What is a person? Philosophers, ethicists and moralists have debated it for centuries and each generation brings in newer arguments. A rather interesting debate has been going on in America
A rather interesting debate has been going on in America. Of the 50 states comprising the USA, several (particularly in the South) have strong religious lobbies that persuade or pressurize the state's policies on a variety of issues, particularly governing human evolution, abortion, research on stem cells and related matters.
In several states, abortion is illegal. Indeed the issue of a woman's right to abortion went all the way up to the nation's Supreme Court in the year 1973, and its landmark judgment gave a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy in the first trimester as a constitutional right.
Since then, there have been continuous attempts in various states to overturn this judgment, using a variety of arguments.
Crucial to the argument is the issue of whether the foetus is a “person”. The unborn child is not legally classified as a person; the U.S. Supreme Court also noted then that “if the “personhood” of the preborn is established, then the case for the right to abortion collapses, because the foetus's right to life is then guaranteed specifically in the constitution”.
The debate thus turns to the issue of “is a foetus a person”.
And if we hold the foetus to be a person, why not the embryo out of which the foetus is formed, or even earlier to it — the fertilized egg a person? If yes, then the Supreme Court's 1973 decision of right to abortion should be overturned.
It is this point that the elected representatives of the state of Colorado wanted to establish by law in the year 2008.
When this issue was put to vote, it failed to get a majority. A second attempt in 2010 also failed, by a 70-30 majority.
And now the State of Mississippi has raised this issue of definition of ‘person' and held a series of public hearings on the question: “should the term ‘person' be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof?”
After a series of such public hearings, the issue went into the state legislature for voting on November 8, 2011 and was rejected. Thus, as on today, in the U.S., a human foetus, embryo, fertilized egg or a clone is not a person.
Not yet, but for how long? It is likely that fresh attempts will be made and it may even turn out that one state or the other might vote to grant personhood to them — and thus make abortion illegal all through the U.S..
Recall how George W. Bush stopped the U.S. federal government funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells, on the ground that since it can give rise to a human, we should not be tinkering with it, since that would be equivalent to man playing God.
What then is a person? The question is not easy to answer. Philosophers, ethicists and moralists have debated it for centuries and each generation brings in newer arguments.
A quick look at the Encyclopaedia and Wikipedia offers several perspectives. The 17th century French thinker Rene Descartes insisted on thinking or cognition as a must, stating “je pense donc je suis” (or “cogito ergo sum” in Latin, or “I think, therefore I am” in English).
A century later, the British philosophers John Locke and David Hume argued that a person is one who possesses continuous consciousness over time, and should have interpersonal relationship with others. (Pause for a moment and think about the qualifier adjective “continuous”; if one loses consciousness continuously, as when happens after a severe brain injury, is he no longer a person?).
But the one that I think captures personhood better is proposed by the contemporary philosopher Thomas I. White, of the Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, who wants the following attributes as necessary for personhood: be alive, be aware, feel positive and negative sensations, has emotions, has a sense of self, controls its own behaviour, recognizes other persons and has cognitive abilities.
White thus includes the ideas of Descartes, Locke and Hume, but note that in his case, personhood can actually extend to nonhumans such as higher primates, and perhaps even dolphins. (White has recently authored the book “In defense of dolphins: the new moral frontier”).
We thus have not heard the last word on ‘personhood' — either politically or philosophically.
Such serious issues are not without their satire. When The Economist reported on the Mississippi initiative, a reader Mr. Benjamin Twai from St. Louis, MO, USA wrote:
“My wife and I have been considering IVF. Mississippi's proposed amendment gives us even more reason to pursue this treatment. After the procedure, we will insist on taking custody of any extra embryos that result from IVF — it is our right as parents after all.
“Once safely in our home we plan to keep them in a freezer in our basement and list them as child dependents for tax deduction. In case of a power outage we will buy a backup generator. Anything less would be bad parenting.”
dbala@lvpei.org
Keywords: foetus, embryo, abortion, embryonic research, Speaking of Science
I believe that an answer given by any 'person' will depend on what
worldview he has. If he has a materialistic or an atheistic worldview,
certainly he would not consider the fertilized egg to be a person. He
does not have a standard to back up his answer. On the other hand if
someone had a theistic worldview, who has his scriptures as his
benchmark and believes that human beings are made as a person by a
personal God, he would call the human being a person right from the
state of a fertilized egg. Hence the final sorting out has to be done
in the level of the different worldviews. The answer each person gives
us a glimpse of his own worldview.
The answer depends on the ’lens’ with which we look at the problem.
The HUMAN personhood of the embryo is being considered - not life.
If we use BINARY logic (where anything is classified as belonging to a
group or not (black versus white) we may find it difficult to classify
intermediate states. if we use FUZZY LOGIC, a HUMAN EMBRYO is a
POTENTIAL human being and is 0.01% HUMAN (if we just take the life
span dimension of 100 years (more if shorter spans are taken). Using
the same mode, a dog or cat embryo will always be 0% HUMAN. Next,
VALUE SYSTEMS (which cannot be decided by Science) are needed whenever
a continuous scale is collapsed into a binary scale. A passmark of
50% entitles a student getting 50% to pass but places one with 49% and
10% in the same category as FAIL. If we decide that < 5% HUMAN is not
human, then our decision is based on VALUES. I have a more
explanatory version of all the above but have had to scale it down to
the word limit for this discussion.
The central meaning of the word person is representative of the human race. Persona in Roman drama indicated character or role in a play.So long as a fertilized egg is in the womb it cannot play any role in life. Once outside the womb it can play its role on the stage of world. So apart from scientific explanation we cannot call foetus a person.
Forget person hood, Scientists are no close to even define what is life. How would you define life? Is it when a system reproduces itself? If that is the case, plenty of computer programs could be called alive, while plenty of people—sterile men and women, for example, or nuns—could not. Things that are alive consume fuel, move around, and excrete waste products, but so do automobiles, and no one would call them alive. Schrondinger wanted to define life as a system, which moves from order to disorder, but then a candle flame creates order from disorder in its environment and is patently not alive. Whichever way you look at it, though, the definition—or rather the series of suggestions and characteristics—is too vague. Unless consciousness is taken into account, life cannot be defined. Human, and life is actually more than a bag of chemicals, there is certainly a sort of "conscious" will that pervades through the entire living body. These things have to be taken into account too.
Fertilized egg is a person. Laws are made by humans and are subject to change. Similarly definition of what a person is also subjective and can be interpreted differently. Fact is fertilized egg is a living thing. We should not mix the legal aspect of this (definition of what is a person) with either morality of abortion or with the practical aspect of bringing up a child unwanted by the mother. Abortion is killing a living thing, but unfortunately is needed in certain circumstances. So this right should not be exercised frivolously.
An important point in this debate is that the pro-abortion argument consider a foetus to be a "part of the mother's body". This argument is the strongest basis for allowing the mother to make the decision regarding abortion. The new line of thought (fertilized egg = person) is an attempt to sidestep this argument altogether. Also, significantly, though it is being pushed by the religious right, this "new" argument is not made with religious (or even moral) logic per se. It uses scientific terms or reference, and is grounded in legal thought. That's why it is influential. So now the answer hinges on the question - is the fertilized egg a person (not on whether you believe in a certain religion or not). Also, importantly, this question successfully taps into the limitations of science - coz there's no scientific way of conclusively answering the question. Once there is doubt, there's room for interpretation - room for politics. IMHO, a person exists only after the umbilical cord is cut.
The point here is not only on a just fertilised egg. A foetus that is three month old resembles a baby in the womb. Barring definitions I consider that to be a child. And abortion in this case would be a murder similar to the murder of an infant.
Actually, the real question is what decides personhood? but most of the respondent appears thinking 'when does the life begin?' to answer this question we need to define the death also. but this direction of thought is wrong. We should understand the question of personhood. it involves not only the problem of legality but of morality also. why? because it is related to possible right to kill one organism; that is abortion. legal laws should be justifiable on moral ground. base of human rights is the morality only. legal system execute the essential morality.One will surely get the answer in the realm of bioethics. try it.
It is living thing but not a person. No religion nor any law or community provide the proper name to the fertilized human egg or foetus. Not a single country count the preborn in their census.
The religious right has become rather too significant a player in the US lawmaking process, not just on this issue. One premise that is mentioned here that I don't think is true is that a ruling in one state will outlaw abortion in the whole of the US. As a strong federation, the US probably does not allow judgments in one state to be binding on all states/the union.
If a fertilized egg is defined as a person, and the woman has a miscarriage, is she considered a killer? Most of the argument made (in US) based on Bible, that life is precious. This comes from people who continually eat meat on everyday basis. They have no problem taking lives of animals by millions. According to the Bible, only humans have souls, but not the animals, therefore there is no problem killing animals for food or sport.
Just like in India, this issue comes up to the forefront only during elections to rile up all the Christians to vote for the "conservatives". Even the Republicans who believe otherwise have to tow the party-line.
Every cell in the body of an adult human has totipotency and, theoretically, can be used reproduce an entire human being, a clone of the original body. In fact, scientists have managed to clone other mammals, like rats, mice, sheep, dog, and cattle. Therefore, every cell is a "person". What is more, a person who has been declared "brain-dead" by the competent medical authority still has cells in his or her body that are not dead, but are all "persons". Therefore, nobody can be declared "dead" even if his or her brain is "dead". Reductio ad absurdum_
I totally agree with Mr. Balaji.
Its surely a living thing but not a person.
The US state of Mississippi tried to enact a law banning abortion
altogether, and it failed. They tried to define a fertilized embryo as a
person, and the people of Mississippi voted against it.
science and religion do not go together.experiments and sentiments are poles apart.no final definition can be given to `person'
I have found many of these comments interesting. I would only like to add one directive I learned growing up: When in doubt, don't. If in doubt if it's legal or moral to abort a baby... don't abort. Simple.
Science can address questions only in the physical realm. When it steps into dealing with the spiritual, it represents a faith, of equal stature to Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Confusionism, et al. Those with no faith in these other faiths, come together and cling to a faith in science instead.
A pity, really, since scientists are human, too, and thus also fallible. What scientists would tell us about abortion differs from 100 years ago... and most likely will differ from what Science says 100 years from now. How is this something to base a faith on?!
A newborn infant is very under-developed in his/her activities. So what is wrong if the parents kill the infant - after all they own the child & they have the right to decide. We could also kill serious & terminal patients, beggars etc., because they are not wanted and not of use to society, itwill end their suffering...
Will any state law allow these acts?
Abortion is exactly killing - just because the child in the womb in the very early stage, helpless & no way to revolt, that does not justify killing. Unless it’s for a higher purpose like danger to mother's life, there is no justification for abortion.
The problem is of morality & taking responsibility. Instead of trying to address that by restricting illicit relations and pregnancy, killing in the name of "unwanted" is gross crime.
We do not see abortions in animals - they do take responsibility of their offspring and provide to their needs. Unfortunately modern humans are going below animals in the name of "advancement".
Anything that can live on its own (without adding anything any other
cell) is life. A fertilised egg (through natural means, or by IVF) is a
life in itself. So it should not be aborted. But a sperm cell or egg by
itself cannot live on its own, so they are not life.
There is a lot of debate over whether a fertilized egg is a person or not. No one really knows. So why not err on the side of life and recognize the fertilized egg as a person and ban abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.
Living thing - YES ! Person - Most definitely NO !!
Which is better? Aborting a "foetus" which is not wanted in the first place, or giving birth to an unwanted child and then leaving it uncared and unloved for? I'd rather go with the former. There is too much suffering in the world already.
Yes. He is a person. As per our Vedic science, we are the soul not the body. At the time of conception, the soul is transferred through the sperm to the womb of the woman. There is no doubt that life begins at the time of conception. "Growth" indicates life. The difference between living body and the dead body is the presence of soul. Just the body is in very primitive stage, does not mean there is no life and can be killed.
Modern science do not have any idea of what is life. They try to reduce everything to chemicals. Science means observation & experiment - we do not observe anywhere that life is coming from chemicals. So things beyond experimental verification has to be accepted from an bonafide authority - the Vedic scriptures, through proper method.
Does the person-non person debate also consider the fact that a woman is also a person, who is alive and who can think better than a foetus on what is a better solution in a given scenario?
Even though the foetus is not a person, the person who contains it has a right to decide to destroy it or to allow it to grow and come out. Ultimately the decision has to be taken by the mother of the foetus. But religion is meddling with the issue unnecessarily. The Semitic religions believe that the soul is instilled into the foetus. When? As soon as the fertilization occurs. The Hindu religion more rational on this question. The jeevatma emanates from the paramatma. So, there is no harm in nipping in the bud. Because the jeevatma would go back to the paramatma! So abortion is allowable!!
People abort because they are not ready to have children, either emotionally or financially. Unnecessarily plunging the parent and a child into an undesired situation, may cause the child to be ignored or worse, making it a cause-target for parent's failures or unhappiness. An aborted baby is better than an unwanted one.
In my personal opinion, the women (sane) should be given the right to choose to undergo abortion or not in the EARLY stages if she chooses to, like said by the Indian constitution. A court can never order a person to undergo the pains to bring up a child even though she is not ready for that, nor even any religious or a person can force her to have child. Let them keep their beliefs to themselves, don't insist on others.
Please look inward instead of outward. All these answers can be found within the Hindu scriptures. No need to quote big names our ancient rishis knew all about the human anatomy much before all these so called discoverers. The only difference our rishis did not believe in name and fame from this world as against westerners.
What was the author's point? The author seems to evade the question and merely show his superficial knowledge about the debate. It is perplexing to see this article rendering perspectives from philosophy, law, religion and politics but not from scientific viewpoint. After all, this article is under S & T >> Science. How does one define a 'person' in science?
In India a child in mother's womb is a person and has rights. An unborn child has various rights including property rights under the Indian judicial decisions and in Hindu law.
America is not an example for progressive thought. The populace in USA seems to be regressing faster than a neutrino! A sperm can be called half a human, so is an egg! The same people who call themselves pro-life (anti abortionist) are the ones who are pro-death (pro capital punishment) for convicted criminals! This all stems from religious bigotry prevalent in the much of United States. Sometimes USA and their courts can be extremely harmful for progressing humans. Please check the status on the Scandinavian countries!
Fortunately, the electorate rejected the Mississippi initiative! If the fertilized egg is the beginning of life, it could be argued that death occurs only after the last cell in the body (the last descendent of 'fertilized egg') dies! Corpses have to be preserved days and weeks after clinical death! Descartes, Hume and Lock have proved inadequate to the task of defining 'life'. So is the Marxist-Existentialist, Jean Paul Sartre ("I think, so I am") or the biological dictum ("I eat, so I am)!
Recourse to religion would prove useless for two reasons: There is no unanimity among religions (even among the various Christian sects) and the 'God hypothesis' at the heart of religions (Buddhism though agnostic in theory, elevates the Buddha to a de facto God status) is unproven --- probably disproved!
Anything which grows has life. We sow our seeds to get a sibling and that thought itself is enough for us not to abort it. Only one sperm from the whole lot reaches the ova to fertilize. Once fertilized it is expected to become a person. The person will not be there without fertilization and therefore a fertilized ova is a person and has a right to live.
Please Email the Editor