The consensus was that one is not a person until they can love unconditionally. An infant is totally selfish only demanding its needs, thus does not love its parents in the accepted sense of the word. The age of three was finally settled on as the approximate point at which one could be called a person. It appears that you would at least consider this thinking to be valid.That seems a strange definition of personhood. It seems to me it would eliminate many people, such as severely autistic or mentally retarded individuals. That's something I'm not prepared to do.
However, it reminds me that we all find it very difficult to remember any of our early childhood. I personally can't remember anything distinct before the age of about three. I certainly can't remember if I was a person then!!
It came up in the context of women were not considered persons until early in the 20th century.Actually, it goes beyond just women. Demonising and de-personalising have long been used to justify killing throughout history. Slavery was justified on the basis that black people didn't have souls. Muslims find it easy to kill infidels, Hitler found it easy to kill Jews, etc..
I believe you would be better off arguing the state of "person" rather than humanness. It is fully human, it cannot be anything else. To say that it is not fully human leaves holes in your argument that one could drive a truck through.Point taken. I was battling with a concept - but I'm sure you get the idea.
I suspect that it had more to do with the infant mortality rate then when one became human.I suspect you're right. But their ommission does indicate that they weren't valued, for one reason or other.
What utter nonsense.
.
