Childbearing, Rightly Conceived

In a recent article Pro-Natalism is Not Enough, Emma Waters critiques several types of pro-natalism. She finds “mere pro-natalism” inadequate because it focuses solely on increasing birth rates without addressing family formation, treating children as economic solutions rather than as gifts.

Technocratic pro-natalism is also criticized for its desire to control child traits via technology, reducing children to customizable products. Both approaches, she argues, fail to address the deeper cultural issues driving the birth decline and overlook the importance of marriage and family stability.

There is much wisdom here.

+++

The Flaws in Defining Personhood: A Critique of Warren’s Five Traits


In the ongoing debate about abortion and personhood, the criteria for defining who counts as a person is crucial.

Mary Anne Warren’s1 Mary Anne Warren was an American philosopher and professor renowned for her work in moral philosophy, particularly in the field of bioethics. She earned her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Harvard University. ‘five traits of personhood’—consciousness, reasoning ability, self-motivated activity, communicative capacity, and self-awareness—provide a framework that some use to argue for the permissibility of abortion. However, Christopher Kaczor,2Christopher Kaczor is an American philosopher and professor specializing in ethics, philosophy of religion, and bioethics. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and has held academic positions at various institutions, including Loyola Marymount University. in his book The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice,” offers a compelling critique of this framework, exposing its significant moral and logical flaws.

1. Consciousness and Self-Awareness: Not All or Nothing

Warren’s first two traits, consciousness and self-awareness, suggest that only beings who are aware of their existence and can perceive their environment are persons. Kaczor points out that many human adults, such as those in a comatose state or suffering from severe cognitive impairments, would fail to meet this criterion. These individuals lack self-awareness and, at times, even basic consciousness. If we accept Warren’s criteria, we would be forced to conclude that these individuals are not persons, which is a morally untenable position.

2. Reasoning Ability: Excluding the Vulnerable

The requirement of reasoning ability further complicates the definition of personhood. Many adults with severe intellectual disabilities or those experiencing advanced dementia cannot engage in complex reasoning. According to Warren’s criteria, these individuals would also be excluded from personhood. Kaczor argues that this exclusion is ethically problematic as it devalues the lives of individuals based on their cognitive abilities, rather than their inherent human dignity.

3. Self-Motivated Activity and Communicative Capacity: Unrealistic Benchmarks

Self-motivated activity and communicative capacity are traits that not all humans possess at all times. For instance, infants, who are undeniably human, do not yet exhibit significant self-motivated activity or sophisticated communicative capacity. Similarly, individuals with severe neurological conditions may lose these capacities. Kaczor highlights that defining personhood based on these traits is flawed as it fails to account for the inherent value of these individuals’ lives.

4. The Arbitrary Nature of Birth as a Marker

Warren and others often argue that birth marks the beginning of personhood because it is the point at which a fetus gains independence from the mother. Kaczor critiques this view by noting that the transition from the womb to the outside world does not suddenly endow a fetus with new capacities that confer personhood. The developmental changes that occur at birth are gradual, not instantaneous, making birth an arbitrary and insufficient marker for personhood.

5. The Dangers of Functional Definitions

Kaczor’s central argument is that functional definitions of personhood, like those proposed by Warren, lead to morally arbitrary exclusions. By tying personhood to specific capabilities, we risk dehumanizing those who do not meet these standards. This approach has historically led to grave injustices, such as the exclusion of slaves and victims of the Holocaust from being considered full persons.

Conclusion: The Need for an Inclusive Definition

Kaczor advocates for an inclusive definition of personhood that values all human beings regardless of their functional abilities. He suggests that personhood should be inherent to all members of the human species from conception. This approach avoids the ethical pitfalls of excluding vulnerable groups and recognizes the intrinsic worth of every human life.

In conclusion, while Warren’s ‘five traits of personhood’ attempt to provide a clear framework for determining personhood, they fall short by excluding many individuals who undeniably possess inherent human dignity. Kaczor’s critique invites us to reconsider how we define personhood in a way that respects and includes all human beings, emphasizing the need for a more compassionate and just approach.

+++

Celebrate & Defend Life

Lost in Transnation


The discussion between Jordan Peterson and Miriam Grossman MD, titled “Gender Insanity and Parental Trauma,” focuses on the complexities and controversies surrounding the transgender movement, particularly its impact on individuals transitioning, their parents, and families. They delve into the grief and trauma experienced not only by those undergoing gender transition but also by their families, especially when societal pressures demand unconditional affirmation of gender identity changes.

The conversation highlights the historical roots of gender ideology, criticizing the work of Dr. John Money and his controversial experiments, which laid the foundation for current gender identity theories. Theories which have no basis in reality.

Miriam Grossman, a physician, author, and public speaker, shares her early concerns about gender ideology and its inclusion in sex education, predating widespread public awareness. She discusses her observations of the harmful effects of teaching children that gender is a psychological concept separate from biological sex, emphasizing the confusion and destabilization this can cause.

Grossman and Peterson critique the notion that increasing choices in gender identity leads to freedom, arguing instead that it can result in anxiety and psychological distress, particularly among young people. They express concern over the rapid increase in depression and anxiety rates, especially among young women, attributing part of this trend to the pressures and confusions associated with gender identity exploration.

Watching this discussion will take some time, but it will be worth. You’ll be more informed about this issue. And that’s a very good thing.

+++