Personhood is a nonsensical concept and category. It's part of the mental gymnastics that are necessary for otherwise good people of good will to accept the slaughter of millions of our contemporaries.

To answer the question, personhood begins at conception and ends at natural death. For everyone. It's that simple.

And yes, I did just vote for a pro-abort (Hillary). I did so to hedge bets - if the democrats do win, I think she will be a MUCH better president than Obama (and she needed the win in Ohio to stay in), not necessarily on the abortion issue (they are both abysmal on that), but on most others. At least she doesn't routinely and repeatedly associate herself with self-proclaimed haters of the country that she hopes to lead! So, I think there are situations in which a PL person should vote for a PA candidate. It's sad that it's come to that!

S.

Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday, new person!
Happy Birthday to you!

Life begins when you're born and ends when you die. Simple enough.

I believe personhood begins at conception, but I think women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies anyway.

If you live in someone else's body, then the someone else has the right to kill and expel you whenever she so wishes.

Because it's HER body.

SoMG,

I do admire your consistency.

I'm quite shocked at the percentage of people who voted on the poll that personhood begins at birth. Most personhood theories that abortion-choice philosophers accept are based on brain activity/development or viability. The belief that personhood begins at birth reflects a lack of familiarity with current pro-abortion literature.

Bobby--

You're thinking of more of a "life" question. Undeniably, there is life before conception: the sperm and egg are both living. Personhood is not scientifically proveable. It's a religious or philosophical question. And an interesting one at that.

"Personhood is not scientifically proveable. It's a religious or philosophical question. And an interesting one at that."

Yes, you are correct Leah. But my point is that personhood, as most philosophers who support abortion see it, is never determined by birth; always by something else. Just look at the wiki article for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person

Here is what I mean: From the wiki article

"In recent years a kind of consensus among secular scholars has emerged, which might be referred to as "personhood theory". This is strongly influenced by Locke's approach. The criteria a person must have in being a person are one or more of the following:

1. Consciousness,
2. The ability to steer one's attention and action purposively,
3. Self-awareness, self-bonded to objectivities (existing independently of the subject's perception of it),
4. Self as longitudinal thematic identity, one's biographic identity.

Neo-Kantian philosophers over the last two decades have emphasized that conscious awareness requires both:

1. The sensorial capacity to access an environment (and one's own body) in a way that offers the basic qualitative content for subjective experience.
2. The intellectual capacity to conceptually interpret sensorial content as representing some thing to oneself.
"

Notice they don't mention birth. That's all I'm saying; that birth really isn't a popular personhood theory, at least among scholars.

Aha. I gotcha. However, it seems to me that a lot of these things don't happen until after birth. And they certainly don't happen at or (above all) before conception.

"However, it seems to me that a lot of these things don't happen until after birth.And they certainly don't happen at or (above all) before conception."

Oh certainly, Leah. Of course, I believe that persnhood begins at conception, but you see where this idea of personhood takes us. The Peter Singers and Michael Tooleys of the world openly endorse infanticide because of what you just observed; namely, that if we want to take many persnhood theories to their logical conclusions, we end up justifying the killing of born babies, or even older people. This is why I think that the best defense of abortion is basically what SoMG mentioned above, the "right to bodily autonomy." You grant the full humanity to the embryo, yet claim that the right to bodily autonomy can not be violated, even if that means the death of the fetus. Otherwise, with most persnhood theories, one must logically conclude that infants and other kinds of humans can be killed, and I don't think most people are willing to go there.

"I believe personhood begins at conception, but I think women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies anyway."

Jasper,
There's you new quote for the day...

SoMG,

You are seriously one of the scariest people I have ever come across...seriously.

Bobby, a fine treatment of the topic by you, as is the norm.

Personhood is a societal construct, thus present when society says so.

Doug

..if the the so-called right to bodily autonomy exists, a women should be able abort at 38 or 39 weeks pregnant, meaning abort in whatever manner she wants (even if it means killing her child). Bodily autonomy means control over ones body, that means one should be able to do whatever he/she wants, including using all kinds of illegal drugs, etc or suicide.

The argument just doesn't hold up.

""I believe personhood begins at conception, but I think women should have the right to terminate their pregnancies anyway."

Jasper,
There's you new quote for the day"

Yes I agree. But for many pro aborts (sadly) that is the new argument which they believe holds up but I disagree for the reasons expressed in my comment above. If one has true bodily autonomy, they should be able to commit suicide as well.

"..if the the so-called right to bodily autonomy exists, a women should be able abort at 38 or 39 weeks pregnant, meaning abort in whatever manner she wants (even if it means killing her child). Bodily autonomy means control over ones body, that means one should be able to do whatever he/she wants, including using all kinds of illegal drugs, etc or suicide.

The argument just doesn't hold up."

That's absolutely correct, Jasper, which is why I believe that when most people really scrutinize this bodily autonomy, they will ultimately reject it. The interesting thing is, I believe SoMG has no problem with everything you just mentioned. Like I said above, he is consistent...

That is true, SoMG is consistant.

SoMG,

You are seriously one of the scariest people I have ever come across...seriously.

Posted by: mk at March 15, 2008 9:08 PM*********************** Mk, the true definition of a nut job!

Jasper: ..if the the so-called right to bodily autonomy exists, a women should be able abort at 38 or 39 weeks pregnant, meaning abort in whatever manner she wants (even if it means killing her child). Bodily autonomy means control over ones body, that means one should be able to do whatever he/she wants, including using all kinds of illegal drugs, etc or suicide. The argument just doesn't hold up.

It's not black and white, though. There are limits on the right, as with many things; suicide and drugs are good examples, though for an adult "of sound mind," I think it's rather silly for suicide to be illegal.

As per the Roe decision, a state can, if it wants to, restrict that autonomy at/after viability. Even considering things outside the body, the woman isn't allowed to deny her kids care, again for example, so there really isn't going to be any doing "whatever she wants" - that's just not real-world stuff.

Somg, how do you function in society?

If "personhood" is a societal construct, then Jews in Hitler's Germany were not persons, and neither were black slaves from the foundation of America.

And for that matter, neither were the Native Americans. I sure am glad that America is now absolved of its most heinous sins of the enslavement of black people and the killing of the indians. After all, they weren't people, because society said so.

Can we declare that the Japanese weren't people until after WWII, as well? That will erase our sin of putting them in internment camps.

You guys, SoMG is the single most honest pro-abort on this site. I wish that the others would speak as clearly and as forthrightly as he. He understands the scientific reality that unborn children are indeed living persons, but he supports killing them anyway. This is the only honest, consistent "pro-choice" position possible.

John, sad but true.

Heather and MK,
Can't we have an intellegent and civil discussion without the insults or name-calling? Just because you feel that their views are extreme doesn't mean we need to insult them. Don't sink to Laura's level, be the better person.

Also, I voted yes, sometimes it's ok to vote for a pro-choice candidate. It depends where they stand on the other important issues, and maybe they are just personally pro-choice, but not going to focus on legislating abortion laws.

Ok, I'll try. Just couldn't resist;]

Rachel,

I wasn't throwing an insult around. SoMG really is one of the scariest people I've ever come across.

The idea that there are people who actually think the way he does, scares me to my marrow. He is the only person I have ever met that I would actually call Pro-abortion.

I don't insult people. I make it a point of integrity not to. Believe me, when I say something like that, I am not saying it lightly...

No, I am not "pro-abortion" I am anti-black-market-in-abortion, and anti-forced-labor-and-delivery, and pro-personal-reproductive-control.

I am also better informed on abortion than (almost) all of you.

The current idea among right-to-lifers to criminalize the abortion provider but not the patient who hires him/her could have been designed to create a black market in abortion.

It would diminish the supply without doing anything to diminish the demand.

SoMG,
I asked you a serious question on another thread, and was wondering if you caught it or not? If you don't want to respond, I understand. Did you see my question to you? If not, I'll find it & re-post it.

Thank you!

Go ahead, repost yr question.

The demand for abortion exists only because abortion is legal. That is my point of view.

I like you, Bobby Bambino.

John L, you wrote: "The demand for abortion exists only because abortion is legal."

I don't mean to insult you but that has to be the stupidest thing I've seen so far. Black markets in abortion services and (increasingly) abortifacient drugs are well-documented everywhere abortion is illegal. These black-markets would not exist if there were not conisderable demand for abortion services, in spite of abortion being illegal.

In South America, where abortion is mostly illegal, more abortions are performed per hundred thousand reproductive-age women than in North America, where abortion is mostly legal.

Making it illegal to do abortions does not lower the demand, UNLESS you punish women for having abortions thereby making the abortion less desirable.

You should read the following: http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/67/1/99

SoMG,
It's important to note that the number of legal abortions tripled from 193,491 in 1970 to 485,816 in 1971, in the two years before Roe vs. Wade, when individual states were legalizing abortion. Correlation or causation, I don't know, but it seems possible.

SoMG,
It's important to note that the number of legal abortions tripled from 193,491 in 1970 to 485,816 in 1971, in the two years before Roe vs. Wade, when individual states were legalizing abortion.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm#tab2
Correlation or causation, I don't know, but it seems possible.

Sorry, SoMG, I should have made clear I was talking about America, not third world nations. Of course there are poverty striken nations in which women aren't offered any help, regardless of their situation.

In America, however, it is the legality of abortion that creates the demand. That is because in America, there is no need for any woman to ever seek abortion for economic reasons. We have more than enough churches, charities and government programs to take care of everyone.

But you are right in saying that some women would seek abortion, even knowing that there are many different organizations willing to help them. That is most likely due to pro-abortion propaganda from Planned Parenthood, et al. To understand PP, you must understand that they were started as and remain a population control organization. This means that they are indeed "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice".

John L: If "personhood" is a societal construct, then Jews in Hitler's Germany were not persons, and neither were black slaves from the foundation of America.

They were not treated as persons, no, though in Germany it was a relatively few people responsible for it, rather than what is the norm for societies and human nature as a whole. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes - strange but true.
......

And for that matter, neither were the Native Americans. I sure am glad that America is now absolved of its most heinous sins of the enslavement of black people and the killing of the indians. After all, they weren't people, because society said so.

Who says "absolved"? No, full status and rights weren't granted, no question about it. There are people to this day who think that Jews are "bad" or Muslims are "bad," etc., and who would wipe them off the face of the earth if they could, but there too that's not reflective of how things usually are.
......

Can we declare that the Japanese weren't people until after WWII, as well? That will erase our sin of putting them in internment camps.

I don't think they were really declared "non-persons" or anything, just locked up for what was presumed to be the danger they represented.

SoMG,

"It would diminish the supply without doing anything to diminish the demand."

This and other things you've said about why abortion should not be illegal (black market) seem to me to beg the question. If abortion can be shown to be intrinsically evil, then all the unfortunate consequences of making abortion illegal would not warrant us to not do so.

For example, suppose that the "new thing" is drugging your date and date rapping her. Perhaps it has become so big that statistically, 1 in 3 women will be drugged and date rapped. Part of the reason that this has become so popular is that there is a new drug that is very, very easy to slip women and very hard to trace. However, it also has been shown to cause tumors to grow in many women. Now, if this was the case, I don't think we'd be arguing that date rape needs to be "safe and legal" nor would we be lamenting the fact that pharmacists had not come out with a safer date rape drug that didn't cause tumors. What I have described in this situation is not wrong because the date rape drug has undesirable side effects, yet wrong because forcing someone to engage in sex against their will is always and everywhere intrinsically evil, and this is the question that needs to be answered when it comes to abortion. Should women be allowed abortions in the first place, regardless of whether or not they will "do it anyway in an unsafe way?" The side effects of all the illegal abortions that you referred to above are horrible and tragic, yet they need to be taken care of not by allowing abortion, but by educating and teaching people the proper role of the sexual act. God love you, SoMG.

"I like you, Bobby Bambino."

*blushes*

:)

Doug,

There are people to this day who think that Jews are "bad" or Muslims are "bad," etc., and who would wipe them off the face of the earth if they could, but there too that's not reflective of how things usually are.

That's what we keep trying to tell you. There are people today that think babies are "bad" and that their mothers have the right to kill them. But there too, that's not reflective of how things usually are.

There will always be people who want to do evil. Sometimes they gain the upper hand, as with now and abortion. But eventually, they either come to their senses or are put in their place, and we once again live in a world where things are "as they usually are".

You and the prochoice movement are the minority gone mad of our generation, just as the pro-slavery/anti-native americans were in their day.

But a new day is dawning...and just as the horrors of Nazi Germany were eventually brought into the light, so too will this debauchery called choice, be shown for what it really is.

"If one has true bodily autonomy, they should be able to commit suicide as well."

Of course they should. Boy, you really love government power don't you?

MK: That's what we keep trying to tell you. There are people today that think babies are "bad" and that their mothers have the right to kill them. But there too, that's not reflective of how things usually are.

Again, two different things. It's not making any judgment on babies as good or bad for one to be pro-choice, necessarily. It leaves the judging up to the pregnant woman. I don't need a given woman to continue a pregnancy nor do I need her to end it. I'm for leaving it up to her. Not saying babies are "bad."

Now there are people, sure, who really are *for* abortion, on grounds of population control, etc., and they're not pro-choice, then. They could think babies are bad, sure.
......

You and the prochoice movement are the minority gone mad of our generation, just as the pro-slavery/anti-native americans were in their day.

Nah - slavers wanted the will of slaves subjugated to their own. You want the will of pregnant women subjugated to yours.
......

But a new day is dawning...and just as the horrors of Nazi Germany were eventually brought into the light, so too will this debauchery called choice, be shown for what it really is.

Naziism obviously was an aberration, totally different from the prevalence of the Birth Standard, of not attributing personhood before birth, etc.

John L, you wrote: "In America, however, it is the legality of abortion that creates the demand. That is because in America, there is no need for any woman to ever seek abortion for economic reasons. We have more than enough churches, charities and government programs to take care of everyone."

Are you serious? Women desire abortions for all kinds of non-economic reasons. Wanting to finish school before having a kid, for instance, or already having as many kids as she wants, or a desire to avoid being connected with the father (see for instance THE GODFATHER PART II), or simply wanting to avoid the pain of labor and delivery. None of these motivating factors would be diminished in any way by making abortion illegal.

When abortion was illegal in the USA (before 1973) women still had many abortions.

And by the way, PP does not issue "pro-abortion propaganda", only pro-choice propaganda. The idea that PP attempts to cause women to have abortions is a myth.

Not even a myth, rather, a slander.

Bobbie B., you wrote: "If abortion can be shown to be intrinsically evil, then all the unfortunate consequences of making abortion illegal would not warrant us to not do so."

That's what the prohibitionists (alcohol) said.

This blog is simply smashing. In my humble opinion of course. As this post is rather debatable I don't think all your blog visitors are going to agree with it.

Simply outstanding ^_^! I like posts like that. Your blog is added to my favorites ;-). Continue writing.