Talk:Fetal personhood

This should be merged into fetus or expanded. As it stands, it would fit in the legal issues in Fetus. Unsigned comment from Hipocrite at 18:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I think it would be better to expand it. The subject is certainly significant enough to deserve its own article. And perhaps the Fetus and Abortion articles could link to this article. And by the way, the merge template placed on this article says to discuss, but the word discuss doesn't link to this talk page; it links to the Fetus Talk Page, where nobody seems to be discussing it. Is there some way of making a template direct to a different page? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Use {{merge}} instead of {{mergeto}}. The {{merge}} template links to the current page's talk page. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quickening

From the article:

"Historically, "quickening," when the first fetal movement is detected, was considered the point at which human personhood is achieved."

Not under English common law, nor current English or U.S. law, as I understand it. Or can you provide a cite showing otherwise? -- The Anome 19:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-cultural aspects of personhood

The ideas in this article are, in my opinion, necessary, but they only show one part of the issue. I don't agree with the merging of "fetal personhood" with fetus, and I would only support its merging with person under the condition that a separate section be added to include both fetal personhood and baby/child personhood. Otherwise, I think that this article should remain but be expanded to include the latter, as it is an important part of the controversy, and essential in a cross-cultural discourse of the issue.

I need to find some sources for this, and I will not post anything until I have them, but as I have read in multiple anthropological texts, there are several cultures who do not grant personhood (as in naming, accepting as a member of society, etc.) to their offspring until the offspring have reached a certain age. This may be up to three or four years after birth in some areas, and is believed to be mainly a result of high levels of infant mortality: the death of a baby who is not yet a member of society may have less of an impact on the society; likewise, giving a child a name may create a more intimate bond between namer(s) and namee, thus making the child's death harder on its family/guardian(s). Cases like these demonstrate (indeed, reiterate) that personhood is a cultural construction, and should be examined on a cross-cultural level.

If anyone else has ideas/insights/sources pertaining to this information, or has a serious problem with my proposal, please share. I will, in the mean time, look for some sources to back up these claims. --Romarin 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]