The Problem with Personhood

"Personhood" is not an uncommonly heard word when engaged in discussion about abortion rights.  I am not exactly certain what this phrase means, and I do not believe the people who use it know what it means either, as debates involving this word typically sound like a quarrel between Webster and Wikipedia.  One thing only is certain--that whatever the word may actually be defined as, it is used for only one purpose: to determine who matters and who does not.  

I once pointed out that abortion is a conflict between two human individuals with rights that are at odds, hoping that a discussion would ensue revolving around which right supersedes the other (as it goes in any other situation, like self-defense, war, child-support, etc.).  I received, however, not a discussion on rights, but a denial of the situation itself.  

"The fetus can't have rights."

"Why not?"

"Because it isn't a person."

One of the human individuals in the situation didn't matter enough to affect any decision made--and it did not matter because it was not a person.

I never mentioned the word person, so I inquired of him what a person is, and received this response:

"A person is a human who is sentient and conscious, can feel and think."

According to this abortion-on-demand advocate (and many others of his position) it is not enough to be a human individual.  To have rights, to be considered a relevant party in a life or death situation, one must have some additional characteristic.

 

I call this the "Human Individual Plus" mentality.

I refuse to discuss the particulars of this additional characteristic.  What characteristic is needed, exactly, will change slightly from debater to debater.  Some will say consciousness, others the ability to feel pain, others free will, and still others skin color.  I myself rebel against the insinuation that ANY additional characteristic is necessary for a human individual to matter, to have basic human rights.  

Abortion advocates and others would have us believe that while every "person" is a human individual, not every human individual is a person--and only persons can have rights.  In effect, they say some human individuals do not have basic human rights.   I assert that all one need be to have human rights, is a human individual.  I maintain that if one need use the word "person" at all, he can only mean by it "human individual".  Any other definition of this term is arbitrary and relative, for two reasons.

The first is that the addition of a characteristic to the life line of a fetus...that point of personhood at which we say "You have basic human rights now; congratulations, you matter!"...breaks a fluid process.  From the moment of fertilization to death, the conceptus-zygote-embryo-fetus-infant-adolescent-adult is the same single entity.  It is a human (as opposed to a canine) organism.  And because it is an organism, it is individual.  It not only has its own unique DNA, but grows toward its own end, on its own genetic pattern, unique to its own compilation of cells; its eight life signs are separate from any other organism.  Some have claimed that because it appears to be a parasitic life it is thus not an individual life, but no one has ever argued that a parasite is part of its host and not an individual organism.  Thus, it is a scientific, biological fact that the unborn is a human individual; and to choose a single point in this line for the human individual to suddenly be more than a human individual is arbitrary unless that point is relevantly significant.

Yet I have yet to hear a Point of Significance that is truly relevant.  Most commonly, this Point is named as consciousness.  "One must be conscious to have rights!" I hear all the time.  But this begs the question: what does consciousness have to do with rights?  Really?  And the same may be asked of any other stated Point of Significance.  Why is this additional characteristic relevant?  I have never found a satisfactory answer, and I therefore maintain that *if one can exercise the right without having this additional characteristic, one does not need this characteristic to have the right.* 

To maintain otherwise would be sort of like arguing that one must own a television to have Netflix.  While Netflix and television, admittedly, often are found together, in practical reality, television has nothing to do with Netflix.  It certainly is not a necessary part of owning an account and watching Sherlock.  If one need not be conscious, feel pain, be viable, or have free will to live, then one need not have it to claim living as a right.  If one need not have a television to watch Netflix, then one need not have a television to watch Netflix.  The two are superficially, but certainly not really or relevantly, connected.  Naming a Point of Significance for "rights-owning" that has nothing to do with exercising rights, is arbitrary. 

 Choosing any moment when a human individual begins to matter is relative.  These Points are chosen with little regard for the actuality and substance of the human individual in question, but instead are influenced by the mentality and situation of the one doing the choosing.  To say that one doesn't matter, is always to say that the speaker doesn't care.  

As long as Personhood asks "when does a human individual begin to matter?" and not "when does a human individual begin?" it will be an arbitrary and relative discussion, a poor base for opinions that determine the life or death of a human individual, and no base for politics.  The only way to avoid this flimsy foundation is to say that all human individuals, nothing more and nothing less, possess basic human rights.  

The Problem with Personhood is that it is meant to exclude those who would otherwise be considered persons.  

 

Teach the Lesson You Want Learned

When I heard about the shooting in Connecticut, and about the shooter, I thought, “That young man is a genius, and he learned well.”

For the past year, we have screamed, “Birth control! Birth control!” as though preventing the existence of children is the single most important concern of our lives. Oh, the assertion that contraceptives must be had or else women will be completely and utterly useless has been around for quite some time—about eighty years now. However, people have been particularly vocal about it recently. It does not matter why the discussion began anew or who began it. The assertion is clearly there, and it always has been: that preventing the existence of children is a wonderful thing and we are proud to be able to do it.

For the past fifty years, we have been saying that if we fail to prevent the existence of new human life, we should kill it; with certain restrictions, of course—the main one being that we can only do it if we have no sense of emotional attachment to aforementioned human life. We go so far as to call an unborn child a child when we want it and a “blob of tissue” when we don’t.

And if these new human individuals, these blobs of cells, happen to defy this attempt to make certain they are never born, we give them comfort rooms. We are proud of the fact that we helped them die among blankets and flowers, and conveniently ignore the fact that we did nothing to help them live. Some say that this doesn’t happen and no one wants that. Yet I have had long discussions with more than one individual who said that we should not put forth any effort to save infants who have survived abortions, even if they are viable. “Imagine the emotional trauma that would put a woman through, knowing that she wanted an abortion and it failed and the child is out there living in the world!” one woman said. Another man stated that it would be “too expensive” to try to save the infants “no one wants anyway”.

We told this mother that she should have killed her son before he was born, simply because he was born blind. We tell something similar to mothers whose children have Down Syndrome, and boast of the fact that about 80-95% of human individuals with Down Syndrome never see the light of day. I guess caring for them would be “too expensive”.

When we saw that two disabled adults had been in homes since they were ten, when we heard their mother say that they had no joy, we did not have the bright idea of trying to bring them some joy. Instead, 90% of us cried, “Yes! Kill them!” Many of us are advocating that we make it happen, legally and frequently. Why keep a human individual alive through “extraordinary measures” when it is cheaper to let them starve? Why put forth effort to bring them joy when we can prevent their suffering by killing them?

We are good at finding reasons not to want human individuals. We are equally good at doing mental gymnastics to prove that these reasons justify getting rid of these human individuals, or that they make it impossible for such human individuals to, in fact, be human individuals.

For a good half-century and longer, we have done just about everything in our power to prove—in word and deed—that we do not value the lives of human individuals…unless we happen to want them. And then we have the audacity to act surprised and horrified when one of our children comes along and actually puts that philosophy into practice.

That young man was a genius, and he learned well. He learned the lesson that we as a society have been preaching for so very long, and we are hypocrites if we condemn him for it. We are hypocrites and idiots if we tell a young man with a disorder that inhibits him from connecting to other human beings that it is wrong to kill them, and then turn around and argue we can kill other human beings because it is impossible to establish a connection with them*.

From Here

People are looking at the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook, and asking, “How could this happen? Why did this happen?” Some assert that it is the fault of guns. Others postulate that it happened because of violent video games. Still others accuse mental illness. I say that it is our fault. Your fault. My fault.

We did it.

It happened because we teach our children that the lives of human individuals do not matter and have no value, and we have proven via our actions that we stand by this belief.

It happened because we made it happen. Because we taught that it should.

And the only way to prevent it from happening again, is to change. Change the way we think about our fellow human beings. Begin valuing lives; not just the ones we naturally are inclined to want, but every human life. Every single one. Everywhere.

That young man was a genius, and he learned well. We have a great power to teach. Now, let’s change the lesson.

*I am NOT saying that those with Asberger's are naturally violent, or that it was autism that caused the shooter to do what he did. I am merely pointing out that he validly had the same excuse we use to defend ourselves: lack of empathy with those human individuals we want to kill.

The Angelic Warfare Confraternity

Last year at Ignite Your Torch, I joined the Angelic Warfare Confraternity.
The Angelic Warfare Confraternity is a group of people-both religious and lay-who are spiritually united in prayer. Their goal is purity, for themselves and their fellow pray-ers. Following the example and asking the intercession of Saint Thomas Aquinas, each day the Confraternity members pray 15 Hail Marys and two chastity prayers:

Prayer of Saint Thomas for Purity:
Dear Jesus, I know that every perfect gift and especially that of chastity depends on the power of Your Providence. Without You, a mere creature can do nothing. Therefore, I beg You to defend by Your grace the chastity and purity of my body and soul. And if I have ever imagined or felt anything that can stain my chastity and purity, blot it out, Supreme Lord of my powers, that I may advance with a pure heart in Your love and service, offering myself in the most pure altar of Your divinity all the days of my life. Amen.

Prayer to Saint Thomas for Purity:
Chosen lily of innocence, pure Saint Thomas, who kept chaste the robe of Baptism, and became an angel in the flesh after being girded by two angels, I implore you to commend me to Jesus, the spotless Lamb, and to Mary, Queen of Virgins. Gentle protector of my purity, ask them that I who wear the holy sign of your victory over the flesh may also share your purity and that after knitting you on earth, I may at last come to be crowned with you among the angels.

They also wear either the medal of the Confraternity, or the cord (a slender belt with 15 knots: one for each mystery of the rosary. This hasn't changed, apparently, since the addition of the Luminous Mysteries, but it works just as well), at all times. I typically wear the medal on my Scapular. On special occasions, I sometimes wear the cord, because it fits underneath my clothes. Both must be blessed (I received mine upon initiation). Members' names are enrolled in the official register. Plenary Indulgences (under the usual conditions, of course) are available to members on the day of their enrollment and on Easter, Christmas, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas, and All Saints Day. Partial Indulgences are available to them for wearing the medal or cord, and for saying the Prayer of St. Thomas.
The Confraternity is attached to the Dominican Order, and it was by a Dominican that I was brought into it... along with about sixty teenagers and adults. I am not the sort to join anything and everything. I don't say, "Oh, cool, a Confraternity! Quick, where do I sign?!"
But I have to admit, joining that day was quite an experience. It was a solemn reception into the Confraternity. It began with all of us kneeling and singing "Come Holy Ghost". Afterward, we continued to kneel, and responded to the questions asked us. It went something like this:

Director: Are you determined to observe faithfully the obligations of the Angelic Warfare Confraternity?

Us: Yes, Father, with God's help.

Director: Do you promise to guard holy purity, to seek the Truth, to honor Our Lady of the Rosary, and to take Saint Thomas Aquinas as your patron?

Us: Yes, Father, with God's help.

Our medals and cords were blessed, and we promised to say the Purity Prayers and the Hail Marys every day. It was solemn, so naturally everyone was solemn, and as we all stood together and promised to say the same prayers every day for the rest of our lives there was a great feeling of unity. We were all united in our Faith and in our personal goals, and in our concern for others. It forcibly reminded my of the Communion of Saints in the Church, and that impression remains with me. It probably always will. I'd recommend joining to anyone. If you wish to join, or just want more information, visit

www.angelicwarfare.org

I'll be praying for you... and with you...

Sincerely,
~Sydney-Angelle