When does personhood begin?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Life begins at conception. Personhood is the subjective one due to being a legal status rather than a biological status; full personal rights thus begin at birth (or 18/21 if you want to be absolute ), with some protections afforded during the later stages of pregnancy. I'm not delving into what it should be, which I assume is what you're asking.

[Torie]

At 62 years old, to pick a number at random.

[traininthedistance]

At 62 years old, to pick a number at random.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/life-begins-at-conception-vs-life-begins-at-40,11556/

...

But seriously, I'm genuinely undecided between "viability" and "birth".  Though I guess it would be more accurate to say that it's a gradual process that starts at implantation and isn't fully there until the awakening of memories and consciousness at 2-3 yo, and that viability and birth are mainly just the two most defensible signposts to place that line, if we have to choose just one.

[Hifly]

You could tie it to the stages of Brain development.

[afleitch]

Life begins at conception.

The problem with that is that given that the majority of conceived eggs are destroyed, then if what they are is 'life', and their demise is 'death' then it suggests that women bring about more death than life which I think is deeply subversive.

[DC Al Fine]

Life begins at conception.

The problem with that is that given that the majority of conceived eggs are destroyed, then if what they are is 'life', and their demise is 'death' then it suggests that women bring about more death than life which I think is deeply subversive.

How is that any different than the host of premature deaths before modern medical science?

[afleitch]

Life begins at conception.

The problem with that is that given that the majority of conceived eggs are destroyed, then if what they are is 'life', and their demise is 'death' then it suggests that women bring about more death than life which I think is deeply subversive.

How is that any different than the host of premature deaths before modern medical science?

The very fact we even talk about 'viability' is thanks to medical science. What I am saying is that if you chase back 'life' to the full-stop then you are essentially saying that part of a woman's being is to snuff out life 3 times out of 4.

[John Dibble]

Personhood is probably something that would be more along a gradient than at a defined moment in time - the brain develops steadily over time rather than making a leap from one state to the next. It's not something easily defined in the first place, but brain development is definitely where I'd look if you wanted to set a marker somewhere.

To those who answered viability, I'd say this isn't an appropriate metric. It's perfectly conceivable that the brain may have been sufficiently developed for "personhood" to be present before the body as a whole has viability outside the womb. Looking outside our species, it's also a possibility that there may be alien peoples whose life cycles have personhood long before or after whatever is their equivalent of viability.

[DC Al Fine]

Life begins at conception.

The problem with that is that given that the majority of conceived eggs are destroyed, then if what they are is 'life', and their demise is 'death' then it suggests that women bring about more death than life which I think is deeply subversive.

How is that any different than the host of premature deaths before modern medical science?

The very fact we even talk about 'viability' is thanks to medical science. What I am saying is that if you chase back 'life' to the full-stop then you are essentially saying that part of a woman's being is to snuff out life 3 times out of 4.

My point is that, "it has implications I don't like" is not a sound basis for rejecting an idea.

[7,052,770]

Please use real terms like "fertilization" and "implantation" instead of nonsense words like "conception," which can mean either of those,  depending on the agenda of the person who uses it.

[minionofmidas]

Personhood begins at birth. This is legally defined and always has been, and bears no direct relationship to the question of when life begins (conception, if not earlier actually) or when human life begins (whatever rocks your boat; no legal or single logical definition exists)

[afleitch]

Please use real terms like "fertilization" and "implantation" instead of nonsense words like "conception," which can mean either of those,  depending on the agenda of the person who uses it.

I'd go with implantation if you want to define something as 'living' because that's the stage where the female body can let it live, if that makes sense. Of course a sizable number of zygotes are aborted by the body due to issues of chromosome incompatibility.

[angus]

You guys read far too much into this.  There's no agenda.  As for the the fact that most fertilized eggs don't implant, there must be some evolutionary advantage associated with it, otherwise it wouldn't have evolved.  Maybe it ensures that only the strongest ones get a hook in.  Something like that, probably.  No need to get hung up on implications, though.   If the genders evolves roles which puts one in charge of death 3 times out of 4, then there's a reason for it.  Just like when male lions come around and kill baby lions.  From the point of view of the male lion doing it, it makes sense.  I don't think political correctness really needs to be the defining guide for such distinctions.  Also, I don't think we fully understand all the mechanisms that we have inherited after billions of generations of biological experiments.  

I really think I began my life at conception, which I take to mean the moment was when the sperm and ovum mixed genetic material.  I suppose you can say your life began at "implantation" or "viability" or whatever, but all that is far too dry for my tastes.  Where's the romance?

I like "birth" as well.  I think it's an equally valid starting point, but I do remember thinking of my son as a person before he was born, so I think I must be predisposed to an earlier point.  Thus I tend to think of his life beginning at conception as well.

[Person Man]

By "conception", I would mean "implantation" as well. The big reason is that I saw an antiabortion sticker say "if it's not a baby, you're not pregnant" and the truth is until there's an implantation, there's no pregnancy.

 Beyond this, all I know is that it is between the moment dad came and mom gave birth. I tend to look on the practical side of this issue. i.e. given the general nature of industrialized, consensually governed societies, what policies towards this issue is the most workable.

 Examples of what this wouldn't be something like A Handmaid's Tale or The Giver where newborns can be "released" or when the value of human life is simply reduced to the chemistry that causes it (if personhood begins at fertilization, are we just vats of reactive particles? And in this case the extremes will have a similar outcome.)

[politicallefty]

I believe personhood begins at birth. With that said, I only believe in the absolute right of abortion until viability. Prior to birth, I absolutely believe the mother's health/life is more important than that of the fetus.

[Person Man]

What would someone say if I said live begins when you file the Articles of Incorporation with your local SoS?

[Deus Naturae]

I believe personhood begins at birth. With that said, I only believe in the absolute right of abortion until viability. Prior to birth, I absolutely believe the mother's health/life is more important than that of the fetus.

If a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person prior to viability, how can possibly you justify an "absolute right" to destroy that person?

[Del Tachi]

Personhood begins whenever a majority of other sentient beings (or, rather, just the most powerful ones) deem a specific organism worthy of carrying such a distinction.  Slaves were not people before their emancipation just like rubicks cubes are not people today, for example.

Life is a much more meaningless term as it details what people have in common with mushrooms and algae. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Someone needs to pound some sense into your grotesquely inflated cranium, ideally with as much force as would be legally possible.

[Del Tachi]

Someone needs to pound some sense into your grotesquely inflated cranium, ideally with as much force as would be legally possible.

I beg your pardon?  Which part of my statement was incorrect?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Self-regarding clever-cleverness is extremely irritating and, moreover, is not actually very clever.

Sentient beings? Wanker.

[Del Tachi]

Self-regarding clever-cleverness is extremely irritating and, moreover, is not actually very clever.

Sentient beings? Wanker.

Oh, I see. 

Your problem with my statement is stylistic rather than substantive.     

[Filuwaúrdjan]

...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Self-regarding clever-cleverness is extremely irritating and, moreover, is not actually very clever.

Sentient beings? Wanker.

Oh, I see. 

Your problem with my statement is stylistic rather than substantive.     

Well, that, and you explicitly said that recognition by the power elite defines who is and isn't a person.

[Del Tachi]

Self-regarding clever-cleverness is extremely irritating and, moreover, is not actually very clever.

Sentient beings? Wanker.

Oh, I see. 

Your problem with my statement is stylistic rather than substantive.     

Well, that, and you explicitly said that recognition by the power elite defines who is and isn't a person.

My point is that personhood is a completely arbitrary distinction that has evolved throughout the course of human history, mostly conforming to the wishes of political and economic elites.