1. Does the definition of a person as a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?
2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.
3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person? Why?
4. Prior to this time does a being have any rights? If so, which? Why?
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?
6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?
7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
Please feel free to offer your replies to any and all of the questions above. (Click on "comments" immediately below)
An Examination of Contemporary American Folk Psychology Surrounding the Chronological Genesis of Personhood
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this blog is to obtain information regarding when people, specifically Americans, believe a person actually becomes a person. The larger goal is to obtain an ethnographic account of the basic folk psychology surrounding the notion of personhood and when it begins, chronologically, for contemporary Americans. To this end, it is not necessary that you provide your identity. My goal is simply to obtain your thoughts on this matter.
Consent
By answering the questions below you are agreeing to participate in this study. Your identity will not be sought or included in any of the material generated by this questionnaire. This study is being conducted as part of a requirement for an Anthropology Honors Thesis Project at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA. Please contact me at men3117@u.washington.edu should you have any questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
For me, the definition of person, is an entity that can sustain itself out of the womb, function at the level that is generally considered normal for that age(for example, ababy can eat, breathe and cry without mechanical intervention)
3.A person can be considered a person when it can do all the basic functions of a human and
hs the ability to operate apart
from its parent.
4. By the time the entiy has the abily to survive even if premature, they are absolutely entitled to the basic rights to enable them to continue to exist,
such as the right to sustenence and safety.
5.A pregnant woman has the right to
any behavior, even reprehensible acts, since she is the carrier.This
is a difficult choice because some acts are so negative, but there is the line that each person has the ight to do with their own body what they wish.
6.A woman should absolutely not be held responsible for a spontaneous abortion since there can be numerous reason, many of which are in not way her fault or choice, and
to try to make distinctions would allow others or the state too much
authority over an individual.
7. N woman should be forced to maintain a pregnancy against her will. There are too many moral,
health or financial reasons, to list a few, for others to make that decision.
1-3. I think a person is a being that can function like we do. Maybe not to the same extent that we do since unborn babies cant cry or gurgle or laugh in the womb. They can kick or move around if they dont like the position that mom is in. I think that once the fertilized egg has a brain its a person.
5. A pregnant woman should be legally allowed to do the things mentioned in the question.
These are rights that we have as americans that should not be taken away. In order to keep pregnant women from engaging in these activities they would have to take mandatory drug tests and or have someone follow them around 24/7 in order to ensure they werent up to any monkey business. We are already getting screwed enough by the current administration. Lots of the lubes out there are petroleum based so the prices will probably go up on those too.
All kidding aside short of illegal activities they have the right any behavior. Sick, evil and twisted or not.
1-3. I think the definition of a person is set once they are out of the womb. That person is living and breathing fresh air, and while still may rely on others to do such things as eat and fully live as a child, that child still has rights.
4. Tricky question which I'm not really sure how to answer. Who's to say that once a fetus has developed limbs, a sex, and is nearly fully formed that it doesnt have rights? Then again it also goes again what I posted for 1-3.
5. A woman should be allowed to whatever she wants to her body, no matter how bad or harmful it could be to their fetus. It's the woman's body and no one should ever have the power to tell you what to do with your own body.
6. Aboslutely not, for the same reasons as above.
7. No. Two lives should not be put into danger because of one. If aborting a fetus means saving the woman's life, so she can go on and possibly have more children, then that should be the choice.
3. A person is a person when he or she is born. The baby is a person when delivered. It looks like a person it acts like a person. Cries smiles etc.
4. Yes, the person who carries the person has the rights of the person.
5. Yes. That person has rights and should be able to do as she pleases to an extent. I don't think they should use illegal drugs but who are we to tell them what they can and cant do.
6. No. There is no definate way to tell why she has miscarried. Women miscarry all the time. It is very common.
7. No. The woman should be able to chose if she wants to or not. Who are we to make that choice.
1. No, there is more to being a person than being alive. Terry Schivo could not be considered a person, even though she was technically alive. There needs to be brain activity for a person to be a person.
2. Brain activity makes a person a person.
3. When the thoughts created are thoughts of the person's own. When the child in the womb is a bunch of unthinking cells, it is not yet a person. Until the brain is developed, it is not a person.
4. It doesn't have any rights until it could sustain life on it's own outside of the womb. Until it is able to live without the host, the rights of the host outweigh any rights the womb could have.
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. She has the right to do anything she would like legally. If she is desiring any governmental assistance with the child then she should be restricted to no alcohol, weekly UA's and nicotine tests. The fellow members of society should not suffer because she is stupid.
6. No, the child was not able to live on it's own outside of the womb and therefore did not have the full rights.
7. No, simple utilitarian math. The death of a newborn maybe tragic, but the death of someone 20-40 would cause greater sadness because the person still had potential to help out others while creating many bonds. The thing in the womb does not obtain a right to life until it could be removed and able to live on it's own.
1 & 2. I think that you have to have some type of brain function to be a person. Otherwise that being is just a lump.
3. I believe that a person becomes a person in the womb when they would be able to sustain life outside the womb if the need arose. If that entity could breath, eat, and cry then it shows that there is something that would make this being survive.
4. I don't believe that a fetus has rights. It would be up to the mother to make the decisions that would be best for that individual, not make the fetus make those judgements, when they are not even considered something that can survive.
5. I believe it is up to the mother. If she knows the risks of consuming alcohol or drugs, and still chooses to do so, then that's her choice.
6. If a woman miscarries, then it is of no fault to the woman. For whatever reason, the fetus was not viable, and thus the woman should not be held responsible. She should not be investigated.
7. I feel that it is the womans choice to keep or terminate her pregnancy, whatever the reason being.
I believe that the standing definition is adequate. It is not unnecessarily exclusive and allows individuals to assign their particular values to a "right to life."
The second half of the questions are more ambivalent. From what I see, individuals are asked to choose a priority between two, potentially conflicting, rights to life. Both parties involved, mother and offspring, are each entitled to a right to life but the question of which supersedes the other.
My personal view is the personhood is established when a fetus develops brain organized activity( as established by typical EEG readings). Prior to that point there would be no ethical opposition to aborting a fetus. After that point, i believe that a woman has a right to choose what organism parasitizes her body up to a point of viability (a point where a fetus would potentially survive out of a womb ~35 weeks?).
Legislation on the issue of prenatal negligence, for the above reason, would be difficult to responsibly pursue. Again, my person feeling is that mother who desire offspring would most likely take precautionary measures to protect a prenatal infant. Those who do not are probably unprepared or unfit to be a parent.
1. Yes, but one can elaborate.
2. It serves its purpose because you are biologically questioning the subject
3. When they can recognize themselves and start inquiring about the world
4. Yes, of course, the right to life. Because if that little dude doesn’t have some rights to life, that dude, will never make it to personhood.
5. No, no, no, and nope. Because she is going to be affecting the fetus in many ways, FAS, fetal alcohol syndrome for instance, is a real quick scenario. Speaking of which, I read an article today how hormone exposure can affect, directly and indirectly the developing brain of the fetus.
6. No, it was out of her control, just like traffic really.
7. I don’t know about this one. From my cultural background, that is accepted, the belief is, one can have another child, but the mother can’t be replaced.
1. Does the definition of a person as a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?
I think a person becomes a person when they start thinking for themselves (this may take until the baby is a toddler), but I think they have a right to life as soon as the umbilical cord is cut and the baby takes its first breath.
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?
A woman can do whatever she wants while pregnant. It is her life and she is going to have to deal with whatever consequences. If she wants to risk having a retarded or deformed baby, that’s her choice.
6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?
The baby is still part of the mother until the umbilical cord is cut. It is not yet a person and does not have any rights. Only the mother has rights at this time.
7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
It is the mother’s choice whether or not to carry the baby to term.
1. No. First of all, who grants this ethereal "right to life"?
Secondly, who created this definition?
2. A "person" is a human entity that can exist autonomously, without depending on the body of another individual for sustenance and/or survival. This does not mean that infants who are breastfeeding, individuals who need 24 hour care from others, or who are on life-sustaining machinery are not "persons", as they are not completely dependent upon the BODY of another person to survive.
3. At birth, when they become physically autonomous.
4. A fetus does not (and should not) have rights which usurp the rights of the woman carrying it. It is obvious that she is an ACTUAL "person" and that her rights should never be usurped or dismissed in favor of a POTENTIAL "person".
5. First of all, who would be the ones to decide who would be "allowed" to do what?
Secondly, if she is of legal age, then she has the right to drink and smoke, as both things are completely legal. Whether or not it's a good idea is another question.
So far as take drugs, it depends on what kind of drugs you mean. Should she be able to take drugs to treat an ailment or disease she may be suffering from? Absolutely. Illegal drugs are another issue, BECAUSE they are illegal.
What kinds of "risky behaviors" are you addressing here? Skydiving? Drag car racing? What? If they are legal, then why shouldn't she be "allowed" to
6. Of course not. How ridiculous would that be? And who would determine this? The Pregnancy Police? Would every woman who suffered a miscarriage be subjected to criminal investigation? And how would we determine who these women are, as many miscarriages happen before the woman even knows she is pregnant? Would every girl/woman be subjected to monthly pregnancy tests?
7. Absolutely not. A woman shouldn't be forced to maintain ANY pregnancy she doesn't choose to maintain. She has the right to make medical decisions and choices for her own body at all times, and those decision and choices are protected by medical privacy laws.
On the flip side, a woman should have the right to choose to decline to be treated for a potentially lethal disease she contracts during pregnancy if the only way to treat her would be with drugs that would cause a miscarriage or fetal death.
All competent adult individuals have the right to make medical decisions for and about their own bodies, even if those decisions disagree with the advice given to them by health care providers.
1. Does the definition of a person as a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?
No. Being able to live without a direct biological connection exclusively to the biological mother is also essential.
2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.
3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person?
Viable and at birth.
4. Prior to this time does a being have any rights? If so, which? Why?
Legal rights can only go to either foetus or to person who's body is creating and developing the foetus. In that either or equation, the only logical choice is to ascribe primary rights to the person who's body is creating and developing the foetus.
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?
Har, don't get me started... it brings back memories that still annoy. Legally allow? Yes. Sould one consume alcohol whilst preggers? Rarely and limitedly.
6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?
Absolutely not. There are serious legal ramifications to taking this to such a level. Education and not enforcement is the pathway here.
7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
Absolutely not. Her life is paramount, period.
1. Does the definition of a person as a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?
>>>No. It assumes two things I don't consider necessary for personhood: being a member of H. sapiens, and having the right to life. Especially the right to life, because even we born human beings don't have that right. Ask anyone executed by the state, killed in war, killed in self defense, murdered, or died from being denied health care, shelter, or food.
2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.
>>>Personhood is dependant upon sentience and sapience, plain and simple.
3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person?
>>>When a being has a certain degree of sentience and sapience, or is a member of a species that displays sentience and sapience at the norm at a certain point of their development. For human beings, this would be the point of viability: the ability to exist independantly of their mother.
4. Prior to this time does a being have any rights? If so, which? Why?
>>>Before this time, they have rights. But before this point, the rights of the mother take precidence. That is conundrum of the abortion debate: we're talking about two lives with rights, one actual person (the mother) and one potential person (the zygote, embryo, or fetus)
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?
>>>Unfortunately, we cannot force people to make responsible choices even in their own lives, let alone for a potential human being. Not to mention that to do so is not only unfeasable, but attrocious. Could you imagine locking up a pregnant woman until she delivers if she makes a decision YOU consider irresponsible? Or all pregnant women? Or all fertile women?
6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?
>>>No, because it is a simple fact that two out of three zygotes spontaneously abort naturally, usually before a woman's first period. It is nature's way of purging those zygotes with catastrophic development problems.
7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
>>>Definitely not. We don't make it manditory to donate organs after death, even though the dead have no need of them and they would save many lives. We don't make it manditory to donate kidneys, a lobe of our livers, or bone marrow, all of which are rather risky. We don't even make it manditory to even donate blood, which is extremely low risk. We may not have the right to life, but we do have the right to make medical decisions, even if that medical decision means the death of another being. The decision not to donate blood could cost the life of another. The decision not to donate a spare organ is likely to cost the life of another. The decision not to donate an organ AFTER YOUR DEAD often does cost the life of another.
1. Does the definition of a person as a biological member of the species H. sapiens with a right to life appropriately capture what it is for a person to be a person? If not, why not?
No. It is incomplete and “a right to life” is unnecessary. The word “person” suggests a living human being with a personality, thoughts and feelings.
2. If the above definition doesn't suit you, and you feel you have a better definition to offer, please provide it here.
A living cognitive biological member of the species H. sapiens
3. Using the definition you feel most accurately describes what it is to be a person, when do you feel a person first should be recognized as such? At what point in time can a person first be properly called a person?
Since there is no way for science to know with any certainty when this brain function and awareness begins, I’d have to say when it moves in the mother’s womb.
4. Prior to this time does a being have any rights? If so, which? Why?
Yes. It has the right to live; not because it’s a person, but because like any other living creature, it has that fundamental right.
Hypothetical scenarios...
5. Should a pregnant woman be legally allowed to consume alcohol if she plans to carry the fetus to term? Smoke? Use drugs? Engage in potentially risky behaviors? Why or why not?
Yes. Every woman/person has the right to live their lives the way they choose and the woman’s rights outweigh those of the fetus.
6. Should a pregnant woman who has spontaneously aborted (miscarried) be held morally or legally responsible for the loss to the same extent she might be were she to lose a child? Should she be investigated for neglect? If so, why? If not, why?
No, because of the above (#5), the cause of the miscarriage would be speculative, and because it’s just plain ridiculous.
7. Should a woman be forced to maintain a pregnancy even though it may have lethal consequences for her? Why or why not?
No. The woman’s right to life outweighs that of the fetus.
"Until the brain is developed, it is not a person."
This person clearly has no understanding of human child development.
I'll answer the other questions, but I just HAD to vehemently disagree with this definition. If this were the case, 3 and 4 year olds would not be considered "persons".
"a point where a fetus would potentially survive out of a womb ~35 weeks?)."
Just as a point of clarification, a fetus can most certainly survive being born at 26-28 weeks, and there are known cases of fetuses being delivered at 21 weeks gestation and surviving and thriving into healthy children.
1. No. Membership of a group, be it race/gender/species, is irrelevant to the rights of the individual.
2. A person is some being capable of being aware of its own life and valuing it. That gives the intrinsic value - the life valuing itself.
3. When they are self-aware and capable of valuing themselves. For the average human, that's at around 18 months after birth.
4. Yes, the right not to be tortured (have severe pain intentionally inflicted) is a right for all beings that are aware of pain and value the pain-free state.
5. Yes, those freedoms should be given her. The child is still likely to be alive, and as such only the worst effects on the child outweigh the gift of life. She may have an obligation not to, but I don't think that should be legally enforced.
6. She may need to be counselled and investigated in the process, but I do not think she should be legally responsible. It depends how much pain the foetus suffered, if any.
7. Absolutely not. She should only do that if she wishes to do so. An embryo or foetus is not a person, so the rights of the woman - who likely is a person - should come first.
In the broad philososphic sense, I'd say that a "person" is a member of human society. And to be a member of that society, you have to be a human being who is in society. Meaning you have to be alive, and to have been born. But I'll extend it to include an unborn Homo sapiens who, under normal circumstances, could be expected to survive if she were born. Meaning a naturally viable fetus. Naturally viable means she has developed to the age where a normal fetus can eat, breathe, and perform her vital functions without artificial life support. There's objective evidence for when this occurs. From the old pediatric literature, before high tech life support was available, a premature infant born at 24 weeks had just over a 50% chance of survival. I'll stess that birth and gestational age are my only criteria for personhood. Once you're born, no matter how premature, or how much life support is needed, you're a person. And no matter what congenital life-threatening diseases a fetus may have, if it reaches 24 weeks, it's a person.
So--as a practical, working definition--a person is any live Homo sapiens at either of two points, whichever comes first:
1) who is born, whenever this occurs.
2) who has reached 24 weeks of age in utero.
For me personhood begins at conception.
(copied from Internet Infidels message board replies to my post regarding this project).
While "human" is a biological concept, "personhood" is arbitrary and bestowed by the collective. This is because it implies certain rights, and rights are granted by society. Generally, "person" is an individual. To me, "individual" must imply the person exists independently of others, that is he/she is his/her own person. This very obviously cannot be applied to fetuses, who are physiologically part of another person. Only when the fetus can support its own life can it be called "individual" and "person".
(copied from Internet Infidels message board replies to my post regarding this project).
1. The definition is pretty good but could be significantly improved by
2. The addition of the word "sentient" indicating the possession of and the possible use of a functioning human brain-- which is what qualitatively differentiates humans from other animals. And I think the "right to life" is given AFTER the designation of personhood is made and not the designation of personhood resulting from the rights granted to the entity.
3. I think in some sense it is a sliding scale, not a hard and fast line. Starting from the second trimester "personhood" could arguably be granted in theory or for purposes of morality, by birth, the normal neonate clearly is a "person" and may be legally recognized as such. Even then, there are many rights it does not have, such as the right to vote or enter into a contract, which will be granted when its cognitive faculties have more fully developed.
4. No, prior to birth a being does not have any legal rights because granting such rights would infringe on the rights of a full "person." Non-human animals may have some limited rights, but these are another discussion entirely.
5. A woman is a person and as such is entitled to the right to engage in all legal behaviors. She obviously isn't legally allowed to take street drugs since they are illegal. The woman has a moral responsibility to her own children NOT to smoke or drink during pregnancy, but the practicalities necessary (forced checkups and pregnancy tests, etc) to legislate this moral responsibility would infringe on the rights of persons, and thus is not allowable.
6. No. The government must not involve itself with miscarriages. The fetus has no legal rights.
7. A woman should not be forced to carry or terminate any pregnancy, for any reason, and especially not when it may involve her life. It is her choice alone. But if she is a pregnant minor, and the pregnancy threatens her life, she must abort. The state has a legitimate interest in keeping minors from risky behaviors, in this case, continuing a dangerous pregnancy.
Post a Comment