Optimal Definition of Personhood?

1. Significant recognizable intelligence,
   
2. Demonstratable sentience, and
   
3. Awareness of self.
   

Curious how other people believe it ought to be defined?

I personally believe it should reside with three pillars:

1. Significant recognizable intelligence,
   
2. Demonstratable sentience, and
   
3. Awareness of self.
   

While biology is the most common precursor we've seen for these, I do not believe that is ideal long term as a requirement. While it's a comedy, the movie Ted showcases the horrors to which a human standard leads (intelligent sentient beings who are aware of themselves, being kidnapped, mutilated, and murdered without any legal protections).

A potential drawback to my definition, is a lack of an empathy requirement. Narcissistic assholes are still people, even if we would rather they not be.

I'd raise the example of an adult in a coma.

A person is an individual human.

The problem with a functional definition is that it implies degrees of personhood, are children and mentally disabled adults less of a person?  It also would extend personhood to other species such as Great Apes, dolphins, and elephants for instance, perhaps even some AI programs meet the qualifications of personhood.

The question of personhood is a matter of assigning rights and duties, legally,  children are considered to have a lower degree of personhood, they have legal protections of personhood, you can't kill them, but they also have fewer rights than an adult.  

The big legal question of personhood is in the abortion debate of course, and a functional definition like this just doesn't  provide any guidance to temporal  demarcation. Including the "potential" for these functional developments makes some sense but still gives no guidance for at what point in time that potential applies, and including "potential" further complicates the demarcation between species and AI.  

A person is anything that is human and that benefits existence of human life.

A newborn is a person. It’s enshrined n law and been socially, culturally, and psychologically accepted as such for eons. 

The problem with a functional definition is that it implies degrees of personhood, are children and mentally disabled adults less of a person?  It also would extend personhood to other species such as Great Apes, dolphins, and elephants for instance, perhaps even some AI programs meet the qualifications of personhood.

Much of my point is that personhood should be considered for other intelligent species, even if the form differs from our own. The Transatlantic Slave Trade was deplorable, as was the Three-fifths Compromise. We should strive to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

While I don't believe a dog or a cow should be classified as a person, I don't see an issue with classifying an elephant as one.

The question of personhood is a matter of assigning rights and duties, legally,  children are considered to have a lower degree of personhood, they have legal protections of personhood, you can't kill them, but they also have fewer rights than an adult.  

While there's plenty of crossover, that sounds more like the distinction of citizenship. Even a foreign child is protected from harm, but by default will never have the voting privileges.

The big legal question of personhood is in the abortion debate of course, and a functional definition like this just doesn't  provide any guidance to temporal  demarcation. Including the "potential" for these functional developments makes some sense but still gives no guidance for at what point in time that potential applies, and including "potential" further complicates the demarcation between species and AI.  

IMO AIs at a certain point should be both people, and (if contributing to society) citizens. Heck, corporations are already considered people for legal purposes.

As for abortion: I don't believe there is anything special about human DNA if not connected to a mind. If we grow brainless human husks for organ harvesting, I don't see any moral issue as no harm is experienced by any being even capable of awareness.

Take the old trolly problem of saving embryos or a smaller number of actual children: the choice to save the children is universal, because they're people, even while both groups are human.

What is your definition of born exactly. 

I mean if we are trying to figure out what defines personhood, then we should go from where it starts, then when it ends. Then from there we find a definition.

1. Significant recognizable intelligence,
   
2. Demonstratable sentience, and
   
3. Awareness of self.
   

I'd raise the example of an adult in a coma.  I would always consider an adult in a coma a PERSON, because they have  a history of demonstrated individuality and humanity even though they no longer demonstrate intelligence, sentience, or self-awareness.