[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
So what about people who suffer from diseases that affect their consciousness, sentience and cognitive ability?

What do you mean? People who suffer from mental disorders still have personalities and preferences etc. as far as consciousness goes I think you are referring to comas and the like? In such cases a person still exists as they are not dead merely not being expressed. They also still hold rights over their body as they still inhabit it. A fetus has not yet achieved personhood as it hasn't developed a brain to have some form of consciousness. Until it has personhood it doesn't get any rights as rights are given to a person not a body.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by bethany18)
Then it would be logical to know that in the weeks before birth the baby has the same personalities etc. a baby doesn't immediately gain these things as soon as it comes out of the mothers body.

I never claimed that babies prior to birth don't have personality traits. I never specified when personhood is acquired. However it would have to be after the brain has developed enough for there to be some kind is consciousness at least.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by bethany18)
It's not her own body though is it :/

From zygote to early embryo, I believe it to be a part of the Mother. But opinions vary.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by RandZul'Zorander)
What do you mean? People who suffer from mental disorders still have personalities and preferences etc. as far as consciousness goes I think you are referring to comas and the like? In such cases a person still exists as they are not dead merely not being expressed. They also still hold rights over their body as they still inhabit it. A fetus has not yet achieved personhood as it hasn't developed a brain to have some form of consciousness. Until it has personhood it doesn't get any rights as rights are given to a person not a body.

It's not just mental disorders that may come under your criteria for personhood but non-mental issues too. As a few examples: psychosis, schizophrenia, Creutzfeld-Jackob, Parkinson's, dementia, motor-neurone, delirium etc. If you compare "entities" of how conscious there are, there will be plenty of living examples that may rethink people's perception of what is "living".

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by bethany18)
The majority of dictionary definitions of 'person' are simply a 'human being'.

Some people would argue newborns do not have specific personality traits & to you this would mean they are not a person, justifying the killing of that human?

I don't see how your dictionary definitions would be more reliable than mine. The fact of the matter is, in every day use especially, we use the words to mean quite different things.

New borns do have specific personality traits though; those that argue they don't probably haven't ever had a baby.
Also, I'm not saying that the personality trait is what defines if a fetus is a person or not yet. I was simply showing that there is definitely a difference between the words, which is why we use them as seperate things in this debate. Personally, I don't consider a fetus to be a person until it is able to survive outside of the womb.

[bethany18]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
From zygote to early embryo, I believe it to be a part of the Mother. But opinions vary.

When would you say it was at early embryonic stage?

[RandZul'Zorander]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
It's not just mental disorders that may come under your criteria for personhood but non-mental issues too. As a few examples: psychosis, schizophrenia, Creutzfeld-Jackob, Parkinson's, dementia, motor-neurone, delirium etc. If you compare "entities" of how conscious there are, there will be plenty of living examples that may rethink people's perception of what is "living".

How do these in any way make someone not a person? Do they still have personality traits, etc? Yes. Do they still psychological continuity? It's not about how conscious an entity is. It's that they have possessed or do currently have a consciousness. Thy are still persons.

Just to clarify I said nothing about 'living' but about having personhood.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Ridingmyego]

(Original post by bethany18)
When would you say it was at early embryonic stage?

I really don't know and I'd hate to hazard a guess, perhaps the 1st to the 10th week after conception, but I'm really not sure.

What would you say?

[bethany18]

(Original post by Ridingmyego)
I really don't know and I'd hate to hazard a guess, perhaps the 1st to the 10th week after conception, but I'm really not sure.

What would you say?

I think fetal stage begins at 11 weeks gestation so embryonic stage is any time before that, wen would you consider early embryonic stage?

[Ridingmyego]

I'd say within six weeks maybe? But my knowledge of the topic is so limited that I don't really know. :')

[ellieabyrne]

Moderately pro-choice. Many pro-life arguments advertise themselves as in the child's best interests which I'd often disagree with; Situations where abortion is considered but then refused can put the child into situations which I believe to be less fair and less ethical than the abortion procedure. Children put into care are more likely to suffer behavioural problems, obviously, as well as be violent, depressive, drug users etc. Being born into poverty may also expose the child to similar issues. Children without father figures are proved more likely to drop out of school, fatherless girls are proved to be more likely to enter abusive relationships and encounter unwanted pregnancies themselves.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by ellieabyrne)
Moderately pro-choice. Many pro-life arguments advertise themselves as in the child's best interests which I'd often disagree with; Situations where abortion is considered but then refused can put the child into situations which I believe to be less fair and less ethical than the abortion procedure. Children put into care are more likely to suffer behavioural problems, obviously, as well as be violent, depressive, drug users etc. Being born into poverty may also expose the child to similar issues. Children without father figures are proved more likely to drop out of school, fatherless girls are proved to be more likely to enter abusive relationships and encounter unwanted pregnancies themselves.

Sounds more to do with vicissitudes of life than ethics, don't you think? Saying that children are better off not being born than experiencing social hardship is to commit yourself to saying that these hardships have no possible solution. Otherwise, it's an argument from convenience.

[ellieabyrne]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
Sounds more to do with vicissitudes of life than ethics, don't you think? Saying that children are better off not being born than experiencing social hardship is to commit yourself to saying that these hardships have no possible solution. Otherwise, it's an argument from convenience.

The fact that I was moderately pro-choice answers the problem of the hardships having no possible solution! It's also an argument from experience as well as convenience.

[bethany18]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I don't see how your dictionary definitions would be more reliable than mine. The fact of the matter is, in every day use especially, we use the words to mean quite different things.

New borns do have specific personality traits though; those that argue they don't probably haven't ever had a baby.
Also, I'm not saying that the personality trait is what defines if a fetus is a person or not yet. I was simply showing that there is definitely a difference between the words, which is why we use them as seperate things in this debate. Personally, I don't consider a fetus to be a person until it is able to survive outside of the womb.

Viability depends on technology not the human life itself. At some point in the distant future babies may be viable from the point of conception.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by bethany18)
Viability depends on technology not the human life itself. At some point in the distant future babies may be viable from the point of conception.

I don't mean by being kept alive by machines completely. They have to have functioning organs, in my opinion.

[Robin Scherbatsky]

Strongly pro-choice. I mean really strongly. As in, it should be completely up to the woman in question and she should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason, regardless of what it is. I think it's sad if the man she had sex with wanted the child, but it would be wrong of him to force her into having a child she doesn't want to have, including going through the physical and mental labours of pregnancy and, well, labour.

I know people have qualms about how the woman should be more responsible about contraception, and I also don't like women who have unprotected sex only to carelessly have an abortion the next day. But still, it's nobody's business other than the woman's. She should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy if she wants, even if she was just careless about her contraception. It's entire her choice, her body, her future. No one should force a woman into having a baby simply because she was too careless to use a condom. That would more than likely mean she'd not be a very responsible mother anyway.

I do have some issues though, like she shouldn't be too far into pregnancy. The current cut-off of 24 weeks should be so because that's plenty of time to find out whether or not you're pregnant (it's very rare people never find out until labour!) and I know technically there is no cut-off period for some circumstances, but I really think there should be and they should be strict about it, because at that point the fetus can survive outside the womb. 24 weeks is more than enough time to make up your mind about having a baby.

[liamb109]

From an honest point of view, I wouldn't want my girlfriend to have an abortion. I think it's good it's there though, for those that get raped. That and the alternative is "manual" abortion.

[bethany18]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I don't mean by being kept alive by machines completely. They have to have functioning organs, in my opinion.

So if a baby is born around 21 weeks & is on life support etc. you wouldn't call her/him a person? simple a human being? People who temporarily become very ill & have to be kept alive with a machine they aren't a person? but in a few days time when they start to recover & no longer need the machines they then regain the label of a 'person'?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by bethany18)
So if a baby is born around 21 weeks & is on life support etc. you wouldn't call her/him a person? simple a human being? People who temporarily become very ill & have to be kept alive with a machine they aren't a person? but in a few days time when they start to recover & no longer need the machines they then regain the label of a 'person'?

No. People who become ill already have fully developed and funtioning organs, that is not the same as them never having developed at all yet.

[bethany18]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
No. People who become ill already have fully developed and funtioning organs, that is not the same as them never having developed at all yet.

Oh so you meant developed organs not functioning...

At the end of the day, its a life (person or not) & by ending a life thats killing :/