Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_Jersey Girl]

So Mark bailed, right?

He may just be deep into his Super Bowl preparation.

God willing!

[_honorentheos]

Honor, I hadn’t thought of the discussion in those terms, at least at first, but I can see why you did. From past discussions, I believe EA and I have similar views on personhood. But personhood doesn’t decide the issue. Being a person entitles one to the full meal deal of rights, but exactly what are those rights. And when those rights conflict, which gives way? Or as EA puts it, ethics. And in some sense, I approached the abortion issue backwards, from the question “Under what circumstances does one person have a duty to save the life of another?

Hi Res,

Perhaps there is some confusion regarding who I was originally addressing. My comment where I mentioned the discussion between EA and yourself was intended to set it to the side of where I saw what appeared to be general dismissal of personhood as a relevant concept to the abortion debate. I did so in response to EA where he had picked up a comment I made in response to the notion getting bogged down in overly intellectual definitions leads to debate that ignores the people involved. This gained a fair amount of supportive replies. My intent was to point out that doing so didn't remove the supposedly overly intellectual concept of personhood from the debate. It was taking a position on it, and one that if one were required to state it explicitly would probably seem radical to many of the same people expressing support for it.

To have the debate you and EA are having seemed to sidestep the personhood question in the same way the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade. I, perhaps mistakenly, assumed both of your positions came form acknowledgement of the fetus potentially being a person but having unequal rights in comparison to the mother whose body as property/being was the central subject of debate in relation to the interest of the state. If I misjudged that, then I misjudged it. I can't claim to have thought much about the details of your discussion because as I was catching back up on the thread my mind was preoccupied with what I see as the ground-level error of assuming personhood is some esoteric, unnecessary insertion. And that this error is shared by parties across the spectrum of views. Though, in some ways, I suspect now that folks such as Markk and Chap are much closer to one another than perhaps EA given both seem to view the final decision as one that souly relies on the personal views of the woman involved.

[_Markk]

God willing!

Good Morning...I am in first puppy bowl mode, then Home depot run, then golf ( have a bet on the tourney), then super bowl....But actually I am remodeling my kitchen still and had some confusing electrical problems. I have a older home and didn't take pic's of my boxes before I took them apart and when I went to put them back together I had a dropped (back fed) neutral somewhere and it took me hours to find it, and about three good shocks. As it turned out it was a original problem that has been there since my home was built in 1960. Also grouted my new tile.

I read through a bit and it appears that your question is how were women treated in the Biblical time...why not just tell me your point, wouldn't that be easier? I saw your question earlier and it has not relevance today, 100% subjective to culture, but anyways...

In different cultures they were treated differently, but generally speaking it was a man's world. It was also class based, a woman in a higher class, had more rights than a man in a lower class. Off the top of my head women bought and sold property, were prophets and queens. There were laws against women that are very degrading, like putting them out to the garage once a month. They caused confusion in New Testament church and were told to shut up by Paul, they were cherished by Jesus.

Not sure how this ties into abortion but I can't wait to find out . If it is about personhood, I guess culturally it was more like the middle east today and they had less rights, and were certainly less a person in status, and it could be said they did not have "person-hood."

It's impossible to say for sure exactly how it was, but I can't wait to find out what your point is.

Go Rams, Go Napoleon the sleeping puppy, my favorite for MVP, in the puppy bowl. Go Justin Thomas and Rivas, and you go Girl!

[_Chap]

....
By the way, it is a result of observing such discussions as the endless to and fro on this thread that I have come to think that the concept of personhood is not a useful one.

Be sure to inform philosophers and legal scholars of your discovery.

I don't dispute that US legal scholars in particular are stuck with the problem of what a 'person' is because of the occurrence of that word in the US constitution and the amendments thereo (on which see earlier posts). They are welcome to it, and no doubt their debates will be a rich source of income for them .

But (breaking news!) there is no class of people called 'philosophers' who come with a certificate on the wall guaranteeing their authority as experts, as if they were, for instance neurosurgeons or plumbers. You'd be a fool if you did not give some considerable credence to what a neurosurgeon said about a brain tumour, or a plumber said about your plans for a new hot-water system.

But even though certain people who earn a living by teaching and writing about a subject called 'philosophy' in modern university curricula may want to make the notion of 'personhood' a central one in some of their writings, absolutely no-one is obliged to imitate them. Asserting that one must discuss personhood because some of those people do so is unconvincing. You have to show, here and now that it is useful, which I do not think you have done.

[_honorentheos]

Asserting that one must discuss personhood because some of those people do so is unconvincing. You have to show, here and now that it is useful, which I do not think you have done.

Start with this: Is there a difference between ending a pregnancy before week 12 and ending the life of a 1 month old baby?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Asserting that one must discuss personhood because some of those people do so is unconvincing. You have to show, here and now that it is useful, which I do not think you have done.

Start with this: Is there a difference between ending a pregnancy before week 12 and ending the life of a 1 month old baby?

No, because they both kill a potential adult?

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Chap, I want to make sure I’m understanding your position. I think I’m seeing two arguments against using the concept of personhood. First, defining when a fetus reaches personhood is something on which people can never agree. Second, personhood doesn’t resolve the issue because we still have to decide what rights a person has. Since assigning rights is what we’re trying to do in the first instance, why not skip the personhood argument altogether?

Am I close?

[_Jersey Girl]

Go Rams, Go Napoleon the sleeping puppy, my favorite for MVP, in the puppy bowl. Go Justin Thomas and Rivas, and you go Girl!

Are you talking about me? Listen, Superbowl Sunday is the best shopping day of the year and I'm not going to miss it. I'll return later and continue on.

[_Markk]

Go Rams, Go Napoleon the sleeping puppy, my favorite for MVP, in the puppy bowl. Go Justin Thomas and Rivas, and you go Girl!

Are you talking about me? Listen, Superbowl Sunday is the best shopping day of the year and I'm not going to miss it. I'll return later and continue on.

Yes you "Go Girl"...

My wife took off about an hour ago to go shopping, she agrees with you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Are you talking about me? Listen, Superbowl Sunday is the best shopping day of the year and I'm not going to miss it. I'll return later and continue on.

Yes you "Go Girl"...

My wife took off about an hour ago to go shopping, she agrees with you.

My kinda girl that is! The stores are nearly entirely EMPTY on Superbowl Sunday. So relaxing and enjoyable--total peace!