woman and nothing to do with the welfare of the baby when you make that decision.

When you feel a kick in your belly from around 22 weeks onwards, thats when it starts feeling real to the woman and when you can nearly get a stimulous reaction. This is when I believe a relationship starts forming which is the beginning of the creation of a baby.

Before that it is mainly though scans and dopplers that any evidence is delivered.
I know that technology allows us to determine any chromosomal issues at 9 weeks now. This is a massive development and means that decision can be made from results in the first trimester without waiting until later on where the trauma will increase for the family and extended family as more will be aware of the pregnancy. This wasn't around 3 years ago.
But unfortunately it still means women have to travel to abort.
So we have huge medical advancement but are failing women after the results stage.

When a person is against abortion, are they saying they want to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
Or are they saying they are happy to export the problem to another country to make it more difficult. I.e. Make them really work for it and spend more money, etc so they know they are making the right decision.
Both of those paths mean that the person is fairly malevolent towards another human.

My moral view tell me that there is no compromise on types of pregnancy. We can't say one woman should be able to abort but not another. She's not sick enough, she was raped, she didn't realise the preganncy until later than another girl, or she hid it from her parents and now its too late.
Abortion should be available to all women, if they chose. I personally wouldn't have one, but I would have considered it in my college years. I would like all women to have the chose regardless of their pregnancy state.

nozzferrahhtoo

No disagreement with the content of your post here.... but I will just include some thinking around some of the comments that jumped out at me that I think generally useful, though not directed at you specifically.

Sesame wrote: »

My theory is quickening, which is when the pregnant woman starts to feel movement.

Some women feel nothing the whole time. Some women even go months without knowing they are pregnant at all. So that would be a dangerous line in the sand to use for many reasons.

I am not seeing any philosophical basis for it either though. It seems about as arbitrary as the heart beat or conception.

Sesame wrote: »

I've also had this debate in my own mind many years ago as a young adult who thought about the decisions I would make in this position. This is how I drew my conclusion.

That also seems a little dangerous, because many people would make different decisions to us in the same situation. So projecting our own decisions on to them is risky.

For example many people would not want to EVER have an abortion. And that is their right. But should their not wanting to ever have one mean no one else should either?

What we would or would not do in a given situation should never be used as a measure for what anyone else should be allowed choose.

Sesame wrote: »

In the cases of fetal abnormalities or rape, you may decide you would be willing to allow abortion in those cases.

The rape one always seemed problematic to me. When people say abortion should be allowed for rape, I always wonder how is that to be implemented?

Do we require a prosecution for rape? That can take months and it is not always successful.

Do we require merely the accusation of rape? Well would that not incentivise false accusations?

Or do we simply take the woman's word for it? In which case how is that FUNCTIONALLY different from open abortion by choice? Women simply need to tick the appropriate box, whether true or not, and abortion is available.

Morally I find it problematic too as if the fetus has a right to life (I do not think it does at 16 weeks or before anyway so this is not my problem, but I include it anyway) then why should it LOSE that right because of a crime by a person who is not it, on a victim who is not it?

How many other cases have we in life where X loses rights because Y committed a crime on Z?

Sesame

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

For example many people would not want to EVER have an abortion. And that is their right. But should their not wanting to ever have one mean no one else should either?

Exactly. That's what this ref is all about. It's about women a right they currently don't have, to chose.
Unfortunately everyone will use their own personal moral belief and opinions on what they do with their own bodies to determine their vote.
When, in fact, like the gay marriage vote, it should be more a case of "I dot want one myself, but whatever floats your boat"

Day Lewin

Sesame wrote: »

My theory is quickening, which is when the pregnant woman starts to feel movement.

But the foetus is moving its limbs long before they can be felt. Any ultrasound will show the heat beating an dthe limbs moving.
Also, the movements are typically felt by the mother betwen 16 and 20 weeks in her first pregnancy: but earlier, from even 14 weeks, on subsequent - owing to the stretching of the abdominal wall. Which also varies from person to person. So it can't really be a determinant of the baby "becoming a human" - it's the same foetus doing its thing whether the mother feels it or not.

My theory is human DNA + heartbeat + brain activity. That's a living human, whether conscious or unconscious, born or before birth. Not needing anyone else's say-so to MAKE it human.

Sesame

Not a comparable argument at all.
Has gay marriage had a negative impact on you life or the lives of those around you? No?
It's the same as abortion. It won't have a negative effect on the lives of the people in Ireland whatsoever. But it will make a positive difference to the well being of many women.

Sesame

That was in response to nitigen50.

But to reply to you post, I find it typical and unsurprising to read your comment
"Not needing anyone else's say-so to MAKE it human"
It confirms the idea of a woman as a vessel. The woman is the someone who had to make it human. Why are you not including the woman as this person. Because she is irrelevant?

Day Lewin

What a weird thing to call a person, a Vessel, like a flower-pot or a ship.

Well, if she did make it human, then it is human already :-)

Human DNA + Brain activity + heart-beat. Is a human. Any colour, race, religion, gender, status, age or illness: still human dignity.

Sesame

If you think it's a human, theres no real point engaging in debate.
It isn't and pretty much every medical and legal professional would also say it isn't.

Sesame

It's a pity all the pro-life posters roll out the same non-scientific, over used cliches which have no basis and no longer any meaning as they are repeated in every argument.
It started off with some very interesting points but ended up with the usual over used phrases.

It's also a pity the prolife argument doesn't have a wider range of opinions for different view points (like the OP). It's the same in the referendum committee discussions. I wonder are people on the fence wondering why there is no real proper points raised by the prolife side. Its very weak.

Sesame

Weird all nitrogen50 posts have been deleted.
My comment above was in response to the last one "what about the unborn?" Nevermind, back to real life!

Thirdfox

Lots of interesting posts since I last checked!

Will have a good read and think once I get home.

But good to see more light than heat being emitted (I shudder to think what this would look like on After Hours

).

Just one quick thought from my very admittedly brief glance at the posts - would you apply the same criteria to say a human can become a non-human? i.e. if no consciousness present then they revert to organic matter without human rights? Brain dead or semi-vegetative states and so on.

Like I said in my op - while the spectre of abortion referendum hangs in the back of my original post - my general question is about humanity and when someone becomes "human", or more precisely I guess, is afforded human rights.

Peregrinus

Sesame wrote: »

If you think it's a human, theres no real point engaging in debate.
It isn't and pretty much every medical and legal professional would also say it isn't.

I have to say, no, this is nonsense. The human zygote/embryo/foetus is human at every stage of development. It's not a simian, or bovine, or feline, or canine foetus; it's a human foetus. If you can find a medical professional who says otherwise, now would be a really good time to link to him or her saying that.

The question raised in the OP isn't about whether the embryo/foetus is human; its about whether its a person. Which is not really a medical question.

Thirdfox

Peregrinus wrote: »

I have to say, no, this is nonsense. The human zygote/embryo/foetus is human at every stage of development. It's not a simian, or bovine, or feline, or canine foetus; it's a human foetus. If you can find a medical professional who says otherwise, now would be a really good time to link to him or her saying that.

The question raised in the OP isn't about whether the embryo/foetus is human; its about whether its a person. Which is not really a medical question.

Indeed! I think everyone would agree that it is human in nature vs being a mineral or a vegetable. But a human cell is also human and we aren't committing murder when plucking eyebrows and removing millions of live human cells from their living environment.

Personhood (and I don't want to get too mired down in semantics) and the corresponding legal rights that it enjoys is up for (quite vigorous) debate.

I see my colleagues in the legal forum had discussed this somewhat before - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056541244 - it is suggested (though not referenced) that 24 weeks is when an unborn foetus is granted full human rights (in addition to the right to life granted from conception currently by the 8th amendment).

Still the law is the law - and the law can be changed. I'm more interested in the philosophical/moralistic/ethical/humanistic view on personhood/human rights... how we can differentiate between say a dog and a human, a brain-dead human and a developing brain human and so on.

Now that I'm in the comfy surroundings of my home I can take a look at the various interesting responses:

@Nozz
1. when I say "take it away" I mean that we can all agree that human rights are accorded in a healthy baby born naturally - I'm simply asking for rolling backwards from birth and seeing when these rights are "taken away", the other way to describe it is "not having attained the prerequisites" - for me I don't feel like it is a particularly leading question. For example - in the UK I would say that their legal system "takes away" the right to life to foetuses before 24 weeks, it can equally be said that foetuses before 24 weeks have not attained the prerequisite to have a right to life.

I ask this going backwards in an effort to try and show my difficulty in putting this arbitrary line down on rolling timeline. Of course it can be equally jarring (mentally), to me, to say - you are not a person at 23 weeks 6 days and then that you suddenly are at 24 weeks.

2. arbitrary time limits - indeed, as a lawyer I am quite acquainted to them and mentioned them in my original post. But the examples you give - consent, drinking (which I mentioned in my original post

) - have, generally I would argue, less of an impact on the person affected. I can't have a drink tonight, I'll have to wait till tomorrow...might seem like the end of the world to a teenager but putting an arbitrary time distinction on when the right to life exists is in a category unique to itself (I would argue). I can't drive today is an inconvenience...whether I can abort this foetus or kill a person is literally a matter of life and death (depending on how one views what a person is). I know of no other law that creates such a life or death distinction based on time alone - turning off life support for permanently vegetative patients requires the subjective opinion of medical professionals (open for correction) - it isn't simply after X days this person is no longer a person and it is open to people to pull the plug if so wished.

3. lacking sentience and consciousness - would this mean that the first instance a person enters a vegetative state they would lose their human rights and right to life? If we take your radio waves example - what happens when the tower is built but no power is running to the building? For me a logical argument to that is to give rights requires one hurdle, but to take it away could require a higher hurdle... But even then what if a baby is born in a vegetative state? Would your view be that no human rights attach to this child as it has no sentience or consciousness?

If we do not take away human rights from people immediately when they lose sentience and consciousness then is it right we take away/not give (whichever way you want to look at it - though the current Irish law has given the right to life to the unborn so we are talking about potentially taking it away) the right to life to a "thing" that is building itself towards consciousness and sentience? Using your analogy I would say that the radio tower isn't built yet, but every day that passes the workers are on the site building the tower - we could knock it all down before the first signals are broadcast but would anyone feel that but for us knocking down the tower - signals would flow 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month later?

@Sesame
Us lawyers say hard cases make for bad law

- and yes I agree rape (and incest!) are some of the toughest moralistic arguments for allowing abortions. I've had the same thought on this myself - however - my question was about personhood and rights - it should not matter if a person is a person by the result of a loving relationship or by a disgusting criminal act. When we judge whether people have rights by factors they cannot control (or rather - we judge if people are people by such factors) we go down a slippery slope. To be honest I don't think that's what you are suggesting - you seem to be making a case for having abortions, when I am trying to go towards a deeper question of when is a person a person/and given rights? I don't think you are saying that one foetus which qualifies for personhood (24 weeks etc.) would not qualify if it turns out that the foetus was conceived through a criminal act.

You are absolutely right in saying that if we don't change the law it simply means that we end up "exporting" a lot of the problems to the UK - again, that argument deals more with the legality of abortion rather than the issue of personhood.

It's interesting you mention the quickening - from my brief look at the religious side of things apparently that's when the Christian church determines that the "soul" enters the body and the baby can be given a proper burial if born dead or something like that? I'm not too au fait with religious practices however. Just an interesting Wikipedia titbit I think I read.

So thanks for your contributions Nozz & Sesame - I don't think it's quite gotten me personally over the hurdle of the idea of personhood beginning at conception (or very close to it - when embryo attaches to uterus wall? - even that though leads to the same kind of arbitrariness argument that I put forward) - I guess because I don't think the time definition is a good one to use I look at a 24 week foetus and I keep saying "we shouldn't take away the rights yet"...and keep going back in time and since I can't pinpoint a time when I can say - "yes I'm happy that this organic material is no longer a person and can be removed just like an eyebrow hair" it takes me back to conception for the right to life at least.

BTW I agree completely Nozz that it would be hypocritical to say yes to abortions in case of rape and incest but otherwise no - if we are operating on the basis that this is a human being with personhood then they cannot be condemned to death by the actions of their father or mother.

Oh and the law can throw up crazy scenarios - what if the woman sexually assaulted the man (women cannot rape men due to a quirk in the system) i.e. lied about being on birth control - do we force men to live with the fact that their sexual assault assailant will bring a child that is partially theirs into the world or could we force the woman to have an abortion if the father/victim wishes to do so? Completely off topic but it's just the sort of thing that us legal heads like to wonder about when trying to look at the consequences of any laws we do or do not make.

nozzferrahhtoo

Thirdfox wrote: »

would you apply the same criteria to say a human can become a non-human? i.e. if no consciousness present then they revert to organic matter without human rights? Brain dead or semi-vegetative states and so on.

It is a very general question you ask, so only general answers are possible. Different contexts will modify the answers though.

For example there are "brain dead" and "veggie" states that we do not expect to be reversible, either by itself or under the ministrations of our medical science. Such people are as good as "dead" by my lights.

Which is not the same as a coma patient who potentially very much could come back to us.

That said however in NONE of these cases do I think they have gone from "human to non-human" in your words. Not entirely anyway. I think once a human person has attained rights we respect them even retrospectively. So even when they are dead, we still treat them with the respect and moral concern that befits them as a member of our species.

So they never return ENTIRELY to "non-human" in terms of moral and ethical concern. I would still hold moral and ethical concern for them. Just much less so if it came in anyway into conflict with the moral and ethical concern I would and do hold for actual conscious, living, sentient human beings.

Peregrinus

For what it’s worth, I think the “personhood” debate has very limited value in resolving questions about what the law should, or should not, provide with respect to abortion.

As you’ve noted, human development is a continuum, and while there are distinct differences to be observed between humans at different points on that continuum, there aren’t necessarily distinct points at which we can say that the human jumps from this status to that status. And where such points don’t exist or can’t be reliably identified, investing them with huge philosophical, moral, political or legal signficance is problematic.

Esseentially “person” is a term we use for a human entity that we feel is deserving of respect, protection, etc in its own right. So an adult, we can all agree, is definitely a person, while a sperm cell or an ovum, although human and alive, is definitely not.

But this doesn’t get us very far. If we take the view that, e.g. sentience is a characteristic that entitles a human to respect, protection, etc, then the human becomes a “person” as soon as it has developed to the point of sentience. But we can only say that because we have already taken a particular view of the moral signficance of sentience. Somebody else might say that viability is the salient characteristic, yet another that it’s genetic individuation, yet another something else. While science might help us to get a clearer picture of where these developments are located along the continuum, and in some cases (like viability) can even change where they are located, science can’t tell us whether they do, or do not, give rise to a claim to respect, protection, etc. That’s a moral or philosophical stance that we take. To say that personhood begins at, e.g., sentience, is simply to say that I believe that sentience is the characteristic that attracts a right to respect and protection, but there is no scientific case for saying that sentience attracts a right to respect and protection

In other words, in this context discussing when the human individual becomes a “person” is simply different language for discussing when abortion ceases to be permissible. We can’t answer the question unless we already have a view as to when abortion is impermissible, so our answer can never determine when abortion becomes impermissible. That would be circular.

All we can do, in short, is to state our beliefs on this question, and appeal to others to share them. But that has no implications at all for what the law should provide unless I can articulate a quite separate case as to why my beliefs, rather than yours, should determine what the law provides.

Sesame

Lots to ponder there Thirdfox. You really are thinking this through thoroughly!
Good point about the definition of a human. A foetus is not a human.

It's a human foetus and good analogy about the human part of the word being a description of the type, like a human cell.

A human foetus is not a human being. A human being, is interchangeable with the word person.

But a human foetus, like a human hair, or human cell, is not a human. It has the potential to be one, in the right conditions.

I would assume this whole area of ethical foetus development has been explored in the rights and issues relating to zygotes produced in labs. These can be destroyed without any legal repercussions for the scientist. They also have the potential to be human. Does the fact that they have not implanted give them less legal rights?

Peregrinus

No offence, Sesame, but this pretty much illustrates my point. You’re making claims (“a foetus is not a human . . a human being is interchangeable with the word ‘person’”) without offering any argument or evidence for their truth. All you’re really doing here is telling us how you use language.

Which is fine, obviously; you’re entitled to use terms like “human” and “person” and “human being” in whatever way makes sense to you and to the people you are talking to. But what’s missing is any argument that your usage has a greater objective or scientific or moral validity than anyone else’s, or that your usage should form the basis for law or public policy. You acknowledge yourself that a human foetus “has the potential to be [a human being]”, but you don’t advert to the fact that it’s the very potential for human development which , in someone else’s eyes, means that the foetus is human being. And you don’t offer any reason as to why we should prefer your view to the other person’s view.

In short, you’re stated a position which will only appeal to people who already agree with you. In response to that, we can note the differing views of different people. But where do we go from there? In the context mentioned in the OP (“the abortion debate and next year's referendum”) this seems a pretty sterile approach.

I think what I’m really criticising here is not your view, which is as respectable as anyone else’s view, but Thirdfox’s assumption, implicit in the OP, that considering the question of when “personhood” begins is a useful or productive way to address the “abortion debate” and the coming referendum. I doubt that it is.

Sesame

I'm talking from a legal angle, as in, a foetus is not a human being, you cannot commit homicide against a foetus. It doesn't have human rights, etc.
Human, as a shortened version of human being is a person.
Human, as an adjective to another word, eg. Human hair, human cells, I'm sure people would agree are not human beings and this is where I include human foetuses and human zygotes as well. They are types of foetuses and type of zygotes, not human beings.

Sesame

I agree with your point that personhood definition isn't really useful in debate.

If people are really against voting to repeal the amendment for any reason, I would ask them to consider the consequence of things remaining as they are.
Approach it from the viewpoints of looking at a "No" result and if that's in the interests of the country as a whole.

Peregrinus

Sesame wrote: »

I'm talking from a legal angle, as in, a foetus is not a human being, you cannot commit homicide against a foetus. It doesn't have human rights, etc.
Human, as a shortened version of human being is a person.
Human, as an adjective to another word, eg. Human hair, human cells, I'm sure people would agree are not human beings and this is where I include human foetuses and human zygotes as well. They are types of foetuses and type of zygotes, not human beings.

"Human being" isn't really a legal term. From the legal and constitutional point of view, nothing turns on whether you classify X as a "human being" or not. I could argue that the human foetus is indeed a "human being"; it's human, after all, and surely in order to be a "being" all it has to do is, well, be? That's what the word means, after all.

But the argument is pointles, since Irish law and international human rights law generally don't accord rights to "human beings" but to "persons". If there's an argument over whether an unborn human is a "person" for legal purposes, well, that argument is settled by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which specifically includes them in the class of persons whose right to life is protected. They are persons for at least some legal purposes.

But I think the OP invites us to look beyond that. Is it right that the unborn be treated as a "person" by the Constitution, or is that something we should seek to change? The question implies that there is a objective truth out there; that the unborn are, or are not, "persons" and that if the Constitution gets this wrong it should be changed. And, obviously, we can't establish this objective truth by pointing to how the law treats the unborn, or by attempting to classify they as "human beings" or not "human beings".

drkpower

I am always puzzled at the lengths people go to to find the magic moment or specific criteria that suddenly affords an entity its menu of rights. Whether its 'personhood' or 'sentience' or 'consciousness' or 'human being', it doesn't really matter.

Of course, both sides do it:
- its alive/a human being from conception, therefore it has the inalienable right to life', no exceptions, case closed; Eureka!!;
- the 8 week old foetus has no sentience right now, therefore it is totally without rights, no exceptions, case closed; Eureka!!

And really its just both sides choosing a criteria they feel attached to and declaring that to be the trump card that everyone should use. And then each side has to do (patently obvious) somersaults to rationalise their chosen position or criterion while pouring scorn on the (patently obvious) somersaults being done by the other side! It is quite amusing to watch.....

I can understand the motivation to find the 'one true answer' in these matters; but its intellectually lazy to do so. It is not nice, or easy, to admit that there are no black and white answers; only murky shades of grey. But sometimes that is where we are left when it comes to balancing rights.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure I can agree that it "does not matter". When trying to ascertain, such as in the abortion debate for example, if a given entity should have rights or not...... surely understanding the criteria upon which it based not only matters..... it is paramount and central to the entire endeavor? That sounds a bit like saying that the entire discussion is irrelevant to the entire discussion. Which somewhat reminds me of the time one user attempted to describe my ENTIRE position on abortion to be a caveat to itself. :-)

Further though I do not think we can use a sweeping brush to accuse everyone of merely choosing some arbitrary point and attempting to justify it to themselves retrospectively. Some people seem to pull some arbitrary point out of thin air, usually because it is easy to understand or define (conception for example). And such people can rarely ground their choice in anything even remotely approaching intellectual rigor.

But others can explain exactly how they reached the conclusions they did. And not all of us chose the arbitrary point first, and justified it retrospectively. Some of us were led TO the point in a way that was anything but arbitrary, and anything but some pre-selected criteria that happened to please us.

When I came to the conclusion that consciousness/sentience is the main (only?) mediation point for affording an entity rights and moral and ethical concern, I did not choose that first and justify it retrospectively. Rather I sat down and explored questions such as "What are rights?" "What is morality?" "What are rights and morality in the business of doing?" "What is their aim?" "What is their effect in the real world?". And the answers to these questions, and more, all individually led me to the single conclusion I now hold to.

Thirdfox

And I think that conclusion is where we diverged on the "key question" to be asked. I feel that for myself, it wasn't consciousness and sentience as the mediation point for affording rights but the capacity for sentience - and then the question for determining where the capacity begins for me.

This way, it allows me to afford rights to both foetuses and non-conscious (semi-vegetative etc.) human beings, while being ok with eating meat and not giving such rights to other living beings. I see in one of the posts above you grounded the coma patient question in not taking rights away once afforded and that is another valid solution to the question.

If I were to hold the same view as yourself - then of course I can see that if we say consciousness is achieved...roughly around 26(?) 30(?) weeks - then 12 weeks gives ample "buffer" space and is perfectly ok with you (or maybe even 24 weeks would be fine too). But I guess that equally you can see if the capacity for consciousness is the key question then 12 weeks wouldn't be enough either. And that's probably where we intrinsically differ.

nozzferrahhtoo

I can not see why capacity for it alone would be a coherent basis however.

I tried this thought experiment on another thread but it was ignored there. But imagine I was to build a fully function general artificial intelligence that was every bit as conscious and sentient as a human being.

The only thing between it and attaining that is me flicking the on switch.

Why would you feel that I am morally obliged to flick that switch? Rather than, say, dismantle the entire machine and build a DJ station out of it instead?

Thirdfox

Not an exact case - but it's similar to the switching rail tracks situation - action by omission or by actual action. (Rail track thought experiment for people who don't know - difference between switching tracks to kill 1 person or 10 people(binary choice no alternatives) vs pushing a person onto tracks to stop train crashing into 10 people). Though the railtracks thought experiment actually involves two affirmative actions rather one of omission - not a perfect example like I said.

With a foetus it is barreling along towards consciousness and you decide to stop it with an abortion - I see this as wholly different (or at least different enough) from the AI case which is more a case of it will never be sentient unless you make the positive action to activate it.

One is actively stopping sentience, the other is actively achieving it. And that is also why I don't suggest you are morally obliged to flick that switch - if you do nothing, nothing changes. If you do nothing to a pregnancy a baby is born.

Hopefully you can see my line of thought there.

nozzferrahhtoo

Not sure I would have the courage to tell women their being pregnant is a passive, rather than positive, action.

Makes it sound a bit like they just sit there and do nothing

You are a braver person than I.

But I think it a minor point to avoid the crux of the analogy. In both cases we are discussing whether capacity for sentience is relevant. In both cases we are assuming the entity (the fetus, and the AI) have pretty much full capacity for sentience.

I am trying to tease out the concept of capacity for sentience and what implications it has on us morally. And I am not sure we can dodge that teasing by hiding behind equivocation over "the trolley problem".

Interestingly, on a barely related side note, VSauce did what is probably the first ACTUAL testing of the trolley problem. And peoples actions when faced with the actual decision did not really track with what all the theoretical studies on it suggested they would do. Many chose not to flick it at all - as an intentional choice - while others simply froze and could not decide anything.

But if you really want to use the trolley problem to dodge the thought experiment I wonder if I could modify it slightly to account for that. Assume that I HAVE flicked the switch, but I built into the routine a 10 minute delay. The sentience will now come online unless I now UNFLICK The switch. But it is now, while not AT ALL sentient, "barreling along towards consciousness" as the timer goes down.

Why should I be morally obliged not to do the positive action of UNflicking the switch?