Talk:Beginning of human personhood/Archive 1

Suggested structure
I see a danger of this article developing into a sermon. Before it does so, and to prevent the very real (and interesting) biological issues being swamped by broad-brush religious dogma, I suggest a structure something like (a) historical perspectives, (b) biological issues, (c) social and legal questions, (d) philosophical and religious views. At present the whole thing is framed in terms of (d), which does not do the subject any favours. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This is the sort of sermon-like thing that absolutely needs to be avoided--not necessarily because it feels like preaching (although preaching could easily violate WP:NPOV, as it seems to do in this case), but because it's a blatant violation of WP:OR. One is not at liberty here to quote scripture in order to make one's own arguments or advance one's own agendum. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I put that in there because it is a common citation from a... what some people consider to be a reliable source in as far as matters of actual human life are concerned. Certainly the argument that they are connected has to be sourced, but please in no way suggest that quoting the Bible on matters to which it is relevant (life) is somehow irregular, improper, or POV. It seems you both already have this concept that you will label and destroy any concept you disagree with as "preaching," which isn't particularly helpful. In fact I think its pretty unwiki to think you can just be an opposing force in developing a valid topic article. And you're abusing the cite tags; certainly you are citing statements which are simply framing the concept, and are neither polemical nor in any way inaccurate. -Zahd (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, please. I haven't stated that I "disagree with" with anything. For all you know, I could be the proudest, most fundamentalistic member of the NRLC. This isn't about what you or I think; it is about the aims of Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with WP:PSTS. The Bible is about as primary a source as one can find. However, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You cannot simply make a claim and say, "See? The Bible says so!"; you must demonstrate that someone has made the claim, with the Biblical reference, in a secondary or tertiary source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not hard to do, which is my point. Why remove it when you can just as easily help out by sourcing it? Ill deal with that one in a minute. -Zahd (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

purposeless articles
He's cranked out History of human sanctity, which is a little ball of pointless bias. See for yourself and weigh in on whether it should be deleted. 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of reference
Care to explain how one can attribute, "Currently, a developing human is at the latest considered to be a human being by the time of its birth" to, which states, "Current perspectives on when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after"? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of that. I'll look at the article again, and deal with that. It seems a rather basic concept, don't you think, that in this day and age, babies at least would be respected as living beings, and their destruction would not be permitted nor facilitated. I am not aware of any current law that permits born children to be destroyed. Half-born children, certainly. Not born children. I was aware of historical concepts of post-birth personhood, such as those of the Spartans, but not anything currently. They call it infanticide generally. -Zahd (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

And after you do that, you can try to justify your reference to eugenics. Until you do, however, I will continue to revert any attempt to use that term without citation. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument is fallacious, and contrary to policy. You wrote "eugenics came more than 2,000 years after Aristotle! the ref doesn't even mention eugenics"
 * In the comment, I responded: "Restore eugenics comment. Eugenics may have been 'invented' more recently, it nevertheless is the common term for policies that promote the destruction of beings)." In dealing with your comment, I responded by simply pointing out that a concept can exist even before its conceptualized and associated with a word. So, even though the word "abortion" wasn't yet around, some people still employed methods to destroy their unborn children. That action is called abortion, even if the term didn't come "more than 2,000 years after." Likewise policies that destroy human beings for sake of an idealized sociological outcome are eugenic policies, even if they are not promoted as such, and even if they aren't called such by a source. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks and behaves like a duck, we would be rather foolish to not point out that it at least has the properties that are associated with what we call a "duck," even if we don't have a source that uses that specific term, or refers to the specific material.


 * This is all not to mention the fact that one can find lots of sources simply by searching for "Aristotle and eugenics": "Aristotle's eugenic plan for the state included a near-perfect citizenry where "nothing imperfect or maimed" is brought up.".
 * You took it out; you can put it back in.-Zahd (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You're the one who's adding stuff; you're the one who has to justify (read: SOURCE) it. See WP:BURDEN. And, care to explain how I (or the IP editor--whom are you referring to?) have acted "contrary to policy"? What policy? Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to come up with references, but citation doesn't establish relevance. Eugenics has little to do with the beginning of human life, since it used everything from (forced) sterilization to outright infanticide.  The only reason it's being brought up here is to further a political agenda, which makes it a violation of WP:POV.  Spotfixer (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a tangential point, I'll admit, to refer to eugenics. But you have to make the case that its not relevant in order to remove it, Spot. You are violating POV by removing it, after I've found sources that state distinctly that Aristotle's views on the beginning of human life were part of a larger eugenics concept. In other words, you must justify your actions. -Zahd (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that Spotfixer's above comment makes the case quite well: "Eugenics has little to do with the beginning of human life, since it used everything from (forced) sterilization to outright infanticide." And you seem to be acknowledging this: "It's a tangential point, I'll admit, to refer to eugenics." So, what exactly is the problem with removing it, aside from the fact that you no longer get to use the "eugenics" buzzword to ruffle the reader's feathers? Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On the subject of tangents, note that all the material about abortion is also tangential. The topic of the article is of course relevant to abortion, as it is relevant to various legal questions, and to a whole range of difficult decisions that people are faced with, but it is not about abortion any more than it is about eugenics. The article should not be hijacked in support of any particular agenda. It should stick to the issues concerning one question: when does human life begin? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The tail is wagging the dog
There is an article to be written here, about the difficulty of deciding when human life begins. That article should be framed in terms of developmental biology, and it should address issues such as to what extent a sperm and an ovum are alive and human, whether the moment of fertilisation that generates a new unique inidividual is the beginning of a new life, how the not-especially-uncommon subsequent splitting of the zygote to form monozygotic twins affects our view of uniqueness, whether the life isn't really "human" until viability at about 23 weeks' gestation, etc... And then there are the historical, social, legal, philosophical and religious perspectives. But an article on the beginning of human life must be grounded in the biology. At present the religious tail is wagging the biological dog, and it's all pretty meaningless stuff. I haven't time to do much myself at present, but if this article is to survive it must address the issues, and address them in a meaningful order. As it stands, the article would be better deleted, and turned into a redicrect to something vague and out of touch with biological reality like ensoulment. SNALWIBMA ( talk - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Call me a eugenicist if you must, but if this article doesn't move forward, I say we abort it. I'm prepared to file an AFD in a few days, unless something changes here. Spotfixer (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree up to a point. My reservation is that I do think a reasonable article on the topic "beginning of human life" could be written. In fact, it could be a very interesting and informative discussion of different definitions and difficulties. There are real biological questions, and then there are the other niceties that must (but all too often don't) take account of the biological issues. The present article just muddies the waters in a mixed-metaphor fog of religious verbiage, however, and I really don't have the time at the moment to do more than snipe from the sidelines! Is there anyone out there who can take this by the scruff of the neck (yet more mixed metaphors!) and lick it into shape? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea that we can rewrite the article using only biological terms is very very nice, and would no doubt make things much easier. We can ignore three thousand years of historical debate over the issue, not to mention any philosophical or religious arguments that raise the troublesome issue of the soul. Of course I'm being facetious here, and I'm doing so just to make the point that avoiding the troublesome (read: "contradictory to my own sterile point of view") is cowardly, if not actually POV by design. -Zahd (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for the sarcasm! There is no question of writing it only in biological terms. What I want to see is an article which covers biological as well as social, legal, religious and other angles. It is essential that the article should mention religious ideas like the soul as well - but it must be as well, not instead. It is my firm opinion that the biological should be the basis, and the rest follows - but I certainly want to see the rest covered as well. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
pre-emptively moved. There appears to be no clear conclusion, although google does support the existance of the word "personhood". 199.125.109.126 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be "Beginning of human personhood"? Since a person's skin cells are human and alive, and a person's eggs or sperm are human and alive, etc. "human life" is a misnomer for this article's topic. The article seems to be discussing legal and moral arguments for when personhood starts. LyrlTalk C 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that personhood, rather than humanity, is the issue here; at no point in the life cycle of a human being is it dead or nonhuman. However, it is (almost?) universally agreed that an unfertilized sex cell is not a person and has no rights whatsoever.  The topic of the article, therefore, is to what extent rights should be granted, and when.
 * Despite this, a Google search clearly shows that the phrase, "beginning of human life", is much more common. I think Google wins here, against all logic. Spotfixer (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lyrl wrote: "Since a person's skin cells are human and alive, and a person's eggs or sperm are human and alive, etc. "human life" is a misnomer for this article's topic." And Spot wrote: "at no point in the life cycle of a human being is it dead or nonhuman." Indeed, you are both using "human" in only the biological sense, and not the "human rights" sense nor the "humanity" sense. You're argument here rests on a confusion of the terms, and in fact your argument seems to be based on a contradiction of the conception argument; conceding an embryo's "human-ness," but denying it personhood is a pro-abortion argument.


 * More to the point, the usage of "personhood" is not as universal as the concept of the human being is, and its correlated human rights. "Personhood" is only a local concept states use to refer to human beings it considers people. There is no universal concept of personhood. There is however a universal concept of the human being, even if people debate the world over when a human biological organism is to be considered a being. Since we are a one-world English Wikipedia, we must deal with the universals, and not the local concepts. Certainly, if you want to start a second article that just lists how various states apply the concept of personhood, I think that would be fine, but this article is about how various philosophies and concepts of humanity are debating the universal issue of being, not biological human-ness.


 * Another point, not to overstate this, but you're both dealing with circular arguments; Spot's statement "an unfertilized sex cell is not a person and has no rights whatsoever" reveals this plainly. So in essence, you both seem to be advocating the destroying of the concept of humanity in favor of personhood, simply because it serves your POV. If you think about the way you're thought process works, you'll should understand this is true. In all cases, universal law provides "human rights" to people not because it considers them persons, but human, and local law proscribes a concept of "personhood" based on their consideration of being's humanity. This article deals with the universal concept of humanity, not legalese concepts that only apply locally. And thank you Spot for the Google reference.-Zahd (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This topic appears to be a fork of or redundant with beginning of pregnancy controversy. Personhood (or something to that effect) seems like better title.  Or beginning of human individual.  Evidence suggests that a "Beginning of human life" happened some 200,000 years ago. Human  Zodon (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Zodon wrote: "This topic appears to be a fork of or redundant with beginning of pregnancy controversy." It is not. The pregnancy controversy simply deals with the concept of conception versus implantation, and when to regard the beginning of "pregnancy." This deals with the concept of the human being itself, and that involves a number of other concepts besides conception and implantation that don't belong on that other article.
 * If you wan't to write an article on the "beginnings of human life" you will have to deal with one; the fact that this article title is taken, and two; the fact that your proposed interpretation of "beginning" is much much more arbitrary than is this one.-Zahd (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is precedent on Wikipedia for naming an article with a more technical term instead of the common term: the manual of style for medical articles. So I'm not convinced Spotfixer's argument about Google winning should be the final word.
 * As far as legal aspects, the legal concept of personhood is addressed in the article legal person. While there is some overlap between that article and this one, I don't think the existence of legal personhood is an argument against using "personhood" in a discussion of a moral topic.
 * I do not believe renaming the article to "personhood" instead of "life" would favor either the pro-choice or pro-life POV, and am confused at Zahd's accusation that such a POV is my motivator for proposing the rename. I support the rename because I believe it is more technically accurate (e.g. excludes non-topical arguments that "human life began 200,000 years ago" from the article) and facilitates reader understanding of some of the arguments (e.g. the current article implies that some groups consider a 20-week gestation human fetus to be either not human or not alive). LyrlTalk C 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Lyrl, Spot wrote: "I agree that personhood, rather than humanity, is the issue here;" and it was because you agreed that I inferred your affiliation with Spot's point of view. He's been remarkably POV in some of his comments, and has gone out of his way to remove anything of light from even my user page. In a certain sense, I erred in associating you two, but in another sense I had to deal with the concepts he operates under first; and I'm glad you want to disassociate yourself from them. You can start an "origins of humanity" article if there already isn't one. I disagree that a technical term makes things less ambiguous; there is no real demonstrable issue of ambiguity here at this time, and I would suggest just dealing with the concepts in the article instead of worrying about its title. You said "I do not believe renaming the article to "personhood" instead of "life" would favor either the pro-choice or pro-life POV..." I have to point out that personhood is a legalist concept, and one which in a certain sense serves a pro-choice argument, in that it fails to deal with the concept at the core of human rights; namely the "humanity" of the fetus, however we want to define humanity. Humanity is at least a cultural concept and moreso it is a universal concept. Personhood on the other hand is a concept of societies and the laws therein, and this distinction makes personhood removed from other relevant domains such as religion and even philosophy. It serves the pro-choice side to use the "technical" terms of medical jargon to refer to concepts of humanity, and abandon the language that most people use in referring to human beings. Technically speaking, the use of such jargon is dehumanizing and thus we must reject it, given the prime relevance that human rights has to this article, and not to mention to this project itself; "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Zahd (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Personhood is a moral and legal concept, rather than a purely medical one, and it is personhood, not mere humanity, that grants an entity rights. There is no question that each living cell in an embryo is biologically human, but that's just as true for the cells in a kidney.  Clearly, being composed of living human cells is not sufficient for rights.
 * Now, I realize that this distinction might be inconvenient for people who want to equate a fertilized egg cell with a woman, but that's something you'll just have to live with. Instead of once again correcting your errors, which is a task without a foreseeable end, I would prefer to focus on what we're here for: making this a good article, starting with an accurate title.
 * This article is not about developmental biology per se; it's not focused on the various stages in the human life cycle for their own sake. Rather, it's about the controversy over when we grant personhood.  As such, the current title is somewhat misleading.   Perhaps we need to make this a fork of legal person and name it "The beginning of personhood". Spotfixer (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, if you want to deal with the concept of personhood, go ahead. What you will get however is not a treatment of the arguments, but an listed overview of the concepts each state applies in law toward the concept of personhood. It will not deal with the issues as much as it will list which states say what and why. I for one would be interested in that kind of article and I encourage you to start it. I may even help out, as I think its useless to be only a critic. -Zahd (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personhood is not an exclusively legal concept. The Wikipedia article on the legal concept of personhood has to specify "legal" in the article title: Legal person.  You are welcome to work on that article if you wish.
 * The claim that societies are not universal is not something I follow. Any group of people living together is a society, just as they have a culture.
 * I left "human" in the article title to avoid getting into theories about non-human persons (aliens, animal rights activists, etc.) LyrlTalk C 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Personhood.
Once the article was moved, the text didn't fit anymore, so I cleaned it up. Besides changing "human life" to "person", I also distinguished between fertilization and implantation instead of referring to conception, and I removed much of the duplication between scientific and other candidates for the moment of personhood. I still don't like the article very much, as it's unsourced and unbalanced. As an example of the latter, note how "personhood at fertilization" has been singled out for special treatment. Spotfixer (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I of course note that because the article is now framed in terms of "personhood" instead of "life", the section on "personhood at fertilization" is meant to be a POV joke. It is only because we are now using a legalist term like "personhood" instead of a more.. holy term like "life" that the joke is actually possible. In reality, this article should go back to the concept of "life" and therein we can deal with "life" (moral, religious, philosophical) versus "biological life" and sort the details out under these terms. I can deal with the current situation though, and perhaps later we can change it back to a more accurate concept. -Zahd (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If a neutral and accurate explanation of a stance makes it look stupid, too bad for that stance. There was never any question about whether a fertilized egg was alive, only whether it deserves the rights of a newborn, much less an adult.
 * In any case, your views have been noted and appropriately dismissed. Move along now.  If you come back later and try to "fix" it, I can assure you that your attempts will be reverted.  And you already know what happens when you try to force your version against the consensus one with an edit war...  Spotfixer (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If this article is now about "personhood", whatever that means, then I will take no further interest in it. I thought it was about the question of when life (or rather, a life) begins, which is an interesting biological question with various philosophical/sociological/legal/religious spin-offs. I am happy to see it become a purely philosophical/sociological/legal/religious essay - but if that's what it is then it's not for me! Good luck. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 08:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. The concept of "personhood" sandboxes a far-reaching human issue, and makes the entire article a pro-abortion concept. I think it dies, which is probably what Spot wants anyway, given his dislike for the subject of "human life." -Zahd (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my goal is to keep this article from sucking, so I've made a few more changes to it. Spotfixer (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Placement of "fertilization", etc. subsections
I had envisioned subsections replacing each of the items in the list under "biological markers". Another editor moved the few subsections that have been started into the "historical perspectives" section, though.

I would like to move the "fertilization", etc. subsections back under "biological markers" and delete the list. What are other's thoughts? LyrlTalk C 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fetus/embryo is human individual
I am surprised that people here think fetus is not alive or not human individual and therefore abortion causes not death of human individual. Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.

Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception.

I point this out to make it clear once and all.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle.”

Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 664: ”A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.” The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science 1994, p 340:  ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple life cycle consisting of fertilization of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1290:   ”Embryo. The developing individual between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. [...] At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), a new life begins.” Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 121: ”The new individual is established at the time of fertilization, and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.” Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment.” Human embryologist say:

Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.) William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.)

Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.) Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.) Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.)

Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book Developmental Biology:

”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. [...] The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176)

--Earthland (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
How can be a collection of quotes from scientific encyclopedias and scientist be considered "essay" or "soapbox" (propaganda)? --Earthland (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer
Hi, Earthland. It's not the collection of quotes as such, but the framework in which they were put, in which you "point this out to make it clear once and all". In that sense it is an essay, a soapbox statement, an attempt to push a point of view. That is not the function of a WP talk page, which should be about how to improve the article. What you believe about "personhood", and how you believe others here are in error, is irrelevant. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the article? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is on a path to self-destruction
This article is on a path to self-destruction, since it's composed entirely of uncited statements by an extremely biased editor. It's also factually wrong: the issue is not whether a fetus is human or alive, but whether it has personhood. Consider that your kidney is both human and alive, but it lacks personhood so it has no rights independently of you. You can choose to remove it from your body and it has no right to continue living. Spotfixer (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I googled the term and the only scientific article I could find was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8589565. The rest were all religious and political, mostly from highly biased (read: unreliable) sources. If you want this article to survive, you're going to need to find lots of good sources, and this is not going to be easy. If you fail, I will take the steps necessary to have it deleted. Spotfixer (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're about as biased as they come, and therefore one to talk. The fact of the matter is that certain things won't be found in your so called "reliable" sciencey books. Nevertheless they are real concepts and ones which we will deal with here. Thank you very much. -Zahd (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like quite a good source of information here, if anyone wants to read around the subject. This book chapter sets the issue in its biological, social, philosophical and religious contexts quite well - and (crucially, I think) deals with some of the biological nuances ("metabolic" vs. "genetic" vs. "embryological" definitions, etc). If this article is to have a future it must do the same. There is a set of interesting biological issues here, and it would be a real shame to see them swamped by religious dogma. The article will need a lot of cooperative to work if it is to avoid becoming a mere soap box! <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I think this article has some reason for existence, but only if it's more than a soapbox for woman-haters.  The link you posted is a good one, although I'm not sure how well we can integrate it into Wikipedia without stooping to outright plagiarism.  It would help if we had more sources, so we could combine (and contrast!) parts of each. Spotfixer (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not because people "hate" women that they try to save them from death. -Zahd (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to those PubMed articles? Some of them looked quite usable. -Zahd (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the article should be renamed? Maybe add "debate" to the end?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues
If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Not all rights granted to a fetus are at the pregnant woman's expense. Some affect her positively (if patronizing
Could you please give one example? Spotfixer (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pre-natal health care. - Schrandit (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a fetal right. Spotfixer (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Says you. - Schrandit (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely you would concede that the Unborn Victims of Violence Act counts. - Schrandit (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The right to be a crime victim? Please.  She already has the right to be protected from assault, so she gains nothing.
 * Besides, the only reason the law exists is as a transparent attempt to set a precedent against abortion, so that eventually doctors can be charged with murder. In other words, it's a step towards taking away the woman's right to choose whether or not to carry her pregnancy to term.  Once again, fetal rights come only at the expense of human rights.
 * Oh, and as for meiosis, "Life begins at meiosis!" is a standard reductio ad absurdum argument used by pro-choice advocates. Spotfixer (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does she lose anything from the law? Does the law not invalidate the notion that any rights gained by the unbon must come at the expense of the mother? - Schrandit (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I just pointed out, yes, she is losing something. In specific, this sort of law exists solely to set a precedent to ensure that she loses the right to choose.  Note that the law could have increased the punishment for hurting a woman badly enough to induce miscarriage, but it doesn't do that.  Instead, it intentionally invokes the concept of murder, so as to lay the groundwork for prosecuting doctors.
 * Let me give you a hint: playing dumb is not a compelling form of argument. Spotfixer (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sir, it is your contention that that is the true spirit of the law but unless you can verify that it is your contention is rather irrelevant. - Schrandit (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Go read the article you linked to. Spotfixer (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I did and it doesn't say "this sort of law exists solely to set a precedent to ensure that she loses the right to choose." - Schrandit (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only at the expense of human rights? Fetuses are humans. That's like saying the Emancipation Proclamation came at the expense of human rights. The expansion of human rights always leads to a reduction of the right to oppress. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly human fetuses are humans. That does not automatically make them people, though.  Think about those adult humans that are on full life-support and declared to be brain-dead --the Law has almost routinely let them be unplugged.  With their brains nonfunctional, those humans won't notice whether or not they have (or lose!) any rights!  Ditto for at least the first few months of fetal development.  Next (U.S. specific): Note that the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments do not use the phrase "human being" anywhere, but do use the word "person" a great deal. And there is a very significant piece of evidence that the two things, "human being" and "person", don't have to be the same thing: The U.S. Constitution requires that a Census of all "persons" be conducted every 10 years --the Founding Fathers were directly responsible both for that part of the Constitution and for the specification of what data should be collected in the very first Census of 1790. Unborn human beings have never been counted as persons in any Census!, including the current Census of 2010. It should be very clear, then, that just as one should not count one's chickens before they hatched, the attitudes of the writers of the U.S. Constitution did not include the notion that unborn human beings qualified as persons. Reference: http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/ V (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking planned Parenthood as a source, that sure is objective, I thought there was a rule against reference yourself... Can you kill a baby (born) that is living in your house? It is dependent upon you... 1-2 year olds are detrimentally affected by the absence of their mother and thereby not "viable" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841012/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3569022/ https://phys.org/news/2011-08-reveals-baby-monkeys-affected-life.html You may say, ah but they are still alive, but I thought we were looking for optimal life, you the optimal life that is not depressed or down syndrome.

Also reference 41 is out of date, as it reference premature weight as 1500-2500 but both sources I have placed here are below that number (technological advances so how changing when babies become people, odd). http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i2976 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1410689

'Dogmatic'
There are numerous references to churches 'dogmatically' defining when life begins. The definition of life beginning at conception is based on a scientific rationale and was defined by churches after consideration of this evidence. Where is the evidence that this is dogma? These weasel words need removing.
 * That is a very good point. Feel free to change that up, if you don't I will in a few days.  By the way, it can't hurt to get a username. - Schrandit (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: "Why beginning of human life" should point to this article? Personhood and life are different notions. In old (and not so old) times women and Blacks were not legally considered "persons" in many places of the world (the way embryos are now). However not having a status of a "person" before law did not make women and Blacks any less human. So the article should state clearly that human life begins at conception (a scientific FACT, which many try to supplant by their BELIEFS it begins when the umbillic cord is severed, or a baby kicks her mother strong enough for her to start feeling it, or any other supersticious "events of becoming human"). If this is the article about "personhood", it should mention the history of development of this concepts - about nNative Americans and Australians, Blacks, Women etc not being considered persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.8.34 (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Person definition
In its "person" article, wikipedia itself states that person means individual human being. Therefore, personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species - personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. But only few sentences later wikipedia says that only born human individuals are persons.

The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood.

--Earthland (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is far more subtle and less certain than that. When exactly does a fertilized egg become an individual? If it were in fact as clear-cut as you say, there would be no differing views, and no article. You clearly have one view, but others see it differently. That is what this article is (or is trying to be) about. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 17:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias and human embryologists agree that fertilized egg means human individual. Birth only changes the location of that individual: inside or outside of the uterus. I quoted dozens of encyclopedias and human embryologists who very clearly agreed on that - when new human individual is created. If all encyclopedias (other than Wikipedia) agree, why Wikipedia can't agree? Pro-choice bias?
 * "Human individual" and "human person" are not automatically the same thing. In the USA, the Constitution mandates counting all "persons" every 10 years, and the Founding Fathers who created that Constitution were on-hand to specify what data should be gathered in the very first US Census of 1790.  Unborn humans have never been counted; not in any Census, not even the most recent Census of 2010.  Reference: http://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/index_of_questions/  Therefore it is obvious that the US Federal Government has never regarded unborn human individuals as human persons.  How many other countries have conducted a Census similarly?  By the way, remember the old cliche` "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" ?  A significant number of eggs don't hatch, which would make the count immediately wrong.  The same logic applies to unborn humans; if you count them as persons, the count will be immediately wrong, because of the Natural miscarriage/stillbirth rate.  Finally, for a whole different category of human individuals that are not persons, consider the many brain-dead adult humans on full life-support.  The Law allows them to be unplugged because with their brains non-functional, they have lost all ability to act in any manner resembling a "person" --even an earthworm can exhibit more activity and learning capability than those adult humans.  Rhetorically, would you therefore insist that worms and all more-advanced animals must be granted "person" status, because they are more competent than those humans?  The Law, where-ever such unplugging is allowed, has basically decided that those human bodies are essentially "unoccupied" --the part of a human which makes a human also a person is gone, leaving a mere human animal behind.  Well, in the case of any and every unborn human, no matter how late-term, there are plenty of ordinary animals that can exhibit greater "person"-type capabilities than those unborn humans.  Pigs, for example, are smarter than dogs, which are smarter than cats, which are smarter than unborn humans.  Rhetorically, why shouldn't all such animals be granted person status, if unborn humans are granted it?  The Law, in countries that allow abortion, basically indicates that unborn humans are simply human-animal bodies that are not yet occupied by the essence-of-person.  For more evidence along that line, consider that medical technology has almost reached the point where if somebody lost his head in an accident, and sophisticated help arrived/was-implemented within 3 or 4 minutes, brain damage could be prevented and that head could be kept alive, still detached from the body.  In such an emergency, should we save the headless body, or save the bodiless head, to save the human person from death?  The most rational answer to that question fully reveals that the human body cannot by itself be the human person; the human mind inside the head is the human person.  And, measurably, no human fetus ever about-to-be-born has the appropriate magnitude and variety of mental abilities, sufficient to qualify it as a person, instead of qualifying as a mere animal, regardless of its human-ness.  This page may have some relevant data: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/C1P1.htm  V (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 664: ”A new individual is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.”

The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.”

Please give me quote from encyclopedia that don't agree with that... otherwise this all discussion is pointless, scientific consensus is clear in this question.

--Earthland (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fetal Viability & Birth
These two sections need cleaning up.

'Fetal Viability' needs renaming as homosapiens are viable from conception, although not independent from conception. In essence, this section should discuss homosapien independence which can be defined for a range of degrees of independence at different stages, e.g. infants are dependent on their parents for survival and rights granted to them "come at the expense" of their parents' rights.
 * It is not entirely true that just-fertilized eggs are viable from conception. The natural miscarriage/stillbirth rate, which is known to be mostly (not always) associated with faulty genetic machinery in the growing organism, strongly indicates that those particular human organisms were only temporarily viable, and not as fully viable as opponents of induced abortion would prefer to believe applies to all fertilized human ova. V (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Structure
My radical changes yesterday, resulting in this version, were designed to help, by putting a structure on the thing, and cutting out the irrelevant sermonising about abortion. Yes, it needs detail added, and it needs sections on law and philosophy (and perhaps society) added - but it is surely a better structure. Now, Zahd, let's hear you explain why you think your version is better. I will not revert to my structure yet, but I will do so if you cannot show how yours is better. <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 07:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with Snalwibma. Zahd's version gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to ancient, moral standpoints on abortion and ensoulment. The debate about abortion does not revolve solely around the question of when human life/personhood begins (it also involves independent questions about women's rights--that's why the pro-choice position is called "pro-choice" and not "anti-life"); and the debate about when life/personhood begins does not revolve strictly, or even primarily, around the ancient notion of ensoulment. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me deal with each of your comments directly. Snal called the history section "irrelevant sermonising about abortion." And Cosmic said "Zahd's version gives undue weight to ancient, moral standpoints on abortion and ensoulment." Both of these are on their face false, as I've neither "sermonized" nor given "undue weight" to any concept, let alone any "ancient, moral" ones which you both might find difficult (read: contrary to your pro-choice opinion). In fact, the article even up to this point has been just a list of the various arguments. I've been busy with other things, and all of this chomping at the bit you both are doing doesn't seem to be designed to be helpful in writing the article. I most certainly would like your actual participation, and not just your incessant and pointless criticism that concepts from philosophy and faith are too "vague" (read: contrary to your pro-choice opinion) or somehow irrelevant and therefore replaceable with more modern (read: utopian, Godless) and clinical (read: antiseptic, detached) concepts. Cosmic again shared with us a piece of pro-choice opinion: "The debate about abortion does not revolve solely around the question of when human life/personhood begins (it also involves independent questions about women's rights--that's why the pro-choice position is called "pro-choice" and not "anti-life")" You're forgetting that the term "pro-choice" is a euphemistic concept that names itself according with its own circular logic, namely that the life of the fetus (a dehumanizing term preferred by "pro-choice") is deprecated for sake of the "rights" of the mother; the idea that a mother can decide to not be a mother even after she already in effect is one is really a twisted concept if you actually think about it. That is why we in the pro-life camp refer to choice not as "choice" (as if it were a matter as simple as choosing a pair of shoes) but "death", because in the concept of the world we maintain; one where God actually exists; the choice of "choice," (read: death) is one... poorly made. Cosmic said: and the debate about when life/personhood begins does not revolve strictly, or even primarily, around the ancient notion of ensoulment. Indeed, this is your opinion, and one which contradicts lots and lots of sources, if you actually bother to read any. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a big fan of the ensoulment at conception argument either (there are serious problems with it which I will explain in the article; beginning of pregnancy article deals well with most of them). In fact, because 94 percent of the world claims to hold some kind of faith, the soul is a concept that we must deal with to the same degree. You may not like it, and it may seem antiquated to you, but in reality you have a soul, just as do I, and God gave you one because he loves you and wanted you to be more like Him. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 18:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above paragraph contains a few flaws. First, it erroneously implies that a pregnant female must be called a "mother".  The reason such an implication is flawed is twofold: First, because of the Natural miscarriage/stillbirth rate, no pregnancy is guaranteed to result in live birth; second, the concept of "mothering" involves conscious actions, not unconscious actions --after all, it is known that there are places in the male abdomen where a zygote could attach and grow into a fetus; should a male who in involuntarily injected with such a zygote be called a "mother"?.  Reference: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2002/05/08/5154/  (Note on "consciousness" and animals:  any animal that has a wake/sleep cycle can be called conscious when awake.)  Next flaw: The statement "the life of the fetus is deprecated for the sake of the mother" assumes that the life of the fetus has intrinsic value that can be deprecated.  What is the basis for such an assumption?  Have you not read Exodus 21:22, which plainly indicates that the value of an unborn human is arbitrary and specifiable (could easily even under that Religious Law be specified as "zero")?  Next flaw: Regardless of whether or not God exists, it is a fact that humans wrote all the religious texts in the world, God did not directly write any word of any of them.  This means that human bias (including the bigoted notion that humans are somehow more special than other living things) could have easily been inserted into those religious texts, exactly the way Moses created a theocracy with himself on top, when the Torah was written.  Also, of course, the ways that the various religious texts of the world disagree with each other is even more evidence that they could not have been written by God, so why are claims about your favorite religious texts any more valid than the claims of others, about their favorite religious texts?  Example: "God has inspired me to write: 'Thou art a gullible fool!'" --if the preceding statement is a lie, then why can't other claims, about being inspired by God to write stuff, also be lies?  Even if the statement is true (and most people have actually indeed exhibited gullible foolishness at some point in their lives), it is vague about what sort of gullibility it is talking about, but certainly it could be denying every other religious text in the world.  Such contradictions are exactly why the modern Western world tries to separate Church and State --and those contradictions are yet another reason why Religion should have no say whatsoever in the abortion debate.  Provable facts about human life are much more important than mere claims!  V (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sermon. In fact, I've contributed substantially to the Soul article, and again, for all you know, I could be the proudest and most pious member of the National Right to Life Committee. It doesn't matter. What matters here is building good articles, and there are considerable problems with the one you're trying to build. The history section is all about abortion and ensoulment, when these are in fact of limited relevance to the concept of the beginning of human life. This concept has to do with much more than "ensoulment." See Beginning_of_human_life: It has to do with a whole lot of biological ideas, as well. As the source that you insist on (sometimes inaccurately) citing says, "If one does not believe in a 'soul,' then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human." And, like it or not, there is more to the abortion debate than the subject of this article; there are questions of women's rights, however "euphemistic" you may find them. The fact of the matter is, your history section says scarcely anything about the beginning of human life. Various folks may have had various opinions about ensoulment and/or abortion, but did they (or did someone else in a WP:RS) link these opinions with their explicit beliefs about when human life begins? If they did not, then you are conducting original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, does make connections among these things: "Historically, the answer has been coupled with the issue of abortion"; "Aristotle asserted that when soul was added to the matter in the womb, a living individuated creature was created, which had the form and rational power of a man." Nevertheless, your phrasing does not reflect these connections well, and even the source seems to admit that the connections may not be rock-solid: "Yet it is still unclear as to whether denying the ability for God to love a fetus represents taking away a human life or a potential human life." So the section may be justifiable, but it has to be put in context. I have taken the liberty of framing the section here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I should further point out, though, that you're relying entirely on a tertiary source (a textbook) for this article, and overreliance on tertiary sources is discouraged by WP:PSTS. I would not object to the removal of the current history section on these grounds. Because, no matter how well you point out the connections between, say, the beginning of human life and abortion, you're still just regurgitating the syntheses made by the tertiary source's author, and these syntheses may turn out to be quite removed from conclusions made by those working more closely with primary material and, therefore, writing in secondary sources. I maintain that, if you want to connect the beginning of life so heavily with ensoulment and abortion, then you justify your actions via reference to secondary sources that make similar connections (but feel free to use the tertiary source in a supplementary way). Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've therefore added the "onesource" template to the history section. The section needs improvement or removal. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I appreciate the good faith criticism. I see you are both engaged in the task of making useful and constructive points, and I think that bodes well for us getting some things done here. I agree with your points about using the one source, and alas it seems necessary to deal with the sources it uses directly. Lawrence Tribe's research seems to be particularly useful, even if his conclusions are totally wrong. On the matter of conclusions: You quoted from Scott F. Gilbert: "If one does not believe in a 'soul,' then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human" which is typical for a biologist to state, simply because he does'nt actually understand what a soul is, nor its functional relationship to the human mind. The reality is that there is a concept called ensoulment that describes a real process by which a human being acquires the most important aspect of his humanity. The soul has a relationship with the mind, and the point of ensoulment is indeed influenced by biology. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a significant flaw in the preceding paragraph, involving the phrase "human being". Have you ever wondered why that phrase is so common, but you never hear equivalent phrases about other organisms, such as "dog being" or "worm being" or "tree being" --or even "fetus being"?  The way that such phrases are used/not-used strongly indicates that a "human being" is the full, complete-with-high-intelligence-and-free-will-(or-soul), organism --and Literature is consistent in this regard; the phrase "alien beings", for non-human extraterrestrial intelligences, is quite common in science fiction).  Note that if Religious Doctrine can claim that the choices made by a soul can be Judged, then it logically follows that the soul is the source of free will in humans, and it also logically follows that any human that lacks a soul cannot be called a "human being"; it can only be called a "human animal" or "human organism", just like any other animal that is not considered to have free will.  Therefore, you cannot say such a thing as "process by which a human being acquires"; you should say "process by which a human organism acquires" --because only after acquiring that thing can a human organism qualify as a "human being"!  By the way, I note that you previously wrote something about flaws in the argument that ensoulment occurs at conception; you might be interested in a Discovery Health Channel documentary called "I am my own twin", which is about how two completely different human blastocysts can merge to become just one human organism (and of course would (eventually) have just one soul).  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtZgxsAkA3s  V (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new page
I have found myself repeatedly adding the same material to several different pages in the abortion project, usually under the history subsections of these pages. At the suggestion of RexxS, I have decided to start a new wikipage, History of Abortion Law (tentative title). This would allow a reduction of the currently unwieldy size of some of the already existing pages, as we can then reduce the history subsections to a smaller summarization, with a link to the new page. The rough draft is residing here: User:Ermadog/Abortion history.

As this is only a rough draft, I do not want any direct editing of this page at this time. Instead, please add contributions to the discussion page. Please look over the following material. most of which will be incorporated into the new page, before suggesting additional material:


 * Abortion debate - some "rights talk" is relevant to the "history of abortion law debate"
 * Beginning of human personhood also Overview and Fetal Personhood in Law
 * Born alive rule
 * History of abortion also, some points in the social history section.
 * Abortion Law

Any discussion of the direction of this project should be made on my talk page, under the category "Your addition to Abortion"

Anyone finding better quality references or citations is welcome to post them to the discussion page. I'll find a way to incorporate them, even if I have to relegate them to a Notes section. In particular, I am looking for material on abortion law and relevant philosophy from the ancient East, as well as from the Persian Vedas. Corrections to my brief discussion of Hinduism and Buddhism are welcome. Particularly, where exactly in the Vedas can the doctrine of reincarnation be found? I have heard it is of fairly late vintage.

Anyone finding history subsections in any other abortion page not listed here, please post links to my discussion page. Ermadog (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect to have a good first draft available in a few days. Until then, I keep a current copy of the current page on my hard drive. Any editing at all at this stage will be treated as vandalism. I will delete the whole page and replace it with my copy. Once I publish it to Wikipedia, of course, the standard rules of editing apply.Ermadog (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias
The subsections all contain the arguments for that moment only, not the counterargument. All except for "Fertilization". This results in an article unfairly slanted against the notion that personhood begins at fertilization. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have likewise indeed found that there is tremendous anti-abortion and Judeo-Christian bias in this article, with an unexceptable paucity of other major cultures: For example, Confucian docrine states that life begins at birth but I am quite certain that the article does not mention this. Or for that matter, the infanticide, and likewise necessarily radically different definition of personhood, practiced by many hunter-gather cultures.

自教育 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Objective definitions of the term "person" do not exist.
If you look at standard definitions of the term "human being", you will usually see as a first instance "Homo Sapien". However, that merely exchanges one label for another. Furthermore, it is a term of classification. For something to be classified, it must first be identified. If we look at the standard definition of the term Homo Sapien, we have human, human being, living soul, modern human, etc. This is circular reasoning.

We must look beyond the first instance to find meaning. Here, we inevitably run into concepts such as rationality, sentience, etc. which the fetus clearly does not possess. And person.

In law, the term "person" is usually included in law dictionaries for the purpose of distinguishing between "natural persons" (human beings) and corporate persons. Person is usually defined as "an individual given rights in law". This doesn't help us in determining whether a fetus *should* be considered a person. They don't currently have rights. Notably, in the US, the 14th Amendment specifies that the provisions of the Constitution apply only to "persons born or naturalized" in the US.

Biology has a lot to say about the physiology of reason. None of it favours the "pro life" position.

This is just a heads up to let you know that I have taken an interest in this page, and will be editing. You can get an idea of where I'm going with this by looking at my most recent edits on the Born alive rule page, Sept. 30. Ermadog (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Regardless of personal opinions, we need a definition. And plenty do exist from reputable sources.

自教育 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Human personhood
Human person, as living organism, has a beginning at the point '0' in time when father's sperm and mother's egg unite. At this moment human body is fully defined by the memory of DNA but it exists in the immaterial space time. From this moment on, the body and soul of human person transform within the interval (0<1), of existence in which '0' is the moment of conception and '1' is death. Body of the person is created in the material space time under the direction of the immaterial body. When the two bodies are identical there is no difference and no motivation so that dynamism ceases and the baby is borne. The soul remains static in the immaterial space time changing its memory in line with the transformation directed by the memory within DNA. There is no perfect beginning of a human being because at conception '0' there is transformation of 'something' from the time before the beginning to 'now' in ‘0’. That 'something' consists of two living organisms which have material bodies and non dynamic immaterial souls. Unification of the egg and sperm causes interaction which releases electromagnetic motivation with the result that transformation from '0' to '1' begins. The person becomes dynamic as body and soul. It is only after birth that the static soul becomes dynamic within the memory of the transformation of the body through the interval (0<1) of existence in the material space time. KK  (86.173.163.167 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC))


 * This is an article about human personhood, not human life. No one, to the best of my knowledge, really denies that human life begins at or before fertilization but personhood is not agreed upon, according to Wikipedia's own article. Let's work together.

自教育 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We need a Definition of Personhood
While I am aware of the fact that personhood lacks an agreed upon definition, I think it should be clear that for this talk page to be constructive for the article, we must have some agreed upon definition of what a "person" is. I first think that we must throw out conception as the beginning of personhood, as that is the beginning of a genetically complete human life and thus equating personhood with life would not really solve any problems and serve to make this article redundant as Wikipedia already has this article. Furthermore, personhood is generally agreed to be something other than life. And because personhood is traditionally seen in most major philosophies and religions as something special to humans or otherwise oddly fitting to them, as in Voudon, Christianity, Confucianism, [by definition] Humanism, Marxism, &c. (and perhaps other life forms but to greater or lesser degrees, as in Hinduism or Buddhism), I suggest that we adopt a definition that centers on the traits unique to humankind (or that humankind shares only with a very few other animals, such as the fact that we have death rituals along with only elephants and Neandrathals).

Please here me out about defining personhood, because if we cannot agree on what we are building this (and other) articles around then we cannot reach agreements on many crucial parts of this article, if not the article in its entireity.

自教育 (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

After birth
I am missing some reference to Developmental_milestones, as when to become an intelligent being.81.47.131.204 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)CC

The Beginning of Legal Personhood
I would like to suggest an addition to the Beginning of Human Person Article to indicate the current legal 'beginning of human personhood' in the United States.

The Wikipedia article on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act says; "The (UVVA) legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

The text of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act contains the following; "(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means 'a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development', who is carried in the womb."

By making it a crime of murder for a child at any age or stage of development to be illegally killed, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act establishes the beginning of legal personhood for all human beings in the jurisdiction of the United States at conception. The point at which human development begins. Chuz Life (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * With there being no objections, I went forward and added the Unborn Victims of Violence Act cites and references to the "Legal Perspectives / United States" section. L.L. Brown (aka Chuz Life) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuz Life (talk • contribs)


 * I added the following to this same section: Comments and edits to improve the addition are welcome.


 * To the extent that personhood is a legal construct, "Personhood" in the legal sense is easier to define than it is from a broader philosophical perspective. From a strict legal standpoint, a 'person' is basically what the law says it is. Corporate Personhood is an example of this; legal fiction.


 * Humanitarian concerns to such legal constructs are expressed by the authors of this legal study:


 * Minor edits made to improve flow of information.L.L. Brown (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion is a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The conclusion I'm talking about is your statement:


 * You are not quoting any legal experts on this matter. You are shooting from the hip. Even if one or two observers says that the UVVA is a step toward legal personhood being established, other observers disagree. That's where the debate stands at this point—an impasse. You cannot erase the arguments you don't agree with and draw your own conclusions to say in Wikipedia's voice that the UVVA establishes conception as personhood. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Binksternet, Users are encouraged by Wikipedia to submit bold but not reckless statements in the articles. So, It is not a violation of the rules to make bold statements that are NOT reckless. I think we can both agree on that. Can't we? Now then, let's examine the facts about my edit and the UVVA and then my edit about it.


 * 1. Does the Unborn Victims of Violence act define a human fetus as a "child in the womb at ANY stage of development?" Yes or no? The answer is Yes. (section d)


 * 2. Does the Unborn Victims of Violence act make it a crime of MURDER to deliberately (and illegally) kill a human fetus / "child in the womb during ANY stage of development?" Yes or no? Again, the answer is Yes. (section A,c)


 * 3. MURDER in the context that it is being used in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is the act of one person killing another person in a criminal act. True or False? The answer is True.


 * Now, after thinking about what the facts actually are Binksternet, please tell me HOW my (admittedly bold) addition to the article is an actual violation of the rules. Especially given the fact that Pro-Choice leaders themselves have drawn the same conclusion that I have.


 * L.L. Brown (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Undent) Here is another reference for your consideration of the above:L.L. Brown (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be more helpful to find a legal precedent that establishes UVVA being cited for personhood beginning at conception. Until someone takes it there in court, it remains an unrealized potential, which is what Planned Parenthood was complaining about. PP does not like the wording because it could be interpreted in a way they would not agree with, but no judge has yet interpreted it that way. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the UVVA does not define a legal status for all fetuses, just the ones that have been victims of specified violent crimes. Unharmed fetusus are not defined, nor are fetuses that have been aborted. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it will be more helpful to have the UVVA cited for personhood beginning at conception. However, I disagree with your claim that it is an unrealized potential, when the definition of murder is one "person" illegally killing another "person" and while we have people serving time in prison - convicted under the UVVA definitions. Convictions that (as I cited earlier) have been unsuccessful in their appeals to challenge the law because they believe it violates Roe. So, it's not only what the judges say.... it's also what they let stand and how that makes a statement too. To your other point, it's not that the UVVA does not define (or recognize) children who are aborted or unharmed. It defines them as children too. That's why the UVVA has to make an exception to itself - to (for now) allow for abortions to remain legal.L.L. Brown (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting conclusion, and you are welcome to believe it. Keep it out of Wikipedia, though, unless you can find a reliable source discussing it. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you consider the National Organization of Women to be a reliable source, Binksternet?L.L. Brown (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The context of that article is that it is a warning against deceptive legislation. Don't misrepresent the source. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Would this one be an acceptable reference, Binksternet? LINK: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1257&context=crsjL.L. Brown (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a fine source, with the proper degree of skepticism about the proponents of the bill, and the correct amount of wariness regarding the law's ramifications. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you agree it's a good source. However, you have not agreed that the UVVA establishes the personhod of 'children in the womb' (in the U.S.) And you haven't indicated whether you would continue to oppose the addition of that information to the article. Do we have a consensus here or not?L.L. Brown (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You've answered your own question. Binksternet (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but "you have not agreed that the UVVA establishes the personhod of 'children in the womb' (in the U.S.) And you haven't indicated whether you would continue to oppose the addition of that information to the article." Telling me that the source is a good one in your view does not tell me that we have a consensus. I digress. I'm in no hurry to re-add the information to this or to any other abortion related article. This experience has raised questions about whether or not Wikipedia is a reliable source for information and about whether or not it ever will be - especially on this subject.L.L. Brown (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Section A-2-c, of the Unborn Victims of Violence act says: Therefor, the line in the article that reads; " The law effectively extends personhood status[37] to a "child in utero at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"[38] if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed violent crimes " is misleading. It is misleading, because the line does not take into account - the fact that a person can be charged for attempted crimes against the 'child.' Does anyone have any problems with that being corrected? Binksternet? L.L. Brown (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Beginning of human personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071119055725/http://www.ppacca.org:80/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571 to http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Buddhism describe clearly and analytical manner life begin at conception.
Buddhism describe clearly and analytical manner life begin at conception. Some one please add this content to the religious section.

All these are according to the pure Buddhism (Theravada) or Pāli Canon (Tipitaka).

These things described in Abhidhamma in Pāli Canon. Conception is a complex thing and going to the level beyond an atom. Three condition must be fulfilled 1)Mother and father should together 2)Mother should be in correct time 3)Came of the Gandhabbā(a being[generation of consciousness / Viññāṇaya] fit and ready to be born to the parents concerned. May soul in your word but there is no permanent thing going from life to life, only a changing generation of non-material[Nāma] and material[Rūpa] collections are exist).

Patisandhi(relinking) Chitta(basic unit of the mind, life time may shorter than one trillionth part of a second) is the type of consciousness one experiences at the moment of conception is termed Patisandhi Citta(relinking consciousness). It is so called because it links the past with the present. This Patisandhi Citta is conditioned by the powerful thought(the Karma related to it become the Janaka Karma which create the new life) one experiences at the dying moment, and is regarded as the source of the present life stream. In the course of one particular life there is only one Patisandhi Citta. The mental contents of Bhavaïga Citta, which later arises an infinite number of times during one’s lifetime, and Cuti Citta, which arises only once at the final moment of death, are identical with those of Patisandhi Citta.

Once sperm and ovum cells connected it is a place where Patisandhi Citta can arise. When Patisandhi Citta of a Gandhabba arise at sperm and ovum cells of the parents, the embryo in the mother’s womb has formed. This is the moment of conception(Okkanti). Life has begun.

At the moment of conception three special type of Rupa Kalapas(Dasaka. Basic unit of matter is called 'Rupa Kalapa', which is made from octad/eight entities. But Dasaka made from ten entities. life time of a 'Rupa Kalapa' is very short) are generated through Karma. Those are decads of sex, body, and the mind-base. The sex decad(Bhava Dasaka) has the essential octad plus the sex element, either male or female, and the life element. The body decad(Kaya Dasaka) is made up of the essential octad plus the element of bodily sensitivity and the life element. The mind-base decad(Vatthu Dasaka) is made up of the essential octad plus the mind-base element and the life element. After the embryo has been formed through these three decads, from about the eleventh week of gestation onwards, the decads of the other four sense organs begin to form. Karma causes and sustains these material phenomena through the whole course of life.

So, Life begin at the conception which occur at near time after mother and father together. And I think very first three Kalapas are smaller than an atom in size( of course smaller than a cell ). This is the starting base of the Astral Body(Sukshama Kaya / Manomaya Kaya). Before the Lord Buddha teach these facts, no one knows how these things happen even higher beings so they thought the soul concept [By Muditha] http://www.abhinawarama.com/abhidamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.164.15 (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Beginning of human personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090406045953/http://8e.devbio.com:80/article.php?id=162 to http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Common Law: Rule Against Perpetuities
I added some material regarding the Common Law treatment of a foetus with regards to the Rule against perpetuities in the Common Law section. I was surprised to learn recently that the Common Law was so clear about a child en ventre sa mere being regarded as born or "in being", and that this had not previously been published in the ordinary literature (such as this article) on personhood. I would be glad to expand the list of references if necessary, including references of authors who explicitly relate this principle from the Rule against perpetuities to the right of a foetus not to be killed in the course of an abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beginning of human personhood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120710101105/http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters to http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129195414/http://www.nrlc.org//abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm to http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/partial_birth_abortion_Ban_act_final_language.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade's Inconsistent Use of Scientific Evidence
It should be noted that the US Supreme Court blatantly waffled on the notion of using scientific, medical evidence in the course of rendering the Roe decision. The Court openly considered scientific evidence on the ways that women suffer during pregnancy and childbirth. But then it declined to embrace with the same fervor and zeal the scientific evidence as to the beginning of human life at fertilization. So the Court used science to support the pro-abortion side, but then refused to abide by biological and medical science when it stood to support the anti-abortion side. And as this wiki shows, there was nearly universal scientific, medical consensus as to the objective beginning of a new human life before the Roe decision. The Court had full access to this prevailing scientific position on the issue, but it obfuscated the matter by alleging confusion when science was brought alongside philosophy and theology. It did no such thing when science stood to help the pro-Choice, pro-abortion side. This reveals a significant flaw in the decision, because in so doing the Court lowered its facade of objectivity and fairness in its dealings with both sides of the controversy, and exposed its political activist bias. Thus, Roe v. Wade is bad jurisprudence, and bad law, and dubious as an authority in the abortion debate.

--TB, 73.115.10.99 (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place to overturn, and debate, court decisions. ____Ebelular (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the best available scientific data is an indication of "political activist bias"? As far I am aware, the court decided that abortion is part of the "Right to privacy", previously established in the United States Constitution. "the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician". See: Roe v. Wade. Dimadick (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Bias edits.
User: 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:567F:93EC removed my edits that were cleaning up some inconsistency within the article.

I made four edit and would like clarification on where this purported bias is (edits are in "'...'" 1. However, gametes are not commonly considered to have personhood, perhaps because most of them are never involved in fertilization and "'they are haploid cells containing 23 chromosomes.'" 2. That a human individual's existence begins at "'fertilization'" is the accepted position of the 3. Several groups believe that abortion before viability is acceptable, but is unacceptable after." "'is the perspective of Planned Parenthood a major abortion provider'" 4. "'A contrary opinion would posit that the fetus, containing a unique set of 46 chromosomes (a diploid human cell), is thereby endowed with the rights granted to a person and cannot be killed maliciously.'"

Edits 1 and 2 are clearly just clarification as it is a fact that both sperm and eggs are haploid cells (containing half the 46 chromosomes of a somatic cell)and the correct term of fertilization rather than conception as that term is more accurate (scientifically) and was used throughout the rest of the paragraph.

Edit 3 was stating the source as Planned Parent which is relevant as they provide abortion. Just with any other source there is generally a pre- or post-amble that would explain who the source is, if you wish to change to an abortion provider rather than major abortion provider I am fine with that. It is simply inaccurate, however, to describe them as a neutral party.

Similar to "Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft goes so far as to say:[28]

Well, every biology textbook in the world, before Roe v. Wade, was not in doubt in answering the question, "When does an individual life of any mammalian species begin?" The answer is, "When the genetic code is complete." When instead of the haploid ovum and the haploid sperm, you get the diploid embryo. And at that point, something happens that is totally different, because the thing that's there seems totally different."

It is a quote therefore a person or an organization should be stating said quote. Otherwise it makes it appear that it is Wikipedia's opinion which is embarrassingly miss-accurate.

Citation for abortion provided by Planned Parenthood

Edit 4 This is a counterbalance sentence to the previous opinion (by planned parenthood) on viability as a starting point for human personhood. As with other sections there are contrary positions (as their should be) and this section should be no exception, if you would prefer a quote from a "famous person" that can be provided but it is not bias to understand the counter perspective.

Example of counter arguement in fertlization section: One objection raised to the fertilization view is that not all of the objects created by the union of a sperm and an egg are human beings. Objects such as hydatidiform moles, choriocarcinomas, and blighted ovums are clearly not. Neither will every normal zygote develop into an adult. There are many fertilized eggs that never implant and are "simply washed away" after conception,[29] though this can be answered by the fact that not every child becomes an adult; organisms die at various developmental stages. Therefore, within the fertilization view, these objects may be recognized as malformations of the fertilized sperm and egg. The indication of these objects itself seems to evidence the fact that they are aberrations from nature, rather than the norm."

Please let me know where my bias is so we can constructively clean up this page. Rather than just reverting on the sly. 135.23.244.37 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

A simple question: did you add citations for your additions? All material has to be supported by reliable sources. See Citing sources. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

1-2 edits were clarifications and should not need sources (they were sourced earlier in the same paragraph) Edit 3 was addition from the same source (this was said by planned parenthood) I can get a source for the last one if that is the problem but the first 3 should not require new sources 135.23.244.37 (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This should be characterized as opinion as it omits the forcible extraction that occurs during an abortion. Abortion is forcible induction or extraction while miscarriage are accidental. There needs to be very precise language and this paragraph paints abortion as a miscarriage and is inherently slanted towards pro-choice. I am not saying that is a problem I am just stating it should have both country arguments and demonstrate where the information is coming from.

Reference for the viablity point is reference 28 It is already used in fertilization heading

Again I am not trying to inject any of my own personal opinion I am attempting to clean up article. "When the genetic code is complete." When instead of the haploid ovum and the haploid sperm, you get the diploid embryo. And at that point, something happens that is totally different" 135.23.244.37 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User: Ebelular you have removed an edit seemingly without consulting the talk page, please clarify where you believe NPOV would is in my edit rather as this edit contained two edits, One stating the fact that this was planned parenthood opinion (as it was sourced start from planned parenthood a major abortion provider (thereby a non neutral party). And my second edit was sourced as counter point, as is present in all other sections.  Please utilize talk before hasty changes and please provide sources if you are suggesting changes (preferably non bias sources). 135.23.244.37 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I added 2 citations to the statement, in the opinion of Planned Parenthood, a major abortion provider. since they provide (based on latest available statistics) 49.64% of abortions in 2014 for USA. 652,639 total from CDC and 323,999 from Planned Parenthood in 2014 from CNN, released by planned parenthood.135.23.244.37 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Human baby at 17 weeks.jpg

"Recognized as..." vs. "is/gains/becomes a person" in Lede
Thanks for the revert and the chance to discuss, user:Gandydancer. My modification to the lede was reverted here — it was definitely a BOLD edit, so I understand the revert. However, I think my version is better, clearer, and more accurate.

The difference between the versions concerns whether the beginning of human personhood is when a human organism is RECOGNIZED as a person or when a human organism IS a person. A hallmark of bad writing on philosophical and philosophy-related topics is students talking about things being "recognized as X," "considered X," "seen as X," rather than things just being "X." In this case, X=a person/having personhood. The article concerns the beginning of human personhood, the actual, real, factual, truthful beginning of human personhood. The article doesn't concern when a human organism is seen as, recognized as, believed to be, considered, etc. a person or to have personhood. That is, we're describing metaphysical/moral/psychological/perhaps religious facts about the human organism, not perceptual or mental facts about observers who might recognize, see, consider, believe something about the human organism. Whether anyone recognizes something as a human person is a distinct issue from whether that thing is actually a human person—something, P, can be a human person even if no one recognizes P as a human person, and P can fail to be a human person even if everyone recognizes/sees/considers/believes P to be a human person. Recognition of P as a human person is neither necessary nor sufficient for P being a human person.

As an analogy, a tree isn't a tree because anyone recognizes its tree-hood—trees are trees no matter what anyone thinks or doesn't think about whether something is a tree. Thoughts? Thanksforhelping (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article reads:
 * The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human is first recognized as a person.


 * You changed it to:
 * The beginning of human personhood is the moment when a human becomes person, i.e., gains the property of personhood.


 * "Recognized as a person" is the better terminology because if I for example believe that the fetus gains personhood at a certain stage, lets say at quickening, and you believe that it gains personhood at a different stage, lets say at the moment of fertilization even before it enters the uterus, it all depends on my or your recognition. If we narrow it down to "a moment" we rule out all but the moment of fertilization. Furthermore, "gains the property of" does not help in understanding but rather is rather poorly worded, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The fetal viability section is all messed up.
The opening statement in the section on "fetal viability" is all messed up. The quote comes from a 2013 blog post from "Asia Safe Abortion Partnership," and has nothing to do with the US group Planned Parenthood. See: https://asap-asia.org/blog/word-of-the-month-personhood/

Nor do any of the three references cited give any indication that this is a statement by or representative of Planned Parenthood.

All of this needs to be corrected.

John 2600:1700:B8E0:CEF0:E1B6:92B8:9BAD:2293 (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)