There were a couple comments on my last post that mentioned the distinction some make between a person and a human. Those that make this distinction would not disagree with a fetus being human, but would argue that the fetus is not yet a person. Few pro-choice writers argue against the genetic classification of fetuses as human. The distinction is generally described as person v. human, or morally human v. genetically human. The distinction between persons and nonpersons is based on various criteria. Mary Ann Warren, a prominent pro-choice author, has five general criteria by which personhood can be judged; consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and the presence of self-concepts and self-awareness. Though others may tweak, add to, or eliminate some criteria, Warren's basic concept is fairly representative. Warren sees a continuum, with a total nonperson (a rock perhaps) on one end and on the other end an undeniably full person (Warren would likely include herself at that end). Warren states that it is not necessary to have all five to qualify as a person; simply the first two would probably be enough. If an entity had none, however, that one should not be considered a person. So while she has a continuum there is some point at which an entity becomes entitled to the rights of a person. She acknowledged the difficulty in parsing each case and finding the magic point on the continuum, so I will not spend any time discussing the problems associated with that.
There are quite a number of problems with this general argument. I welcome your thoughts as to what you find to be the most logically problematic, or what you find the most intuitively persuasive about it. I will discuss briefly what I find to be the most significant flaw in her reasoning, but first I want to give her credit for recognizing an important reality that many pro-choice thinkers do not. The birth canal is not a magical bestower of rights. If a nine month old fetus is undeserving of the basic right to not be killed, there is no reason that they deserve such a right thirty minutes later when they are born. Warren does not see a significant change and neither do I.
We differ in that Warren sees the personhood of a developed fetus as being on par with a guppy. Based on her criteria, she may be slightly off, but not too far. Guppies can feel pain, and are aware of their surroundings, and can do some basic reasoning. It points to the fundamental difference between Warren and me. I believe that humans are a special creation and there value is derived outside of their ability to perform various feats. Warren evidently believes that our value as a person is derived from our abilities. At this point Warren and I do not have anything else to discuss. We simply start from drastically different world views. If I ran into someone who shared her view I would not continue to discuss the issue of abortion. We first would need to achieve an agreement at a more foundational level. Those that choose to use this personhood reasoning simply need to realize what they must agree to if they are interested in being logically consistent. Reducing our right to live to our ability to meet certain criteria may have significant unintended consequences. Those with disabilities would rank below some animals that we visit at the zoo. We may lose our right to live later in our lives as our mental capacities fail. (Some mornings when I first wake up I am pretty sure I would rank at least below apes) If computers continue advancing at their projected pace, we will all rank below computers in terms of a right to live within the next twenty years. Some may be agree with all these necessary conclusions. I suspect most would have to exit this argument before it reaches its full and complete stop.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Thanks for the info, I certainly learned something new today.
I've only spoken about end-of-life issues a few times with people (and probably will not be doing so again in the near future, as the first time was pretty much an atomic bomb to a relationship), but the times I have I've noticed that certain Christians who are very much against abortion do not necessarily carry their beliefs logically to cases of the elderly or infirm, especially in cases of those in a PVS. There's a disconnect somewhere. The strangest argument for euthanasia of people in vegetative states I've ever heard was, "They don't want to live, anyway." Oh, really? Did you ask them?
It worries me to think that simply losing my ability to speak or communicate might someday make me a great candidate to be murdered, and that some of my Christian brothers and sisters might actually support the decision.
A few weeks ago when I sat at my grandmother's bedside watching her die, watching her struggle to catch her breath as her lungs filled with fluid, I have to admit that I prayed for God to take her. I don't envy those who are faced with the imminent death of a loved one, and though it was my grandmother and not someone who I'm closer to, I can certainly relate with family's desire to end the suffering as soon as possible. But that's not our decision to make.
Shoot, lunch is over, and I've got to get back to work. I'll continue that thought later tonight.
What worries me is the idea that, if we base liberty on someone's status as a "person" then we would lose our rights anytime we were put under anesthesia. So if I get a root canal, I technically would not have any rights for that hour or so.
Also, if reasoning is a criteria, then who determines what is reasoning? Maybe I'm reaching here, but if a personhood model such as this were to become more influential, could people be determined to be lesser-person because their reasoning is deemed to be flawed. For example, could people who believe in God be seen to have lower reasoning than those who don't and be seen as lower on the personhood food chain? Could this be used to justify the "scientifically" backed bigotry see with physiognomy and eugenics?
I guess if that ever happens we could just find the people responsible and kill them when they are asleep since they wouldn't technically be persons then.
SNORT!
(I know it doesn't add to the conversation, but if we were sitting in a room talking about this, I would have snorted right at that moment.)
Good idea, Dan. And anytime some moron blogger disagrees with us... bang! Dead. But it's okay, they weren't a person!
I'd suspect then people would take your argument and say, "No, the sleeping person will eventually wake up, so in killing them, you're destroying their POTENTIAL personness." Which saves babies, but still screws over people in comas.
Poor people in comas... nobody cares about them.
Defining personhood based on ability really has to lead to so sort of hierarchy. I think it would be fair for proponents of this view to say that there is a certain point above which everyone has equal rights. That seems to me to be a tenable position, however difficult it may be to identify that precise line.
A typical argument in response to the anesthesia example points to the fact that you have at some point already reached personhood. Temporarily posting failing marks in the personhood criteria will not disqualify your bid for personhood. I think you they would say you can lose personhood again if you are in a position where you will never again meet the five criteria.
There have been people who have awoken from "persistent" vegetative states. In fact, the sleeping pill Ambien has, in at least two cases, woken people up from PVS's. There's research going on regarding the effect right now, as it was sort of discovered by mistake last year. So a PVS might not be as final as we might have originally thought. And yet we go on killing folks, even those who may yet have "personhood" on the horizon.
Post a Comment