Are unborn humans more deserving of legal personhood than corporations?

I agree with the qualification that corporations aren't at all deserving of legal person-hood, and there is no such thing as an unborn person until about the third trimester.

Before the later second and third trimester there is nowhere near enough brain matter for an unconscious consciousness to form. No consciousness means no person.

What are you talking about? Corporations do not have a collective consciousness. There is no observer at the core of the being of a corporation. In any sense personhood is obviously and universally understood as being inseparable with a human individual.

Corporations don't have collective consciousnesses? It's a collective, why wouldn't it have a collective consciousness? I mean if any collective does why wouldn't a corporation?

Is there really an observer at the core of the being of a human?

Where is this observer located? Somewhere in the brain?

Always the same observer or does the observer change?

Is the observer present when a person is asleep?

Obviously? Universally understood? Saying "everyone knows" is not an argument.

Personhood, human life, being. How so very bogged down we can get in semantics and language to the point nothing makes sense. Perhaps if you would elaborate more on what you mean by personhood of corporations, it might help. I am failing to see how you can compare the two. Thanks,

William

P.S. Collective consciousness? What do you think that means?

In The Division of Labour, Durkheim argued that in "traditional" or "simpler" societies (those based around clan, family or tribal relationships), religion played an important role in uniting members through the creation of a common consciousness (conscience collective in the original French). In societies of this type, the contents of an individual's consciousness are largely shared in common with all other members of their society, creating a mechanical solidarity through mutual likeness. -wiki

This is an unconscious consciousness and is to be just as respected as a conscious consciousness.

Is the unconscious still conscious without being conscious?

Unborn children are basically asleep/unconscious for nine months.

Gray matter? Nothing like existing in the gray area? No need to take a stand on anything. Just waffle!

Gray matter? Nothing like existing in the gray area? No need to take a stand on anything. Just waffle! The way we are going before long a three year old could be considered a zygote and aborted.

william

Personhood, human life, being. How so very bogged down we can get in semantics and language to the point nothing makes sense. Perhaps if you would elaborate more on what you mean by personhood of corporations, it might help. I am failing to see how you can compare the two. Thanks,

William

P.S. Collective consciousness? What do you think that means?

Any human that has achieved only pre-reflective consciousness does not qualify as a person.

IMO, that rules out at least...say...half the planet? Any sort of consciousness suffices for me. While we're on Sartre, existence surely precedes essence in at least, practically, some to most instances. At the same time, nothingness precedes existence. At the early stages of development, there is not even an existence which can be identified as an 'Other' and does not receive the same ethical treatment as an 'Other'.

The Other is often so Other that one is not sure if it is conscious or not, or even real for that matter. Furthermore, Otherness is not something that is restricted to other persons. Zygotes have existence and can be identified as an Other.