So... then clearly a heart beat or a brain wave cannot be the objective determination for personhood.
toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Being objective, playing the devil's advocate for a moment,
In the middle ages, the first "quickening" was the standard. But we know more about it, now.
Genetically, it happens at conception. And so a unique individual begins to live at that point.
The nervous system is there by the end of the third trimester, which would seem to me to make it clear to anyone that a person existed at that time.
I think it's clear enough that conception is where it begins. Does that mean that some forms of contraception are abortions? Yes, it does.
Do I think there is any ethical difference between killing an almost-born infant, and preventing a fertilized egg from implanting? Yes, I do. But both are wrong, even if one is a greater evil.
In the middle ages, the first "quickening" was the standard. But we know more about it, now.
Genetically, it happens at conception. And so a unique individual begins to live at that point.
The nervous system is there by the end of the third trimester, which would seem to me to make it clear to anyone that a person existed at that time.
I think it's clear enough that conception is where it begins. Does that mean that some forms of contraception are abortions? Yes, it does.
Do I think there is any ethical difference between killing an almost-born infant, and preventing a fertilized egg from implanting? Yes, I do. But both are wrong, even if one is a greater evil.
Gotcha.
I think for lack of anything else, it's a good litmus test. In the future there may some kind of medical/scientific advance that answers the question definitively, but barring such a discovery, I'd say the presence of a heart beat and or brain waves is a good place to mark the beginning of personhood.
Actually, no. I haven't. I said either determines when personhood begins; I haven't commented at all about personhood's definition.
See above.
Clearly, based on Granite's behavior in this thread and by using his own logic.... Granite must not be a person because I see no evidence of brain waves.
Don't jump to conclusions and just stick to what I actually write, not what you think I did. I don't understand why that's such a problem. You misunderstood me, I clarified, you respond with this immature little comeback. If you want to have an actual discussion, the ball's in your court. If you're just interested in having people agree with you, I'm sure others can oblige. Your call.
It's an interesting subject and I look forward to discussing it.:smokie:
GuySmiley
Well-known member
I'd say personhood begins when God determines it begins. I dont think we have absolute proof when God considers a person a person. But we know for sure that it matters a whole lot and shouldnt be taken lightly.
I think a person should be considered a person at conception, because it matters if we kill people. AND just logically, I think when a human is a unique human, they ought to be considered a person.
I think a person should be considered a person at conception, because it matters if we kill people. AND just logically, I think when a human is a unique human, they ought to be considered a person.
Very well put.
I have an issue with identifying personhood with conception. I think the insistence on this can be taken to irrational extremes, frankly. But I do understand the sentiment. Just strikes me as over simplistic. When it comes to impacting certain forms of contraception and medical research the insistence on equating personhood with the instant of conception crosses the line from humanism into zealotry.
No, the ball is in your court! Seriously the ball has been sitting there all morning.
You have stated that brain waves or a heart beat are the things that you consider constitute a person.
I asked you..... why? :idunno:
I further made the point by asking you if a person is still a person during a medical procedure that requires stopping the heart beat.
You haven't responded (in any meaningful way) to either of those questions.
Uh.... GuySmiley contradicted you and you say... "Very well put." :dizzy:
More evidence that Granite has no observable brain waves.
Why do you need to listen for a heartbeat to determine personhood? :idunno:
And it's not easy to detect a heartbeat. It's nigh on impossible to determine when the tiny heart hits its first beat.
Well, again: no, I didn't.
I said that either brain waves or heart beat constitute the beginning of personhood. I think I've said this three times now. From my perspective as a layman it appears this is the best objective, observable, scientifically-verifiable evidence we've got. That's my rationale. Nothing mysterious here at all.
What you keep doing is jumping to conclusions and ignoring what I've actually written. Personhood begins when we can detect either a heart beat or brain waves. That's all. I haven't commented on the definition of personhood once. Not once. I think we have a rough idea for when it starts.
As I see it personhood's a one-way door: once opened, you step through but can't really go back. There's no "undo" option, as it were.
I've answered your questions several times now, but you keep on seeing things that aren't there.
At the risk of repeating myself: for lack of a better standard, and barring a medical breakthrough, I think it's the best litmus test available. If anybody has other ideas, let's hear 'em.
Throwing it out there for everybody: is there any reason not to use the heart beat/brain wave litmus test? I don't see anything about it that's morally objectionable.
...which is irrelevant to anything I said, and completely beside the point. Yes, a person's still a person if their heart stops beating.
Wrong, you just don't like my answers.
Real Sorceror
New member
It varies for some individuals, but I believe personhood begins to develop shortly after birth and is achieved somewhere in an infant's first or second year.
I would also like to say that being human is not a prerequisite for personhood. Several other species of animal are more self aware and mentally cognitive than a newborn human. Whether they achieve true personhood is more difficult to determine.
Please understand that this does not mean I see no value in the lives of babies. I truly do. I just think being a person is a scientific phenomena and not a spiritual one.
I would also like to say that being human is not a prerequisite for personhood. Several other species of animal are more self aware and mentally cognitive than a newborn human. Whether they achieve true personhood is more difficult to determine.
Please understand that this does not mean I see no value in the lives of babies. I truly do. I just think being a person is a scientific phenomena and not a spiritual one.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
opcorn:
Hello Hitler! :wave:
So, you would support post-birth infanticide? Well maybe you don't support it but you certainly couldn't make a case against it based on your logic.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
It sounds to me like you are making your choice based on the consequences though. You'd like to keep certain kinds of contraception available, so you'd like to define it as brain activity/heartbeat.
csuguy
Well-known member
Several forms of contraception would, as the term suggests, prevent conception in the first place. But yes: defining it as the moment of conception would prevent those forms of "contraception" that are actually abortions via drugs.
Hence the name, contra-conception.
At the risk of repeating myself...
Personhood begins when we can detect either a heart beat or brain waves. That's all. I haven't commented on the definition of personhood once. Not once. I think we have a rough idea for when it starts.
As I see it personhood's a one-way door: once opened, you step through but can't really go back. There's no "undo" option, as it were.