This is an amaging post. For information go Signs of Pregnancy

And at what moment precisely does a zygote become a human baby?

That's a useful fact. It still doesn't resolve the conflict of rights between the fetus person and the mother person.

Notice that you say "anyone that is capable of worrying about the definition of person is in no danger." I wonder who that excludes right off the bat?

Well, it doesn't necessarily exclude anyone, since it does not necessarily imply that those who can't worry about the definition of personhood are in danger. My point in making that statement was that I believe it it is alarmist and false to make slippery-slope arguments implying arguments about the personhood of the unborn put everyone in danger: "Watch out, you who claim a first-trimester fetus is not a person, because some day you may be declared a non-person yourself!" There is simply no sign of a slowly narrowing definition of personhood that put those arguing about the issue in any kind of danger.

Several pro-choice philosophers have argued that infants are not persons for the same reasons certain unborn humans are not persons.

I think you are correct here. Several pro-choice philosophers have made that argument. But there is no sign that the vast majority of philosophers are moving toward that position, and the general public is horrified by the thought. There is no sign at all that the United States or any other country that I am aware of is moving toward legalization or moral approval of "third trimester abortion."

This is not a mere theoretical exercise: in China and Inidia the practice of sex-selective infanticide is widespread.

Actually, it is my understanding that the recent problems are sex-selective abortions, not sex-selective infanticide. So there are undoubtedly fewer instances of infanticide in India and China than previously. And in any case, Wikipedia says, "China has a history of female infanticide spanning 2000 years," and, "Female infanticide in India has a history spanning centuries." Nothing about the abortion-related debate regarding when personhood begins is responsible for female infanticide in India or China. Also, Indian and Chinese laws are aimed not only against infanticide, but also sex-selective abortions. There is no approval, either official or tacit, of infanticide or sex-selective abortion by either the Indian or Chinese governments.

Granted there may be a growing acceptance of "euthanasia" (although I think it would be more accurate to say "assisted suicide"), but this has nothing to do with the debate over when life begins or who is a person. As a matter of fact, I think the objection of "pro-life" advocates to assisted suicide is not that it diminishes the notion of personhood, but that it takes the idea of personal autonomy too far. Assisted suicide today is not about declaring someone a non-person and disposing of him because non-persons have no rights. It is (whether rightly or wrongly—and I am uneasy about it personally—"empowering" people to decide for themselves when they want to die. Even the Terri Schiavo case was handled by trying to determine what she would have wanted under the circumstances. I don't think euthanasia has anything to do with the personhood debate.

The legal and cultural artifacts of history, too - with its multitude of episodes of enslavement, eugenics, and genocide - show us that debates surrounding personhood are far from limited to abortion

I believe the questions of slavery, eugenics, and genocide have little or nothing to do with the question of who is a person. They may have to do with what rights people deemed "inferior" have, but I think the current debate about when personhood begins, or who is a person, is largely irrelevant to slavery, eugenics, and genocide.

I can find no evidence that when it came to slavery in the Americas, the argument that slaves (or black Africans) were not persons played any significant role in pro-slavery argument. Of course what did play a very significant role in pro-slavery arguments was the Bible:

Now, there are many ways to look at pro-slavery. Deep, deep in the pro-slavery argument . . . is a biblical argument. Almost all pro-slavery writers at one point or another will dip into the Old Testament, or dip into the New Testament—they especially would dip to the Old—to show how slavery is an ancient and venerable institution. Its venerability was its own argument, some said. It's always been around. Every civilization has had it. All those biblical societies had it. You can read Jeremiah and Isaiah and some of the great Old Testament prophets in some ways as defenders of slavery. You can therefore assume it was divinely sanctioned. You can also look in the New Testament for examples of it, justifications of it. "Slaves, be honorable, be dutiful"—be obedient is usually the word in the King James—"Slaves, be obedient to your masters." Slavery is all over the Bible, in one way or another. The Bible, of course, can breathe anti-slavery into a situation and it can breathe pro-slavery into a situation.

I would say that the idea of "dehumanizing" people—which is what I take you to be talking about—and the idea that some human beings are deemed not to be persons according to a philosophical definition of personhood are almost entirely unrelated.

Hi David - Long time no talk! I'm glad to see you're still active here at SN.

Here you write:

There is no crisis caused by competing definitions. No one need feel unsafe (e.g., the disable, the sick, the elderly, etc.). Anyone that is capable of worrying about the definition of person is in no danger with the prevailing definitions. So arguments about the definition of person are, for all practical purposes, arguments only about abortion.

Notice that you say "anyone that is capable of worrying about the definition of person is in no danger." I wonder who that excludes right off the bat?

Setting that aside, I completely disagree in principle and I think the evidence is strong against you here. First, as Trent notes, there are infants. Several pro-choice philosophers have argued that infants are not persons for the same reasons certain unborn humans are not persons. This is not a mere theoretical exercise: in China and Inidia the practice of sex-selective infanticide is widespread.

Then there are persons with disabilities. In places like the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia is becoming increasingly common - in the latter case even for children. Of course, the amount of pressure being put on people with disabilities to formally request assisted suicide and the effectiveness of "controls" in place is untold, and the frightening history of compulsory euthanasia rightly has advocates not only for the disabled, but for the ill and the elderly, very concerned.

The legal and cultural artifacts of history, too - with its multitude of episodes of enslavement, eugenics, and genocide - show us that debates surrounding personhood are far from limited to abortion, a reality represented in classic films like Schindler's List ("I realize that you are not a person in the strictest sense of the word") and 12 Years a Slave ("A man does how he pleases with his property"). One is reticent to "go there" (especially online), but the fact is that this debate surrounding which human beings are persons cannot be seen as a mere chess piece in the culture wars, but as a much deeper and broader question with huge implications for the voiceless and powerless.

Or to put it much more succinctly, your answer to the question "What is a person?" is much more likely to be determined by your position on abortion than your position on abortion is to be determined on your answer to the question "What is a person?" And there is very broad agreement on the answer to "What is a person?" except when the entity in question is a human egg, embryo, or pre-viable fetus.

I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want someone in a position of power to rely on a fuzzy intuition when it came to my own right to live.

I will leave it up to mriehm to justify his apparent contradictions, but what I will say is that while I think it is important to have a definition of person or personhood, I don't think it is possible to prove with mathematical-like certainty which definition is "correct."

I'd also point out that Peter Singer and those who believe personhood begins at some point after birth are at the extreme end of the spectrum, with most people (I would assume)—pro-life or pro-choice—agreeing that an unborn child after the point of viability is a person whose life should be protected. I believe if somehow a grand compromise could be reached based on the will of the citizenry of the United States, the resulting law would prohibit all abortions after viability except when necessary to save the life of the mother. I think the American people would probably accept a fairly conservative limit (say 12 to 14 weeks) on the gestational age at which abortion was permitted to allow abortions only well short of viability (roughly 24 weeks).

So in general, I think given the competing definitions of personhood (excluding those by Peter Singer and others at his extreme), virtually everyone but the unborn in the earliest stages of pregnancy is "safe."

So generally speaking, arguments about the definition of person are, for all practical purposes, arguments only about abortion. Consequently, those who are pro-choice have a vested interest in placing the beginning of personhood early in pregnancy (say, before 24 weeks), and those who are pro-life have a vested interest in defining personhood to begin at conception.

It may be impossible to determine—or so it seems to me—whether even one's own position on personhood is determined by one's gut feeling about abortion, or whether one's gut feeling about personhood determines one's position on abortion.

It seems to me the only possible way of achieving a meeting of the minds is to discuss the definition of person without discussing abortion. For example, if one believes in God or angels, what is it that makes them persons. Or perhaps what criteria would we use should we encounter extraterrestrial life to determine whether a non-human being from elsewhere in the universe is a person with a right to life.

Mriehm - I've read through your comments in this thread and it seems to me that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Notice that in one comment you write:

"The point I am trying to make is that it is a mistake to apply the label "person" at all."

Then in another:

"And yet I do believe that a seven-month-old fetus is a person."

In one comment:

"Trying to define personhood is impossible."

Then in another:

"[Personhood] can be defined. Anything can be defined."

Have you considered a career in politics? To my mind, this equivocation reinforces Trent's overall thesis: that the logic facilitating the unborn's exclusion from personhood, when pressed, necessarily excludes the newborn for the same reasons, but our (I think justified) horror at infanticide - paired with our desire to justify abortion - keeps us in a state of doublethink on the matter. Peter Singer and Michael Tooley, to their credit, are clear and consistent thinkers. I disagree wholeheartedly with their premises, but their logic is sound and their conclusions follow. But it seems like you're not even sure what you're premises are!

I'd press you and ask: what is a person? What characteristics make a three-week old zygote, a three-month old fetus, a three-month old baby, and a three-year old a person or non-person, respectively? To throw your hands up and say "who knows, it's all gray and relative anyway" is a risky business. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want someone in a position of power to rely on a fuzzy intuition when it came to my own right to live.