personhood

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

On the other side are some lunatics who want to include animals as "persons," meaning as bearers of full rights and equal consideration.

To grant personhood to animals does not include giving them the right to fight for their nation, or vote for a political party, or receive tertiary education. It does give them the right to freedom to express normal behaviours for that species.

[Belinda]

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

And yet, you claim to be pro-abortion, do you not?

How does that work? Do you have higher regard for an infant with no brain than for a functioning one? If killing the former is "uncivilized," to use your word, what are the abortionists?

Elective abortion is more and more morally problematic as the foetus approaches full term. Legal abortionists are well aware of moral problems. One fact is that an individual man or woman owns their body. Be clear; nobody likes abortion.It is sometimes the lesser evil.

[Immanuel Can]

To grant personhood to animals does not include giving them the right to fight for their nation, or vote for a political party, or receive tertiary education. It does give them the right to freedom to express normal behaviours for that species.

You can grant that it is right to treat animals in certain ways without granting them personhood. But only persons can make decisions about the rights of animals. It never works in reverse.

So animals are not themselves persons.

[henry quirk]

Your theory is good but it's incomplete. It's good because it is generous enough to include all human beings. It's incomplete because you give no reason not to include other species in personhood. For instance other species have capabilities which can appear almost to perfection in some individuals of other species.

my lil laundry is wide enough to include all person, human & non-human

look here...

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list

...where do I say anything about humans?


What is so special about the human sort of physical complexity or structure?

it's not about special; it's about humans bein' persons and the physical characteristics that seem necessary for personhood, as evidenced by the human form...I'm not sayin' that specific form is necessary for personhood


Some human individuals from birth to death permanently and irremediably lack capacities for self-reference, self-awareness,self-direction, imagination,and reason.

yeah, I touched on that in an earlier post.


Aristotle thought, as do you, that there is a perfect form of the human

I never said that, B...never even hinted at it

me: I ain't talked about perfection at all except to say God creates for good, not for perfection, so I don't know where you're gettin' this garbage about perfection or about the human form bein' special

[Immanuel Can]

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

And yet, you claim to be pro-abortion, do you not?

How does that work? Do you have higher regard for an infant with no brain than for a functioning one? If killing the former is "uncivilized," to use your word, what are the abortionists?

Elective abortion is more and more morally problematic as the foetus approaches full term.

But you just said above, that even an infant with no brain must be respected by "civilized" persons. So you must be against all abortion except perhaps at the very, very earliest stage, since brainwaves do appear quite early in the developmental process.

Legal abortionists are well aware of moral problems.

If so, they're just evil? I agree. They're murderers, and they know they are. I don't doubt that.

One fact is that an individual man or woman owns their body.

The baby is IN her body, but it's not part of her body. The woman had a choice when she decided not to use contraception or manage her own sexuality. Committing murder after the fact does not become a right.

Be clear; nobody likes abortion.

Sure they do. Planned Parenthood loves it, and sells baby parts for profit. They're making a killing -- literally. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, liked abortion too; she was convinced it was the only way to get rid of black people and the "genetically inferior." But then, she was also spokeswoman at a KKK convention. And sexually-irresponsible men and women both like it, because it keeps them from facing the truth of the choices they've already made.

Lots of people love abortion. Far fewer love babies.

[henry quirk]

Well, hang on: that's actually not a definition of "person." It's only a definition of "human." Unless we already know that all humans, and nothing but humans, qualify as persons, the definition doesn't provide us with any help.

this...

seems to me: persons possess a certain kind of physical complexity, a peculiar & particular structure, a capacity for self-reference, a capacity for self-awareness, a capacity for self-direction, a capacity for imagining, a capacity for reason, and capacities for a whole whack of other things I'm too lazy to suss out and list

...ain't a definition, it's an incomplete laundry list and -- ask I ask B -- where's human in there?


"person" isn't just a biological category...it's a moral-relational one.

yep...don't see that I've posted anything contradictin', or failin' to recognize, that

[henry quirk]

Immanuel Can wrote:

On the other side are some lunatics who want to include animals as "persons," meaning as bearers of full rights and equal consideration.

To grant personhood to animals does not include giving them the right to fight for their nation, or vote for a political party, or receive tertiary education. It does give them the right to freedom to express normal behaviours for that species.

let's be clear: we can grant the legal status or privilege of person to animals but that don't make 'em actually persons

personhood is -- again -- natural & innate...it can't be bestowed, only recognized or denied

important to note: recognition of personhood doesn't validate it any more than denyin' personhood invalidates it

[Immanuel Can]

let's be clear: we can grant the legal status or privilege of person to animals but that don't make 'em actually persons

personhood is -- again -- natural & innate...it can't be bestowed, only recognized or denied

important to note: recognition of personhood doesn't validate it any more than denyin' personhood invalidates it

Good points. The legalities can only recognize or fail to recognize the reality of personhood...they can't change it. And they certainly have no power to confer it. That's way above their pay grade.

And obviously, if personhood can't be conferred by law (i.e. by will of the people expressed in law) then certainly, an individual person's willingness to recognize personhood does not suggest anything about whether or not that personhood is legit and real.

It either is, or it is not. It exists, or it does not. In the final analysis, human opinion, whether private or collective, changes nothing.

[seeds]

What is so special about the human sort of physical complexity or structure?

If I am allowed to address that question from a spiritual (Biblical) perspective, then it needs to be understood that humans are declared to have been created in the image of God.

In other words, humans are the “same species of being” as God (as in God’s literal offspring). While, on the other hand, all of the other lifeforms on earth are not, and do not share in the same sort of everlasting personhood as God.
_______

[seeds]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood?

I suggest that personhood (selfhood/soulhood) is established at the moment the lights come on in an infant’s mind after what used to be a gasp-inducing slap on its behind just after being jettisoned from its mother’s womb...

...(I personally stood up and asked for another, please ).

Everything that happens to that newly minted person in the years to follow will have absolutely no bearing or altering effect on the permanence of that initial event.

It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

If God truly exists, and if there truly exists a higher dimension of reality awaiting us after crossing the threshold of death,...

...then I furthermore suggest that any and all physiological or psychological defects that a human person may be afflicted with from birth, or as a result of malfunctioning genetics, disease, or accident, etc.,...

...is just a temporary issue having to do with the mind/body relationship and will be completely remedied when the mind (soul/person/self) exits the body in the event of death and awakens into its true and ultimate form.

The point is that as long as there was a successful formation of the soul (person) at that initial birthing event, then even if that person spent their entire life on earth in a vegetative state,...

...then such a state of existence would simply have been a temporary interlude that preceded their guaranteed awakening into their perfect and eternal form --> (the same form as God).
_______

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

It’s good that civilized people accord personhood to those infants, because it is the moral thing to do.

Now of course there is no way to be absolutely certain about any of this, however, if nothing “lights up” within the cranium of a human body that is born with such a condition (anencephaly), then logic suggests that a new person (a new eternal soul) has failed to come into existence.

This is why abortion is so tragic, for it never takes into account the vast and “eternal potential” of a human soul that gets snuffed-out before the “lights on” awakening event of birth.

Of which I have often considered the horrifying thought that it would be better if you killed the infant after it was born. That way, there at least exists the possibility that it will experience a second and final birth into its ultimate and eternal form (again, the same form as God) in a higher context of reality.
_______

[commonsense]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

[Belinda]

If personhood is natural, innate, and real what are the parameters of personhood?

I suggest that personhood (selfhood/soulhood) is established at the moment the lights come on in an infant’s mind after what used to be a gasp-inducing slap on its behind just after being jettisoned from its mother’s womb...

...(I personally stood up and asked for another, please ).

Everything that happens to that newly minted person in the years to follow will have absolutely no bearing or altering effect on the permanence of that initial event.

It would be absurd to suggest that God who made the Universe and all creatures great and small is averse to weak and imperfect humans

If God truly exists, and if there truly exists a higher dimension of reality awaiting us after crossing the threshold of death,...

...then I furthermore suggest that any and all physiological or psychological defects that a human person may be afflicted with from birth, or as a result of malfunctioning genetics, disease, or accident, etc.,...

...is just a temporary issue having to do with the mind/body relationship and will be completely remedied when the mind (soul/person/self) exits the body in the event of death and awakens into its true and ultimate form.

The point is that as long as there was a successful formation of the soul (person) at that initial birthing event, then even if that person spent their entire life on earth in a vegetative state,...

...then such a state of existence would simply have been a temporary interlude that preceded their guaranteed awakening into their perfect and eternal form --> (the same form as God).
_______

Some infants are born without brains and never "light up". Civilised people accord personhood to these infants.

It’s good that civilized people accord personhood to those infants, because it is the moral thing to do.

Now of course there is no way to be absolutely certain about any of this, however, if nothing “lights up” within the cranium of a human body that is born with such a condition (anencephaly), then logic suggests that a new person (a new eternal soul) has failed to come into existence.

This is why abortion is so tragic, for it never takes into account the vast and “eternal potential” of a human soul that gets snuffed-out before the “lights on” awakening event of birth.

Of which I have often considered the horrifying thought that it would be better if you killed the infant after it was born. That way, there at least exists the possibility that it will experience a second and final birth into its ultimate and eternal form (again, the same form as God) in a higher context of reality.
_______

If you persist in your faith in "a higher context of reality" you will vitiate at least some of your intention to make this world a better place.

In an earlier post Seeds wrote:

If I am allowed to address that question from a spiritual (Biblical) perspective, then it needs to be understood that humans are declared to have been created in the image of God.

In other words, humans are the “same species of being” as God (as in God’s literal offspring). While, on the other hand, all of the other lifeforms on earth are not, and do not share in the same sort of everlasting personhood as God.

Your belief is pre-Darwinian. We know that species are not essentially fixed and ordained by God.

[Immanuel Can]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

A dead body has human form, but no "personhood." A handicapped human being may lack the ideal human form, but has free will and personhood. A person in a vegetative state, or a baby in the womb, has human form but people still debate their state as "persons."

So that's not quite a quick route to a solution.

[commonsense]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

A dead body has human form, but no "personhood." A handicapped human being may lack the ideal human form, but has free will and personhood. A person in a vegetative state, or a baby in the womb, has human form but people still debate their state as "persons."

So that's not quite a quick route to a solution.

Let’s take the word, “ideal”, out and add the word, “living”.

[Immanuel Can]

I’m not sure that free will is a distinguishing characteristic of personhood, since, after all, wild animals are not restricted in their actions except by their bodies and their environment. Wouldn’t it make more sense to rely on human form, with or without free will.

A dead body has human form, but no "personhood." A handicapped human being may lack the ideal human form, but has free will and personhood. A person in a vegetative state, or a baby in the womb, has human form but people still debate their state as "persons."

So that's not quite a quick route to a solution.

Let’s take the word, “ideal”, out and add the word, “living”.

Plausible move. But now we've still got the vexed cases of vegetative people and the unborn, at minimum, both with living forms of humanity but under siege for status as "persons."