cmotherofpirl Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Emerging Elitist Theory Threatens to Redefine Personhood By Mary Rettig December 8, 2005 (AgapePress) - A senior fellow at the Discovery Institute says the changing definition of personhood in contemporary society will have a profound effect on everything from abortion and euthanasia to assisted reproductive technology and embryonic stem-cell research. The Discovery Institute's Wesley Smith maintains that the United States of America was founded on the premise of the great value of human life and that all human life, regardless of mental or physical capacity, is important. But increasingly, he says, opinions on this subject are changing, especially in bioethics and some higher education circles, and an idea known as the "personhood theory" is taking hold. Under this theory, Smith explains, "being human is irrelevant to moral worth. What matters is whether you have sufficient cognitive capacity to be deemed worthy of things such as life and bodily integrity; and if you do, for example, by being self aware over time, you are called a person." So, while the words "person" and "human" were at one time considered synonyms, he observes, "increasingly in the universities and among the elite, that is no longer true." Putting criteria on what it means to be a person devalues all life by putting a quantitative value on it, the Discovery Institute fellow contends. Also, he believes once such definitions are established, they would likely change with whoever is in power at any given time, putting the weak and the marginalized in society in a perpetually vulnerable state. "I think defeating personhood theory in the marketplace of ideas may be the most urgent matter facing this society," Smith adds, "because if being a human being is not what gives moral value, but instead we decide it is personhood theory or some other measurement, then value rights depend on who has the power to decide." That would turn the value of a person into a matter of politics, Smith says. And whenever that happens, he observes, the value of all life gets demoted and the weak and voiceless in society are left particularly at risk. from Agape Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Nice to know that your 'personhood' could be lost in one tragic moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 We're already seeing the effects of this view of the person. I've read several articles recently illustrating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Dec 9 2005, 08:23 AM'] Nice to know that your 'personhood' could be lost in one tragic moment... [right][snapback]818066[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This was not to say that the whole thing isn't abhorant, btw... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 We must maintian the highest level of respect and love for all forms of human life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quote name='Timothy' date='Dec 9 2005, 10:48 AM']We must maintian the highest level of respect and love for all forms of human life [right][snapback]818083[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Agreed. And we must continue to acknowledge the inherent, God-given dignity of the human person. We don't measure a person's worth in economic terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 The trouble is that we usually define person now as a center of consciousness. This is a new developement that shuns what the word has ment since Plato. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 This comes from the ethical arguements of who/what should have moral standing. It's very relativistic. We talked about it a lot in my environmental ethics classes in college. It brings up questions like - Should all sentient beings have moral standing? Should all concious being have moral standing? Should all useful being have moral standing? Useful to who? It blurs the lines between humans and non-humans, elevating some animals to be deserving of more rights than some humans. Of course, it's all a matter of opinion though, there is no right answer. Besides, it's not who you are it's what you do that matters. </sarcasm> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quote name='Theoketos' date='Dec 9 2005, 09:52 AM']The trouble is that we usually define person now as a center of consciousness. This is a new developement that shuns what the word has ment since Plato. [right][snapback]818090[/snapback][/right] [/quote] you want to explain this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:37 PM']you want to explain this? [right][snapback]818316[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In a nutshell - "I think, therefore I am" - Rene Descartes If you're not thinking then you're not a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 9, 2005 Author Share Posted December 9, 2005 what did Plato say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Plato said the soul is the center of our personhood, and that it is immortal. (i'm sure theoketos can give a more complete explanation though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Maybe someday they'll define "personhood" based on some sort of compulsory IQ test (or better yet, a somewhat accurate genetic test that can be performed in utero). If you're too dumb, you're impersonal. Then dumb people could become a class of subhumans. Maybe they could be used for live scientific experimentation, sexual slavery, etc.. This would definitely appeal to the eugenic ideology of Margaret Sanger. At the very least they could be subject to compulsory sterilization. Maybe it would be good for PETA because we wouldn't need lab animals anymore. But chances are, by that time most of the "dumb" people will be detected in the womb and turned into lipstick and vaccines for those "worthy" of life. I'm starting to feel sick... uuugh.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 This philosophy is most consistantly and articulately formulated by the infamous "Dr. Death," Dr. Peter Singer, currently head of Bioethics at Princeton. Dr. Singer supports both abortion and infanticide, as well as euthanasia and the killing of the severely retarded or handicapped. He argues that there is nothing intrinsically sacred about human life, and that personhood should be granted according to mental ability. (Infants and severely retarded people lack the mental requirements of personhood, according to Singer, but he considers many non-human animals to be persons deserving of the same rights as humans.) An "animal-rights" pioneer, Singer considers "specieism" a crime equivalent to racism, and most recently raised eyebrows by writing an article defending bestiality. (After all, it's just persons of different species.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 10, 2005 Author Share Posted December 10, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 9 2005, 01:27 PM']Maybe someday they'll define "personhood" based on some sort of compulsory IQ test (or better yet, a somewhat accurate genetic test that can be performed in utero). If you're too dumb, you're impersonal. Then dumb people could become a class of subhumans. Maybe they could be used for live scientific experimentation, sexual slavery, etc.. This would definitely appeal to the eugenic ideology of Margaret Sanger. At the very least they could be subject to compulsory sterilization. Maybe it would be good for PETA because we wouldn't need lab animals anymore. But chances are, by that time most of the "dumb" people will be detected in the womb and turned into lipstick and vaccines for those "worthy" of life. I'm starting to feel sick... uuugh.. [right][snapback]818445[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That someday has been here for quite awhie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now