Abortion Pro Choice Forum - Who Has the Right to Declare Personhood?

eiri wrote:

well what do you feel? Is it then just something that is a kind if internal feeling that all humans have? I'd agree that we obviously know on a basic level that we are not like the rest of the animals; but what then do we use to define that difference? And is that difference simply human-ness, or is it personhood?

there are a variety of historical perspectives regarding this issue. The one that I prefer the most states that humans are humans because they have the ability to differentiate themselves from the other animals and actually think of themselves as human. Specifically, our brains have provided us with the tools to set ourselves apart from other animals over time. Before evolving, other members of the homo genus had smaller brains and thus, had less of a capacity to grow, learn, and adapt to their varying environments. Survival of the fittest being what it is, the species with the mental abilities to adapt, cope, learn, and communicate is the one that survived and propagated, us.

But our brains also do other things that were necessary for our survival. One being that we readily see patterns (even to the extent where we want to see them where they do not exist). The ability to notice patterns lead us to learn the cycle of the seasons, moon, when planting and harvest should take place, and even the cycles of rainfall and other natural occurances. Seeing patterns is necessary for the second ability to flourish. When food and shelter needs are met because the seasons (and thus planting/harvesting) are readily understood, the species can formulate symbols and attach various meaning and significance to those symbols. We systematically developed language and religious symbols because we were not focused solely on survival needs any longer. But it didn't end there.

We also attach differing significance to everything in an attempt to make everything follow a pattern that we can easily understand and that will not surprise us or make us afraid. If an elder of our tribe died, we mourned them and placed the things that they liked around their bodies wherever we buried them (the beginnings of funerals). If a member of another tribe died, we mourned them less because we did not know them (and we might have even celebrated if the two tribes were at war with one another). We started very early as a species in attaching significance to other humans. With more people in the tribe, a greater harvest or hunt could occur thereby producing more food and more material comfort for the whole tribe. If a death occurred, the loss of an often contributing member of the tribe was lamented far more than the loss of someone who perhaps did not contribute. Older siblings were valued more than younger siblings because the older siblings proved that they could survive nearly to adulthood.

We did this with animals because they were our prey. After all, you can hardly value your food more than yourself or the humans around you if you are to eat it.

In its most simplistic form, we value human persons because we are also human persons who are part of larger groups which place a great emphasis on the alleged superiority of humans. In a physical sense, we are not superior by any stretch of the imagination. It is only when you consider our gifts at creating societies, cultures, and aesthetically pleasing things that make us superior to animals. Further, we are only superior to animals in those respects because we, ourselves, have decided that those things were great, wonderful, and better than a more instinctual method of living.

In the end, then, who determines personhood? The question is still not answered by the simple form above. In today's society and culture, personhood is determined by the government which is acting off of the things that we intrinsically value about ourselves. We value contribution to the group, communication, patterns, material comfort, and those things which we deem to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing.

The government and the state largely act as one body in this regards since neither, theoretically, are legally able to overstep its bounds where the other is concerned. Individuals do, to a large extent, determine what they believe to be personhood for themselves. However, the definition is not constant and ever changing with our new interactions with other people. A racist can believe whole heartedly that african americans and hispanic people are not people. Is s/he right? No. Likewise, a vegan can believe whole heartedly that animals are deserving of personhood. Is s/he right? The courts have not agreed in many cases but you are free to make up your own mind.

The government/state, then, in the end, must make a final, legal judgement about who is protected under the laws of the land. This, too, is not static. However, it is not as open to interpretation as some people would like thanks to our constitution and bill of rights. You can see how varied personhood is considered around the world, though, in multiple countries. Compare columbia with great britain, for example.

Hope this helps a little.
Peace,
jenn