NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been exposed to a veiw recently that I had never even considered before. That is, that someone can be human and not a person.
I am confused. I had always thought that any human was a person, regardless of age, sex, disability,ect.
Are there requirements I don't know about? If you are of the opinion that someone has to earn thier personhood or can lose it, where did you get this belief?
What makes a human a person?

btw I know someone will ask yes I am pro-life, anti-euthinasia, and I don't believe in doing medical research on PSV patients because "they can't feel it"

I am looking for a scientific definition of a person. Please help.

isn't personhood a legal definition, rather than a medical one? because i know previous to the twentieth century, in canada, women weren't considered "persons" by law, and i know that today in most countries corperations ARE "persons", legally speaking. so i'd say that's the definition of personhood. "whatever the supreme court of the country you're in says it is".

can anybody do better at this than me? mine's far from a perfect answer, i've only got part of the back story and some of the details.

I have been exposed to a veiw recently that I had never even considered before. That is, that someone can be human and not a person.
I am confused. I had always thought that any human was a person, regardless of age, sex, disability,ect.
If they're not, we'll have to re-write a lot of our laws, here in Canada, as they specifically deal with "persons" as opposed to "citizens" and other designations.

Are there requirements I don't know about? If you are of the opinion that someone has to earn thier personhood or can lose it, where did you get this belief?
What makes a human a person?
You are not incorrect --all humans are persons. However, the law seems to regard persons as someone eligible for citizenship (i.e. it talks about certain rights applicable to citizens, and then there are rights applicable to the broader group of persons) and, in Canada at least, that does not include the unborn and the dead.

An easy way to look at it is, what makes a person a "person" is having the capacity for a personality.

btw I know someone will ask yes I am pro-life, anti-euthinasia, and I don't believe in doing medical research on PSV patients because "they can't feel it"
'Kay, whatever.

I am looking for a scientific definition of a person. Please help.
Can't help you there, sorry.

I guess I didn't ask my question very well. I had been told by at least 3 people on here (maybe more) lately that they consider some humans to be nonpersons. When I asked what the difference was they said "oh well, when you can think you are a person" I can't get them to define thinking. Two of them said that unborn babies are not people, one implied that a baby isn't a person until 2 months of age and the other has decided that PSV patients aren't people either.
This confuses me. I have never been exposed to this point of veiw. Where I come from everyone is a person, from conception to death. (although the from conception part is debated a lot in the outside world) I would like to know when someone becomes a person (if not at conception) and when they are no longer a person( if they are in a coma ect.) I am really trying to understand this point of veiw, not attack it, even though every fiber of my being says it is a cruel idea that someone has less personhood than you because they are different.

theres no such thing as a person. We're all pawns of the monkey God. Surely you know that.

I always looked at another way. All persons are humans, but not all humans are persons. To be human you only have to be a homospapien, but to be a person...there is more to it. I don't think that thought defines someone as a person.

I think that a person is someone with human-compassion, personality, the ability to think AND process information on some level. All four of them, not just one. There are some exceptions...people who for whatever reason no longer fit one of the last 3 criteria are still people in my mind. It's not (usually) their fault that they are in a coma or develop a disease that ravages their brains.

There are many people who technically don't qualify becuase of that human-compassion criteria...Hitler, Sadam, etc. I don't think that either of these men were people, but unfortunately we have to admit that they were human beings. Evil human beings, but human nonetheless.

As far as the abortion issue goes, we don't know what the baby "feels." We'll never know. That debate will last until the end of days. I'm not against abortions if there is cause for them. As far as I'm concerned that baby isn't "alive" until it breathes oxygen for the first time. That is part of what defines a homosapien to me.

Now, I wouldn't call this a scientific definition, but this is how I was taught to look at it. I hope this helped you a little to see another side of the human/person concept.

theres no such thing as a person. We're all pawns of the monkey God. Surely you know that.
monkey god? hmm.... nope not exactly what I was looking for. :rolleyes:

monkey god? hmm.... nope not exactly what I was looking for. :rolleyes:

Oh... can I have a cookie anyway for trying?

I have been exposed to a veiw recently that I had never even considered before. That is, that someone can be human and not a person.
I am confused. I had always thought that any human was a person, regardless of age, sex, disability,ect.
Are there requirements I don't know about? If you are of the opinion that someone has to earn thier personhood or can lose it, where did you get this belief?
What makes a human a person?

btw I know someone will ask yes I am pro-life, anti-euthinasia, and I don't believe in doing medical research on PSV patients because "they can't feel it"

I am looking for a scientific definition of a person. Please help.

"If you take a dog and make him prosperous, he won't bite you.
This is the primary difference between man and dog." -Mark Twain

I always looked at another way. All persons are humans, but not all humans are persons. To be human you only have to be a homospapien, but to be a person...there is more to it. I don't think that thought defines someone as a person.

I think that a person is someone with human-compassion, personality, the ability to think AND process information on some level. All four of them, not just one. There are some exceptions...people who for whatever reason no longer fit one of the last 3 criteria are still people in my mind. It's not (usually) their fault that they are in a coma or develop a disease that ravages their brains.

There are many people who technically don't qualify becuase of that human-compassion criteria...Hitler, Sadam, etc. I don't think that either of these men were people, but unfortunately we have to admit that they were human beings. Evil human beings, but human nonetheless.

As far as the abortion issue goes, we don't know what the baby "feels." We'll never know. That debate will last until the end of days. I'm not against abortions if there is cause for them. As far as I'm concerned that baby isn't "alive" until it breathes oxygen for the first time. That is part of what defines a homosapien to me.

Now, I wouldn't call this a scientific definition, but this is how I was taught to look at it. I hope this helped you a little to see another side of the human/person concept.
Thank you. It has helped a great deal. Although I do realize that a baby at conception is no where near able to live on it's own, it is a gray area as to when they are able to think, feel, ect. I feel out of all fairness until we do know for a fact, the best thing to do, in protection of the rights of the baby is to draw the life line at conception.
Also, my neice was born premature and was breathing on a machine for 3 months before she took her first breath. Was she not a person in the hospital room? not argueing just asking to clarify.

Oh... can I have a cookie anyway for trying?
cookie? sure. if you feel you must have one, who am I to deny it?

What is a person?

Me.

Oh... can I have a cookie anyway for trying?


cookie? sure. if you feel you must have one, who am I to deny it?

Here you go...

http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/biscuits/media/oreo.jpg

I always looked at another way. All persons are humans, but not all humans are persons. To be human you only have to be a homospapien, but to be a person...there is more to it. I don't think that thought defines someone as a person.

I think that a person is someone with human-compassion, personality, the ability to think AND process information on some level. All four of them, not just one. There are some exceptions...people who for whatever reason no longer fit one of the last 3 criteria are still people in my mind. It's not (usually) their fault that they are in a coma or develop a disease that ravages their brains.

There are many people who technically don't qualify becuase of that human-compassion criteria...Hitler, Sadam, etc. I don't think that either of these men were people, but unfortunately we have to admit that they were human beings. Evil human beings, but human nonetheless.

As far as the abortion issue goes, we don't know what the baby "feels." We'll never know. That debate will last until the end of days. I'm not against abortions if there is cause for them. As far as I'm concerned that baby isn't "alive" until it breathes oxygen for the first time. That is part of what defines a homosapien to me.

Now, I wouldn't call this a scientific definition, but this is how I was taught to look at it. I hope this helped you a little to see another side of the human/person concept.

I took a philosophy of religion class years ago and we discussed this very issue. A philosopher, I don't remember his name, established nine or so criteria for personhood, such as consciousness and self-awareness. My professor pointed out a few obvious problems with that assessment. (If you're asleep, you're unconscious, for example.) He also raised another interesting point. If a creature meets these nine criteria, there's a good chance it's a person. However, if a creature doesn't meet these nine criteria, does that mean it's not a person? They're not necessarily sufficient conditions for personhood. In other words, the presence of conscious and self-awareness indicate some form of intelligent life, perhaps a person, but the absence of consciousness and self-awareness aren't indicative of non-persons, necessarily.

On a personal note, I see personhood, as a concept, incredibly subjective. The line is always arbitrary between persons and non-persons. I prefer to focus on what I can look at objectively and scientifically. If you're human, you have rights. Drawing the line anywhere else provokes all sorts of ethical dilemmas. According to a lot of criteria for personhood that I've seen, even born children wouldn't qualify as persons. If personhood endows individuals with rights that plain ol' humans don't have, what's to stop some genocidal freak from establishing personhood at two years old? Mothers could kill their children indiscriminately until two years old.

Thank you. It has helped a great deal. Although I do realize that a baby at conception is no where near able to live on it's own, it is a gray area as to when they are able to think, feel, ect. I feel out of all fairness until we do know for a fact, the best thing to do, in protection of the rights of the baby is to draw the life line at conception.
Also, my neice was born premature and was breathing on a machine for 3 months before she took her first breath. Was she not a person in the hospital room? not argueing just asking to clarify.

She was breathing oxygen from that machine...Oxygen is oxygen. She was a person the moment she took in the first breath of oxygen. It doesn't have to be on her own. She was certainly a person while she was on that machine. Oxygen entered her lungs.

On abortion, I'm not for people getting an abortion just because they don't want the baby, but when there is a danger to the mother or the baby, the mother should have a choice to risk it or not. If there are no dangers to either the mother or the baby, I am against abortion. While I don't consider the baby "alive," I know that it will be if we give it the time it needs to develop and I don't think that we should stop it from becoming what it will become.

I had a pro-life teacher once that proposed the arguement, "What if George Washington's mother had gotten a abortion?" Most of us argued that medicine wouldn't allow it, but the point is there. Although, I did come up with a fairly decent counter, "What if Hitler's mother had an abortion?" No matter what response someone has to these questions there is still a very large gray area surrounding abortion.

She was breathing oxygen from that machine...Oxygen is oxygen. She was a person the moment she took in the first breath of oxygen. It doesn't have to be on her own. She was certainly a person while she was on that machine. Oxygen entered her lungs.

On abortion, I'm not for people getting an abortion just because they don't want the baby, but when there is a danger to the mother or the baby, the mother should have a choice to risk it or not. If there are no dangers to either the mother or the baby, I am against abortion. While I don't consider the baby "alive," I know that it will be if we give it the time it needs to develop and I don't think that we should stop it from becoming what it will become.

I had a pro-life teacher once that proposed the arguement, "What if George Washington's mother had gotten a abortion?" Most of us argued that medicine wouldn't allow it, but the point is there. Although, I did come up with a fairly decent counter, "What if Hitler's mother had an abortion?" No matter what response someone has to these questions there is still a very large gray area surrounding abortion.

The situation surrounding a child's conception and birth--rape, incest, whatever--are absolutely incidental if the unborn child is a human being (or person) endowed with natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.

Conception is the only point during the life cycle of a human being that isn't an arbitrary marker for when life or personhood or whatever begins. Heartbeat, brainwave, viability, and birth are stages in a human's development, not definitions of what makes a life.

We had a kid in our school a few years ago, who was an un-person. She did not interact with anybody. Did not speak a word, didn't make any eye contact, nothing! When you spoke to her, she did not react at all. She walked behind you when you would say "follow me, please".
She made her tests and all, but that was it. Like a robot who cannot speak.
Everytime I saw her just standing around, I realised she just occupied a bit of space, nothing more.

So: can a human being not be a person: yes, I guess so.

you are a person if you are born of a woman and are not yet dead.

Ok, for a start.

Who are you to say you know whether someone is thinking or not, whether they are conscious of what happens around them, whether they are rational, whether they contemplate and reflect upon their surroundings. To illustrate my point, let me use an example - say someone suffers a serious higher spine injury in an accident and is rendered totally incapable of movement of any form. They may well still have full rational brain function, and be capable of thinking and reasoning and reflecting, though unable to express it in any way. While this may not be much of a life, the fact remains that they still have this ability. How would you tell? Scientific tests on brainwave patterns? Possibly. Though I don't think this would be conclusive. So basically this person thinks just as you do, in terms of capacity, but is unable to show it. They are still a person.

Incidentally, don't take me, given this argument, as a right to life loon. I believe strongly in the right to die - and I also resent the idea that someone else (especially someone with their own religious beliefs) feels that they have the right to impose upon me their belief that it is NOT someone's right to choose their own death.

Anyway, we are clear on the definition of human, as it is a distinct scientific distinction. Person. This is subjective. We have had some people raise the idea of personhood as being defined by a series of criteria. Just an idea, but how about the concept of a person being someone who wants to be defined as a person. That asserts several factors, such as being self aware, being aware of others etc. However, this raises the issues both of people who clearly are "persons" but who claim they don't want to be, and of people who may well be so damaged that they can't make the assertion. I believe that all human beings are persons. But I think it is also a term used for categorisation of groups for administrative purposes (if you get my meaning) than for actual definition someone. That happens, I think in more specific ways, looking at certain aspects of a "person"'s state.

Heh. Post number 1...

a) life *check*
b) the universe *check*
c) everything *check*

...

Heh. Post number 1...

a) life *check*
b) the universe *check*
c) everything *check*

...
lol
excellent start, #42

you are a person if you are born of a woman and are not yet dead.

oh, I knew I forgot something.

This idea of being born, having to have breathed oxygen...
Are you sure you want to go saying that a baby is not a person until it reaches the outside world? This idea seems to suggest that you could abort at any stage up until birth... which doesn't seem right to me. I don't know about anywhere else, but in Australia abortions are only allowed up until the third trimester. But then - at what stage do you draw the line. I've already said i'm no pro lifer, don't class me there. I believe in a woman's right to choose. Just raising an issue. Input?

We had a kid in our school a few years ago, who was an un-person. She did not interact with anybody. Did not speak a word, didn't make any eye contact, nothing! When you spoke to her, she did not react at all. She walked behind you when you would say "follow me, please".
She made her tests and all, but that was it. Like a robot who cannot speak.
Everytime I saw her just standing around, I realised she just occupied a bit of space, nothing more.

So: can a human being not be a person: yes, I guess so.

If she's a non-person, then you must also concede that killing her wouldn't be unethical or a violation of her liberty (because she wouldn't be entitled to liberty as a non-person). You're not describing a non-person - she just sounds mentally ill, retarded or socially awkward. I don't think she deserves a deprivation of her rights because she's not vocal.

oh, I knew I forgot something.

This idea of being born, having to have breathed oxygen...
Are you sure you want to go saying that a baby is not a person until it reaches the outside world? This idea seems to suggest that you could abort at any stage up until birth... which doesn't seem right to me. I don't know about anywhere else, but in Australia abortions are only allowed up until the third trimester. But then - at what stage do you draw the line. I've already said i'm no pro lifer, don't class me there. I believe in a woman's right to choose. Just raising an issue. Input?

I'm pro-life and believe in the right to die, but I also think an individual must consent to his or her own death. Unborn children and born children can't possibly voluntarily consent, though. I agree with you - where's the line? The third trimester rule strikes me as arbitrary, too. Trimesters aren't scientifically based - they're just a handy way of dividing up a nine-month pregnancy into three sections of three months. Since there's really no scientific basis for trimesters, it disturbs me that a fetus in its second trimester on the cusp of its third trimester can be aborted. I don't like the viability standard, but at least it has scientific merit.

oh, I knew I forgot something.

This idea of being born, having to have breathed oxygen...
Are you sure you want to go saying that a baby is not a person until it reaches the outside world? This idea seems to suggest that you could abort at any stage up until birth... which doesn't seem right to me. I don't know about anywhere else, but in Australia abortions are only allowed up until the third trimester. But then - at what stage do you draw the line. I've already said i'm no pro lifer, don't class me there. I believe in a woman's right to choose. Just raising an issue. Input?
no, i meant what i said. i dont see a reason why not being a legal person yet should ever mean that abortion would be allowed. thats a seperate issue in my mind. the day before the baby is born, its not yet a person but as soon as it IS born it has its own seperate legal existance.

its not a judgement of worth, just a judgement of status. if a baby is born at only 6 months gestation but it is alive, it is a person. before that, its still potential. if a fetus dies in-utero at 9 months gestation (a very real tragedy for the parents) but it is not born alive, it was never a legal person.

no, i meant what i said. i dont see a reason why not being a legal person yet should ever mean that abortion would be allowed. thats a seperate issue in my mind. the day before the baby is born, its not yet a person but as soon as it IS born it has its own seperate legal existance.

its not a judgement of worth, just a judgement of status. if a baby is born at only 6 months gestation but it is alive, it is a person. before that, its still potential. if a fetus dies in-utero at 9 months gestation (a very real tragedy for the parents) but it is not born alive, it was never a legal person.

What about birth defines personhood? I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're saying that its location inside the womb and physical dependence on the mother constitutes non-personhood. Also, do you see personhood as an entirely legal concept, ethical concept or both? Because I wouldn't disagree with you that many governments define personhood at the point of birth, but I do have an ethical problem with that distinction.

What about birth defines personhood? I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're saying that its location inside the womb and physical dependence on the mother constitutes non-personhood. Also, do you see personhood as an entirely legal concept, ethical concept or both? Because I wouldn't disagree with you that many governments define personhood at the point of birth, but I do have an ethical problem with that distinction.
birth defines personhood because at that point we can be sure that the former fetus is capable of independant existance. it IS an independant being. before that, you cant be sure.

lets consider that 6month gestation baby from my quoted post. before it is born, the doctors would tell you that it has very little chance of survival. most babies in that phase of development will die. if a pregnant woman requested that her labor be induced at that point so she didnt have to get the stretch marks of the last trimester of pregnancy, she would be turned down flat. that fetus is not an independant person with its own rights and responsibilities (as soon as it is born, for example, its parent can relinquish all rights to the baby and just walk away. if its not born, they have no such rights)

the earlier you go in development, the less sense it makes to call a fetus a person. that doesnt mean that there can be no laws regarding pregnancy, abortion, murder of fetus, etc. they do, however have to be based on a special human status that is not personhood.

yeah, i think the enhanced status of surviving birth is what constitutes being a person and that status endures until the point of death. no intelligence or fitness requirements after that. just being alive is enough for you to continue being a person.

Ah, yes… My recent project is to redefine/rewrite various historical documents… (just incase I ever want to establish my own country or something…) and while on the Declaration of Independence I had a little difficulty with including the idea of ‘All men are created equal’ when… in fact they are not (physically…genetically…socially speaking). Now I wouldn’t want to use the ‘god gave them the right to be’ idea because I wish to include people of various or no religion, so I decided that in my imaginary nation any creature (humans and/or animals) that is willing to accept the ideals of the nation, and can prove their competency (based on certain…ideals) would be considered a citizen, all others would either not be given ‘human’ rights, asked to leave, or accept their ‘animal’ rights.
Now, this may seem a bit crazy, but the likelihood of a say... chimp becoming a citizen is slim to nothing (hey, these ideals are pretty high-standard) though, if by chance there was say a chimp who could prove itself more ‘human’ than some of those born human we (the ‘nation’) would be more than glad to have it as a citizen, where as any born human who could not uphold certain standards (or would not want to)… we wouldn’t want as a citizen anyways…
Pah…make sense to anyone?