toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

[Silent Hunter]

In response to Silent Hunter's last post, I will admit that I stand corrected. I need to add the adjective 'living' to my original definition. Are you happy now, Hunter?

Where would you like to place the word "living" (verb) in your previous?

I'm a little confused . . .

. . . which post . . . this . . .

Not true. A person is a distinct individual member of the human species or(in principle) another species recognized as carrying the same moral value. So far, no other such species is known.

. . . or . . . this . . .

Did all that.

Note the first definition.

No.

. . . and where . . . exactly.

 

[Samstarrett]

Where would you like to place the word "living" (verb) in your previous?

Actually, it's an adjective in this case, but I would like to adjust my first definition to read as follows:

Not true. A person is a living distinct individual member of the human species or(in principle) another species recognized as carrying the same moral value. So far, no other such species is known.​

I'm a little confused . . .

Ah, so we do have some common ground.

. . . which post . . . this . . .

Yes.

. . . or . . . this . . .

No.

. . . and where . . . exactly.

Supra.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Actually, it's an adjective in this case, . . .

:doh: . . . you're right.

. . . but I would like to adjust my first definition to read as follows:

Not true. A person is a living distinct individual member of the human species or(in principle) another species recognized as carrying the same moral value. So far, no other such species is known.​

. . . are these the only characteristics of "personhood" . . .

. . . and . . .

. . . what kind of "moral value" does a zygote "carry" since it has no brain with which to make a "moral judgement?"

Ah, so we do have some common ground.

Yes.

No.

Supra.

:chuckle:

:thumb:

 

[WizardofOz]

. . . so far . . . you've done an adequate job of "defining" what is "human" (adjective) . . .

. . . were still waiting on your definition of "person" (noun).

:chuckle:

Just about any dictionary definition will suffice. I don't need to make up definitions of already defined words. As I said....."Whatever you want to call this new stage of human development whether it be "person", "person-hood", "human-being" (vs. human) etc., what are the defining parameters? You must somehow separate the characteristics a comatose human possesses but a developing human does not.

If not, you must either concede that your argument was a red herring all along or you must be willing to concede that a law declaring it illegal to actively kill a comatose patient is without merit."

Your semantic debate is trivial.

A "person" (noun) has other defining characteristics beyond being "human" (adjective).

EXACTLY . . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

Missing the point....again. "I" don't need to make up definitions. Just grab a dictionary.

Now, where is your definition? Dr. Watson's? Greenrage's? quip's? Etc etc.

A person is: ____________________________
Have at it!

. . . and . . . btw . . . I "offered" no "definition"

Painfully obvious.

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked the capacity to breath (other than respiratory arrest) and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

See "other than".

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked brain activity ("brain dead") and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

Brain activity? Red herring. :yawn:

I offered a source that stated "By six weeks, very basic brain activity equivalent to that observed in comatose patients has been documented, and the embryo develops the ability to move shortly after this."

This puts you into a pickle. You must now either:

- admit that your "brain function" argument was a red herring all along

- concede that a law declaring it illegal to actively kill a comatose patient is without merit.

- Defend the liberty of a six-week-old embryo as you would a comatose patient.

Will you now defend the liberty of a six-week-old embryo?
Didn't think so.

 

[Town Heretic]

Time out. I didn't suggest stem cell research (promising as it is) would prove the only solution; it is, however, an encouraging field of endeavor, should we ever be allowed to pursue it.

The use on non-embryonic stem cell use and research might be an option. But you were suggesting a harm inherent in recognition of the fetus. I was countering that you didn't establish it.

And your claim that zygotes are somehow "aborted fetuses" is grossly incorrect.

Never made that claim. Not entirely sure what you even mean by it.

See above. I might have gotten carried away before but you're doing the very same thing.

How so? If you mean in my organ idea, sure. That was the point.

Well then you sure fooled me, considering that you are aruging here that personhood begins at conception.

No, Granite, I never did. I asserted that any abrogation, from here to there, has to follow or rationally should rest on the established course of law or we have a fundamental problem/inequity of approach. I also noted that you could as readily and consistently do away with the right altogether.

If that's not a "standard," what would you call it? Rule of thumb?

Reason is a standard. It simply isn't an arbitrary one. Instead, it's how we determine and avoid the arbitrary...or should.

Again: pinpointing an exact moment where "personhood" occurs is, at this date, impossible.

I'd go one further and suggest it's objectively impossible to do it from the fetus side of things without relying on the arbitrary, which is why I went at it from the other direction. And that clarified things nicely enough.

Conception strikes you as less-than-arbitrary because it's very clean cut, simple, and very definitive (hence the attractiveness of the opinion).

Nope. It just rationally follows. Try it on and walk around in it. Tell me how you're going to abrogate my right without my having violated the compact, my profession notwithstanding.

...We determine the existence of life and the presence of death through heart and brain activity; I said before that determining personhood's origins could be correlated to the first occurrence of these functions. That's very much at the other end.

Sure. And it's also no more objectively, demonstrably the value that should be used to mark right than any other. It's rational enough, but that was never in dispute.

Only because you keep insisting your opinion isn't arbitrary.

No. I've set out the why. Now if you want to claim the contrary it's up to you to demonstrate how.

You just as easily could say that personhood begins right at birth with our first breath or when the fetus develops fingerprints;

I said exactly that. If we rest on the subjective then any point can be declared that very thing. But the arbitrary assignment of value isn't good enough. You can't advance it to abrogate my right and you shouldn't be allowed to advance it as the measure for vestment.

your opinion is merely sweeping enough and immediate enough to provide the illusion of open-and-shut truth.

That's a declaration. I've given you argument. Try to make that point against it in particular. My argument is very particular.

I don't see how my opinion would ultimately be at odds with this.

Your measure, the intellect, is given a value it can't demonstrably carry else. That you prefer it to breath or living independently or any number of alternatives is your preference, not an objective proof.

I think I need a drink.:hammer:

Just so long as you don't actually get hammered as that would slow things down a bit....probably.

I wasn't discussing sacrifice so much as I was gratuitous agony.

Gratuitous is an assertion of assumption, not of necessity.

You can try being stoic all day, TH, but your refusal to even answer the question tells me either you can't or you just don't like the implications of the answers.

I'm being polite, not stoic. I think it's emotion driven nonsense, not an argument at all. It's a side stepping appeal to divest ourselves of the one means to honestly answer a question. But I thought my answer was a gentler inference of that. Ah, well...here goes:

Where is the rationality behind the perpetuation of agony and disease?

Where is the proof that I'm advocating anything of the like? That some disease MIGHT be curable or that some treatments for some disease is PROMISING? What I'm discussing is the right that keeps you safe from being an unwilling guinea pig for the next round of "greater good."

When it's within one's power to stop harm and one chooses not to, what do we generally call this kind of choice?

A narrowed and assumptive context/conclusion, in this particular. Beans as to the general. I'm not arguing against every possible permutation. I'm arguing against yours.

I may have been mistaken here. If so, my apologies.

Let me know when you're sure and chances are I'll accept it.

I'd agree that this is a right and by its nature isn't something we choose. The breakdown comes, again, with the question of timing. Timing, and the value that personhood implies. That a zygote didn't ask or choose to show up does not on its own endow the zygote with anything.

But there you step away from answering my argument and rush to the beginning and the zygote from that end, where appeals to the other have emotional traction and resonance. Again, Benjamin, how do you divest me without violating the equity of the law? And if you can't then your justification from the other end is exposed.

As hypotheticals go maybe it was just a little too out there for my taste.

Taste isn't the issue here...or it shouldn't be.

Can it be said that you must be aware of your right in order for it to be abrogated?

No. Infants aren't aware of their rights. People in comas. People with severe mental incapacitation aren't. All that needs be is that we are.

Or put another way, do you regard all human life as equally valuable, without any manner of a sliding scale?

I don't think that's the question or consideration here. All men must be equal in right or the law is just another capricious tyrant.

Now equality in right isn't a measure of ability or circumstance or value in contribution. So I may say, "Give me Einstein over Mussolini" (giving Hitler the day off) but say both have the self same right.

Maybe I misread but you did seem to admit that you consider zygotes "children."

In the fundamentalist bit? I explained that one. Personally, morally? Absolutely. But that isn't part of this argument.

Answered above, although you seem to be trying awful hard to act like TOL's resident Spock.

This is me being me. I never try hard to be anything else...and I rarely give less than a full effort at being precisely that.

 

[Ktoyou]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 30th, 2011 09:44 AM

toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

If person is a priori, then being a person is already stated.

 

[rocketman]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for March 30th, 2011 09:44 AM

toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

At the moment of conception...

Psa. 139:13 For You formed my inmost being.
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

 

[CabinetMaker]

At the moment of conception...

Psa. 139:13 For You formed my inmost being.
You knit me together in my mother’s womb.

The moment of conception does not happen in the womb. It takes something like three days from the moment of conception until the zygote implants in the womb.

 

[Krsto]

Yes, that would follow. (Just don't assume the worst about this statement.) Initial brain or heart activity is a good line of demarcation.

Why heart activity considering a person doesn't need it until the umbilical cord is cut?

 

[Krsto]

Anything other than the point of conception seems entirely arbitrary.

So perhaps we don't really know the exact time? It wouldn't be like God to leave us guessing - or would it?

 

[Krsto]

I am really skeptical of how we can tie our individuality to mere tissue and function.

Oh but we do, at least in the extreme - would anyone say a zygot that has divided into say, 16 cells, has any individuality?

 

[Lovejoy]

Why heart activity considering a person doesn't need it until the umbilical cord is cut?

You don't use your lungs in utero, you still circulate the maternally oxygenated blood using the heart (fetal circulation). The shunt that keeps blood from the lungs begins to close after breathing begins. That is why we measure fetal distress with heart rate monitoring.

 

[Silent Hunter]

. . . so far . . . you've done an adequate job of "defining" what is "human" (adjective) . . .

. . . were still waiting on your definition of "person" (noun).

Just about any dictionary definition will suffice. I don't need to make up definitions of already defined words.

. . . well . . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

. . . when can we expect said “definition?” Hell's freezing over . . . :drums fingers:

As I said....."Whatever you want to call this new stage of human development whether it be "person", "person-hood", "human-being" (vs. human) etc., what are the defining parameters? You must somehow separate the characteristics a comatose human possesses but a developing human does not.

. . . since we aren’t discussing the characteristics of the comatose this is a diversion. Quite obviously in order to “become” comatose a "person" (noun) must be breathing and have (have had) more than minimal brain activity . . . something a zygote without question . . . lacks.

. . . by your usage a dead human (adjective) body is "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens" but quite clearly LACKS quite a few of the characteristics associated with being a "person" (noun).

The onus is not on me to provide “defining parameters” of when a “person” (noun) (first) becomes a “person” (noun); rather it is on YOU to give more detail of this defining moment beyond "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens" in order to have any credibility.

If not, you must either concede that your argument was a red herring all along or you must be willing to concede that a law declaring it illegal to actively kill a comatose patient is without merit."

Your semantic debate is trivial.

:yawn: . . . this is NOT what the discussion is about and has no bearing on “At what point does a person (noun) (first) become a person (noun)?

A "person" (noun) has other defining characteristics beyond being "human" (adjective).

EXACTLY . . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

Missing the point....again. "I" don't need to make up definitions. Just grab a dictionary.

Now, where is your definition? Dr. Watson's? Greenrage's? quip's? Etc etc.

A person is: ____________________________
Have at it!

Been there, done that . . . :yawn:

. . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

. . . and . . . btw . . . I "offered" no "definition" . . . what was "offered" was done so to show "human" is often "used" as a "noun" as well as an "adjective."

Painfully obvious.

. . . that you don’t know the difference between a noun and an adjective? . . . yes . . . it is . . . :chuckle:

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked the capacity to breath (other than respiratory arrest) and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

See "other than".

. . . so . . . your answer is . . . “None.”

How many people (noun, plural of "person") have you ever met who lacked brain activity ("brain dead") and would still consider them to be a "person" (noun)?

Brain activity? Red herring.

. . . actually . . . No . . . it’s not. We generally consider the “end” of “personhood” by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . it seems reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria.

Will you now defend the liberty of a six-week-old embryo?
Didn't think so.

LOL . . . talk about red herrings :rotfl:

 

[Granite]

Never made that claim. Not entirely sure what you even mean by it.

You said: "You'd have to assume that the only way to cure Parkinson's would be with stem cells and [which I don't] even less established, stem cells that could only be obtained via an aborted fetus [no idea where you got this idea]." One second I'm talking zygotes, then you're talking aborted fetuses. One thing at a time, please.

No, Granite, I never did. I asserted that any abrogation, from here to there, has to follow or rationally should rest on the established course of law or we have a fundamental problem/inequity of approach. I also noted that you could as readily and consistently do away with the right altogether.

So you're not pinpointing any moment of personhood or its endowment. Well that's a slippery way of being able to have your cake and eat it too.

Reason is a standard. It simply isn't an arbitrary one. Instead, it's how we determine and avoid the arbitrary...or should.

So far you don't seem to have a standard beyond disagreeing with anyone who thinks a zygote's less than a person.

I'd go one further and suggest it's objectively impossible to do it from the fetus side of things without relying on the arbitrary, which is why I went at it from the other direction. And that clarified things nicely enough.

Not at all, and clear as mud. Let's just cut the fluff: when do you believe personhood begins? Either it's at conception, or later. Please just humor me with specifics. I've done as much and I'd appreciate you returning the courtesy.

Nope. It just rationally follows. Try it on and walk around in it. Tell me how you're going to abrogate my right without my having violated the compact, my profession notwithstanding.

Okay, so now you seem to be saying it is conception. I don't appreciate being made to feel like you're jerking this discussion around just for the fun of it.

Gratuitous is an assertion of assumption, not of necessity.

I'm getting sick to death of Christians who find reasons to excuse misery out of a misguided sense of loyalty to a pair of cells. If that isn't a completely monstrous set of priorities I can't imagine what else it would look like.

I'm being polite, not stoic.

If this politeness it's back-handed.

I think it's emotion driven nonsense, not an argument at all. It's a side stepping appeal to divest ourselves of the one means to honestly answer a question. But I thought my answer was a gentler inference of that. Ah, well...here goes:

Certainly puts a new spin on "suffer the little children," for sure...

Where is the proof that I'm advocating anything of the like? That some disease MIGHT be curable or that some treatments for some disease is PROMISING? What I'm discussing is the right that keeps you safe from being an unwilling guinea pig for the next round of "greater good."

Here you go again: this is the second time you've tried to make some kind of connection between what I'm talking about (stem cell research) and euthanasia (which I haven't mentioned at all).

Again, Benjamin, how do you divest me without violating the equity of the law? And if you can't then your justification from the other end is exposed.

There's no "you" there at all.

No. Infants aren't aware of their rights. People in comas. People with severe mental incapacitation aren't. All that needs be is that we are.

So existence/birth/conception (whatever: make your mind up and let me know) is all that we need. All right.

In the fundamentalist bit? I explained that one. Personally, morally? Absolutely. But that isn't part of this argument.

Well in that case I think we'll just keep talking passed each other.

 

[WizardofOz]

. . . well . . . we're still waiting . . . and waiting . . . and waiting . . . (you get the picture) . . . for a definition for "person" (noun) from you which doesn't fit the pattern . . . "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = "person" (noun) = "human" (adjective/noun) = etc . . .

Just about any dictionary definition will suffice. I don't need to make up definitions of already defined words.

You not liking my responses will not necessarily garner you new ones.

Why would I need to just make up definitions of words (as if making up definitions means anything)? These words already have definitions. Open a dictionary, genius. That's what people do when they need a word to be properly defined.

So, which dictionary definition do you prefer? Probably none seeing as how all deviate from your made-up fantasy world definitions. Do you really think making up definitions to fit our argument actually means something?

You're delusional.

. . . when can we expect said “definition?” Hell's freezing over . . . :drums fingers:

I've given "mine" (see any dictionary). When can we expect your said “definition?” Hell's freezing over . . . :drums fingers:

. . . since we aren’t discussing the characteristics of the comatose this is a diversion.

Not a diversion. You just are not comfortable with what your arguments logically conclude. In the Dr. Watson abortion thread, at least one poster mentioned "brain activity" as a defining characteristic of this mythical "person" you and others were fumbling over trying to define.

If I find a source stating that the brain activity in a 6-week-old fetus is equal to that of a comatose patient then either "aborting" a comatose patient should be legal or killing the 6-week-old fetus should not be.

This is all too complicated for you, it seems.

Quite obviously in order to “become” comatose a "person" (noun) must be breathing and have (have had) more than minimal brain activity . . . something a zygote without question . . . lacks.

So, you've got A) "brain activity", which is your little red herring. Or, you've got B) breathing, which can only work as an argument if you're willing to allow a 9-month-old fetus to be aborted.

We already know that you support the legal "right" of a "mother" to abort a baby in her womb from 9 weeks to nine months, so just be open about where you stand. :devil:

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong........we both know I'm not.

. . . by your usage a dead human (adjective) body is "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens" but quite clearly LACKS quite a few of the characteristics associated with being a "person" (noun).

Characteristics you associate with being a "person"? You've got the cart before the horse there. What "characteristics" and how do you define "person"?

*Ahem* Either pee or get off the pot *cough*

The onus is not on me to provide “defining parameters” of when a “person” (noun) (first) becomes a “person” (noun);

Sure it is. I've got infinite dictionary definitions, which I am fine with using. You want to deviate from dictionary definitions? Then absolutely the burden is right on your lap where it's been since the Dr. Watson thread.

You, Dr. Watson, Greenrage and quip all failed miserably at even attempting a definition that didn't condemn the comatose, et al.

Now, I'm willing to give you credit in the fact that your view is at least consistent. However, the only way a pro-choice argument can be consistent is if one is willing to declare that a fetus in any stage of development should legally lack protection against the wish of the mother to abort. Which is where the other three I mentioned above stray from your extreme fringe view.

rather it is on YOU to give more detail of this defining moment beyond "a member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens" in order to have any credibility.

Defining moment? Conception. The sperm, egg, womb, etc are all "human" (adjective). The zygote is a "person" (noun) as it is "human", an individual and living.

Just to pick one definition to actually get you moving, how about "person": the body of a living human being.

Now, tell me why that definition is unacceptable. :juggle: Waiting.....waiting.....

:yawn: . . . this is NOT what the discussion is about and has no bearing on “At what point does a person (noun) become a person (noun)?

You are blind to what your logic concludes. If an arbitrary period of development is required in order to first be considered a "person", then there also must be an equal point in which the person loses these characteristics and is thus, no longer considered such.

A person is: ____________________________
Have at it!

Been there, done that . . . :yawn:

Oh, really? Where? Link to the post.

. . . that you don’t know the difference between a noun and an adjective. . . . yes . . . it is . . . :chuckle:

When this point was first made in the Dr. Watson thread, it was in response to posters not making the distinction of word type. Is "human" most commonly used as an adjective or a noun?

Even your absurdity........

"What is a "person?" A "person" is a "human?" What is a "human?" A "human" is a "person?"

Fails to make the distinction and offers human as a noun. It could read as "a person" is a "fast" or a "person" is a "slow". "Human" is most commonly a descriptive term, hence your word play above is simply a display of your ignorance of common word usage.

Linking to a dictionary that shows how "human" can be used as a noun only furthers this display, as your offered definitions of "person"

1) A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. 2) A person

are the very definitions you're whining about being equivocation.

I mean, could you gift-wrap presents like that for me next time? :chuckle:

. . . so . . . your answer is . . . “None.”

"other than respiratory arrest" is a pretty big "other" and effectively neutralizes your argument. Again, if I accept your premise then we're talking about any fetus being "abort-able" from conception to birth.

. . . actually . . . No . . . it’s not. We generally consider the “end” of “personhood” by a lack of breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity . . . it seems reasonable that we judge the beginning of “personhood” by these same criteria.

Yet we generally consider a fetus a "person" prior to them exiting the womb. They do no "breathe" until then. So, it is clear what your arguing for; elective abortion "rights" anytime, anywhere and at any point during pregnancy.

LOL . . . talk about red herrings :rotfl:

LOL....talk about deflecting away from an actual response :rotfl:

 

[Sherman]

toldailytopic: At what point does a person become a person?

At conception. By true definition, a person belongs to the species homo sapiens. A human is a human when the egg is fertilized and a new life is created. It has all the genetic material that identifies it as a member of the species. A person is an individual created in the Image of God. That is a characteristic that only humans have. People trying to infer person hood to animals such as apes and dolphins need to have their head examined.

 

[oatmeal]

Genesis 2:7

A body does not become a living soul until the first breath is taken.

That is when "living soul" starts.

There is life before that, but not "living soul"

Plants have life, but they do not have "living soul."

Note: I did not say that previous to the first breath, only plant life is there.

Genesis 2:7

Plain as the nose on my face. If you could see my face.

oatmeal

 

[oatmeal]

Anything other than the point of conception seems entirely arbitrary.

Unless you consider that scriptures contain all that we need to know to live a godly life. II Peter 1:3-4

oatmeal

 

[WizardofOz]

A body does not become a living soul until the first breath is taken.

Therefore there is no problem with aborting fetuses prior to their exiting the womb and taking that first defining breath?

Why would you oppose it?

 

[oatmeal]

Yes, that would follow. (Just don't assume the worst about this statement.) Initial brain or heart activity is a good line of demarcation.

The lack of heartbeat or brain activity is an excellent and perfectly precise indicator of death, not life.

I appreciate your logical thinking. Something sometimes lacking among religious folk.

Religion and truth are not the same thing. They are actually antonyms in the Greek.

Religion is what man does.

Truth is what God does. Those that seek truth will eventually find God.

Religious people always miss the truth, and therefore always miss out on God's personal blessings.

oatmeal