What is a person?
Yes, this question ultimately ties in with the right to abortion and contraception. But I also want to talk about the more generalized concept of personhood.
One of the biggest reasons that anti-choicers are incapable of seeing eye-to-eye with pro-choicers is because of the issue of personhood. Let me begin by saying that, first of all, it's sad that I even need to write an entry like this, because it is extremely apparent to me that the only person involved in the "woman-with-unwanted-pregnancy" scenario is, of course, the woman. How do I know this? Why do I believe this? Are there legal, social, and/or philosophical definitions for a "person" and how do they relate to life and liberty? I think all of these important questions need to be addressed.
First of all, a side-note: Religious beliefs (such as "ensoulment") are unecessary to bring to the personhood discussion, because they are not based on reason or observed reality. Yes, it is entirely possible to talk about a seemingly-abstract philosophical concept (such as personhood) without dragging religious faith into the discussion. Religious definitions only muddy the waters: by accepting any religious personhood definition (such as "ensoulment"), then you must also accept the religion itself in its entirety. Otherwise, any religious argument for personhood will fail if presented to someone who is not already a believer of that specific faith. So, let's keep it simple, because there are countless religions in the world, and they ALL have different "answers" to the "what is a person?" question. I am not going to go through all of them because 1) I do not have enough time in the world to dissect the beliefs of all the world's religions and 2) most of the religious definitions for personhood status are patently ridiculous.
But, for your entertainment, here are just a couple quick examples: Some Jews believe that personhood begins when a newborn takes its first breath. Some Christians believe that personhood status begins at conception, others at the "quickening." For Hindus, the concept of a beginning or ending of personhood status is problematic, because they believe in reincarnation.
Moving on! Let's now look at the myriad (sometimes conflicting and erroneous) definitions for "person."
"A person is a legal concept both permitting rights to and imposing duties on one by law."
- Corporate person: "...a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person. A legal person (Latin persona ficta), also legal person, artificial person, juridical person, juristic person, and body corporate) has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of legal personality is perhaps one of the most fundamental legal fictions."
"A human being; an individual..."
I believe that these are all problematic definitions. To me, Human and Person are two separate categories. Human is a scientific category, to denote that certain biological matter is of Human origin, of Homo sapiens. This definition has nothing to say about consciousness or whether we are even talking about a being. For instance, I can say that my skin is that of a human, my organs are human; I can even say that a tumor is human tissue -- but that does not mean that skin, organs, or tumors are persons. Something can be human (such as DNA or fingernails or hair) but that doesn't automatically make it a person. Something can be OF a person, but that doesn't make it A person.
Note that there aren't any scientific definitions for a person. This is the domain of philosophy. And Roe v. Wade never had anything to say about person status either.
To me, an actualized person is:
(And obviously, a person is afforded certain protections -- including a right to life -- and liberties, regardless of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, war, religion, disability, age, criminal history, or other superficial distinctions.)
Therefore, from reading my definition of a person, one can conclude that the undeveloped zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus (z/b/e/f) is excluded from personhood status because 1. it sustains itself from within the body of another and 2. its capability for sentience/sapience is extremely dubious, if not entirely lacking. (the embryo/fetus does not have a neurological capacity to feel pain, emotion, or process any thought: http://www.ansirh.org/research/late-abortion/fetal-pain.php)
The z/b/e/f has a "right to life" only as long as the pregnant woman grants those rights to it and grants the use of her body space for its continued existence and development. Her body is her property and because the z/b/e/f internally occupies that space, the z/b/e/f is also her property until birth.
What is a Human z/b/e/f as a living organism if not a person? The answer is in its proper noun. For example, embryo: "a multicellular diploid eukaryote in its earliest stage of development, from the time of first cell division until birth..."; "an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life." Again, it's clear that science has nothing to say about personhood.
A non-scientific, further clarification I make is in the distinction between the actual person vs. potential person. An actual person is a born Human (or extremely intelligent, sapient animal) of any age.
A potential person is the developing Human z/b/e/f.
-If the development of the z/b/e/f is allowed to continue, it will result in birth, and consciousness, and will then fit all the characteristics of an individual person.
-The rights of an actual person (ex. woman/host/donor) always trump any "rights" of a potential person and always trump the "rights" of a non-person.
A "non-person" is an extremely broad category, and can include tissue that was an actual person at one point in time, such as a deceased, brain-dead, or anencephalic Human.
Other examples...
In Douglas Hofstadter's philosophical masterpiece, I Am A Strange Loop, he presents to readers what he calls a "consciousness cone" (p.19). It is an inverse cone diagram that shows organisms with "Lots of consciousness" at the large open-ended top of the cone, and organisms with "Little or no consciousness" at the singular bottom point of the cone. From Lots to Little consciousness, he orders his consciousness cone as follows: normal adult humans at the top; mentally retarded, brain-damaged, and senile humans; dogs; bunnies; chickens; goldfish; bees; mosquitos; mites; microbes; viruses; atoms.
Although a somewhat simplistic diagram, I think his understanding of consciousness has a lot to say about personhood status and where/when we grant an ultimate "right to life." There is no black and white or on/off switch; consciousness is best viewed on a scale, in gradations.
My personal consciousness cone can be tentatively ordered as follows, from Lots of Consciousness, to Less Consciousness, to Little or No consciousness: Normal adults, teenagers, children; profoundly retarded, senile, or semi-comatose individuals; extremely intelligent non-human animals (such as dolphins, chimpanzees, apes, ravens, etc); companion animals such as dogs, cats, horses, etc; other mammals, avians, reptile life, the fetal development stage of larger animals; fish, simple organisms like tadpoles, and organisms at beginning stages of development like the z/b/e; insects and plant life; viruses and bacteria.
Does it even matter, though, IF somehow scientists could call an embryo a "person"? Ultimately, no, it still doesn't matter, even in such a hypothetical scenario. That's where bodily autonomy comes into play. No person has the right to use another person's body without permission, even if it's a life/death circumstance. As a simple analogy, nobody (not even the courts) can force you to donate an organ (or blood or tissue) against your will, even if it's to save someone's life, even if that person is a close relative. We have the choice of donating blood or not. We have the choice of becoming an organ donor (or not) in case of brain death (although to me, why this should matter is somewhat strange, because if a person is technically dead, then their total personhood and consciousness have left the building, and they don't have a vested interest in their organs anyhow.) Bodily autonomy is a basic human right; violation of one's bodily integrity is rape, and in extreme violations which result in death, then it is murder.
Although people constantly discuss and dispute the "rights" or "personhood" status of developing z/b/e/f, it is always best to err on the side of the INDISPUTABLE person. (Put another way: There will never be universal scientific or philosophical agreement that an embryo is a "person," but science and society universally agree that women are people, so we must first and foremost consider their rights.)
At least, I HOPE that it is universally accepted that women are people. But the actions of right-wing Christians speak louder than words. Unfortunately, the "personhood" status of corporations is recognized by law in this country, but the personhood of woman is always up for debate, especially among Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals, who believe that the perceived "rights" of an insentient embryo trump the rights and happiness of woman. Sad.
Revised 8/12/2011
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5245
ReplyDeleteI read the link and rolled eyes.
ReplyDeleteBelieve anything right-wing Christian radio hosts tell you to think, and eventually, you will not think for yourself. Link all you want to various web sites and spout simplistic talking points by various "authorities" in your religion and within hate radio, but all it tells me is that you don't think for yourself about these issues. This is what Greg Koukl thinks, not what YOU think.
And you *obviously* did not READ what I wrote, because I refuted all of Koukl's arguments. (human vs. person/"being" is the most important). You can say that an acorn is always biologically an OAK but you can't say that an acorn is always a TREE. Likewise, You can say that a z/b/e/f is always biologically HUMAN but you can't say that it is always a PERSON/BEING.
As an analogy: stepping on an acorn on the sidewalk is not the same thing as chopping down a tree.
The author reveals another error in his own thinking when he writes, "I was Greg Koukl when I was born..." Right, the important word here is WHEN you were born; there was no Greg BEFORE birth. And on the other end of the spectrum, there will not be a Greg after death except in the minds of friends and family.
The personhood debate is NOT simple unless you use simplistic arguments such as the ones Koukl employs.
"This personhood argument is only 10-20 years old, since Roe vs. Wade, Frank Beckwith says. Before then there was never a personhood argument. It was introduced after Roe v. Wade to make the decision to have an abortion a little more palatable." WRONG. The personhood debate has been around since the dawn of philosophy! It is ancient. And not to mention that the practice of birth control is also ancient.
All in all, though, I am not interested in "Stand to Reason" or any of its talking heads. Religion muddies any argument and inhibits the thinking of the individual.
Speak, think, and write for yourself about divisive issues instead of acting as a mouthpiece for a perceived authority.
COUGH People who don't take the hint when someone writes "go away" cough cough cough.
ReplyDelete