toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at

[Glenda]

I'd say personhood begins when God determines it begins. I dont think we have absolute proof when God considers a person a person.

Total agreement!

No fertilised ova 'is' automatically a person or guaranteed to 'become' a person.

It is up to God whether an ova has a nuclei, and if it doesn't, fertilisation of such an ova results in a hydatid-form mole, which is a pre-malignant tumor which must be removed before it becomes malignant. According to those who claim 'personhood begins at conception', these tumors are 'persons' and removal of such tumors would equate to ending personhood!

God always performs a preparation process eg God made habitats and food before God made animals and people. God does the same with fertilisation.

Fertilisation of a healthy ova (containing a nucleus) initiates preparation for a possible embryo. Such a fertilised ova initially divides to become a pre-embryonic diploid zygote, which divides to form a blastocyte which may implant in the uterine wall. After implanting, the blastocyte may proceed to divide to form the germ cells that may give rise to an embryo and embryonic sac (amnion, placenta, umbilical cord etc). The embryonic phase begins when germ cells differentiate to begin producing specialised cells.

Fertilisation results in many things, but not all result in an embryo.

In anembryonic gestation (aka blighted ovum) the embryonic sac is formed, but not the embryo.

Parthenogenesis results in an embryo without fertilisation happening, so fertilisation cannot be the only grounds for 'personhood'. Jesus was 'a person' (scientists often use parthenogenesis embryos for stem cell research because such embryos are overlooked by those who claim 'fertilisation = personhood' despite some 'persons' existing who were not the result of fertilisation and many fertilised ova are never destined by God to ever be 'persons').

We don't know which ova, fertilised or not, will become 'persons' or cysts or empty embryonic sacs. I believe 'human embryos' are persons, whether from fertilisation or parthogenesis ... I believe that Jesus was a person.

I think that claiming that every fertilised ova is 'a person' is an errant assumption, considering there are so many other possibilities and so few fertilised ova naturally progress to birth, since the vast majority are defective and are usually naturally reabsorbed or spontaneaously aborted by the body, unless defective ones continue to grow eg cysts which must be surgically removed.

I would not call a cyst a person and I would not call a parthenogenesis human embryo a non-person.

 

[Glenda]

This is as much an issue about death ... what constitues a dead human?
Lack of blood pumping (pulse? ... whether by machine or heart?)
Is a dead human still a person?
Are cremated remains 'a person'?
I don't believe that my husband's cremated remains consitute 'a person'
How do you decide personhood of the dead?
Should one person or one group of people decide, in lack of consideration of multiple factors, on a definition that everyone should be forced to accept?

 

[WoundedEgo]

In the scriptures, a person is alive when they are born and breathe their first breath.

In the USA, a fetus is not a person but a corporation is.

 

[WoundedEgo]

Is he dead yet?

Is he dead yet?

This is as much an issue about death ... what constitues a dead human?
Lack of blood pumping (pulse? ... whether by machine or heart?)
Is a dead human still a person?
Are cremated remains 'a person'?
I don't believe that my husband's cremated remains consitute 'a person'
How do you decide personhood of the dead?
Should one person or one group of people decide, in lack of consideration of multiple factors, on a definition that everyone should be forced to accept?

In the USA, a person is dead when declared dead.

In the scriptures, a person is dead when they stop breathing *and* they are not justified. If they are not breathing and they will be resurrected then they are just sleeping.

 

[Glenda]

So... prior to birth, the living human in the womb shouldn't be offered the same rights as other persons who are outside the womb?

If this is about 'rights' then it must be remembered that human rights involve responsibilities.

The truth is that many people in society do not and should not have 'equal' rights. I have the right to drive a car. My grand-daughter does not have that right because she lacks the associated required responsibility. She correctly has less rights than I do.


The rights of one individual are not allowed to negatively impact on the rights of another individual. If someone negatively impacts the rights of another, the negative impacter loses their rights

eg
A person may want your car and take it. The taker loses their rights and is jailed.
A person may be slowly poisoning you whether they mean to or not and whether they are mentally competent or not. Regardless, such a poisoner has proven they are a danger to your physical welfare and their rights and presence are removed.
Likewise, if an embryo or foetus is endangering the life of a pregnant woman, that pregnant woman has, or should have, the right to have such life-endangering embryo or foetus removed.

I don't prioritise embryonic/foetal welfare over maternal welfare so I'm not against ending tubal pregnancies etc.

Fertilised ova don't have rights because we don't even know if they will develop into tumors or empty embryonic sacs or be reabsorbed or spontaneously aborted by the body or rarely be one of the minority destined to become a person. Tumors should not have rights and neither should empty embryonic sacs etc.

 

[Glenda]

In the scriptures, a person is alive when they are born and breathe their first breath.

In the USA, a fetus is not a person but a corporation is.

I love your scriptural definition thank you
It's like God forming Adam and breathing into him. God forms babies too and breathes into some and sadly not others, yet God knows all and maybe the poor babies would have suffered if they lived

The business side is the same in Australia ... all about money

 

[ThePresbyteers]

Personhood is conferred at conception by God.

R. C.. Sproul in his abortion book might be hinting that life begins sooner than conception. I believe it goes further back into love making. The yogis made it interesting when they say energy circulates during love making. This probably explains why gay marriage don't work.

I would say conception begins just by looking at each other and we're looking in the wrong places.

 

[Statisticus]

WoundedEgo In the USA, a fetus is not a person but a corporation is

The business side is the same in Australia ... all about money

Actually, this was one of the foundations of Western Civilization, and one reason why the West far outpaced her rivals. (cf. Toby Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: China, Islam, and the West) If corporations -- like towns, universities, unions, etc. -- were not corporate persons, then anyone who worked in one or owned stock in one, or attended a university or lived in a town would be personally liable for the actions of the corporate whole. There would be no buffers between the lone Individual and the Monarch. There would be no tradition of separate jurisdiction, and everything would be a department of the Monarchy. And if townsmen, scholars, guild members, stockholders had not the right to elect their mayors, rectors, masters, or board members, it is not likely that any of the rest of us would, either.

We now return to our regularly scheduled maunderings.

 

[Stripe]

R. C.. Sproul in his abortion book might be hinting that life begins sooner than conception. I believe it goes further back into love making. The yogis made it interesting when they say energy circulates during love making. This probably explains why gay marriage don't work.I would say conception begins just by looking at each other and we're looking in the wrong places.

:AMR:

 

[PureX]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 18th, 2012 08:52 AM

toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

Objectively, we simply do not know. "Person" is not a term that can be defined objectively.

 

[Town Heretic]

Objectively, we simply do not know. "Person" is not a term that can be defined objectively.

But we do know, within our compact, that the moment someone is a person they have the right to defense of their rights by the state, first and foremost their right to exist.

And in the absence of a means of determining where that point or protection, that vesting of right is found we are obligated to protect every point of being lest we do that which we admit we are not entitled nor empowered to do: abrogate without just cause.

:e4e:

 

[coehling]

Whether it is a person or not is immaterial. The only thing of importance to Jehovah is: "Does it have a soul?". That is given at conception. Just because the supreme court unconstitutionally added 'person' to the constitution by fiat doesn't make it a part of the wording. The Constitution only says "right to life" it doesn't allow discrimination by color of skin, ethnic group, sex, quality of life, or especially age, etc. Incidentally, anybody's timing is inconsequential on Judgment Day.

 

[coehling]

R. C.. Sproul in his abortion book might be hinting that life begins sooner than conception. I believe it goes further back into love making. The yogis made it interesting when they say energy circulates during love making. This probably explains why gay marriage don't work.

I would say conception begins just by looking at each other and we're looking in the wrong places.

Life always has been and always will be since it is an innate part of Jehovah. God continued life in Adam when He breathed into Adam's nostrils. He took a living rib from Adam and formed Eve. Frankly, I'm glad it wasn't purple. God then biologically engineered life to continue by joining a living egg and sperm to form a new organism and added a soul at conception to make it a human being, distinguishing it from an animal.

 

[PureX]

But we do know, within our compact, that the moment someone is a person they have the right to defense of their rights by the state, first and foremost their right to exist.

And in the absence of a means of determining where that point or protection, that vesting of right is found we are obligated to protect every point of being lest we do that which we admit we are not entitled nor empowered to do: abrogate without just cause.

I tend to agree. But because this reasoning is based on an unknown, I do not believe I have the right to impose it on my fellow citizens.

 

[PureX]

Whether it is a person or not is immaterial. The only thing of importance to Jehovah is: "Does it have a soul?". That is given at conception...

The question in the OP explicitly referred to objective reasoning. Assertions about God's will and souls are not based on objective reasoning.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that your comment doesn't address the question being asked.

 

[Desert Reign]

Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

It depends on what you mean by a person. Whatever the thing is, there is a certain point when we recognise it as a person. But whether it is a person or not at the point we recognise it, before or after, may be different. We can only act on what we see but my guess is that personhood cannot be determined objectively any more than you can say of an adult, where is your mind? There is no objective answer to the latter question, why would there be one to the former?

Perhaps a better question would be, when do we start according it rights? The Bible is constantly telling us that God is a protector of the weak, a defender of the oppressed, a father of the orphan, a husband to the widow, a comforter of the sorrowing. This should surely inspire us to protect the unborn, who are unable to speak for themselves, more than any question of when or how they become a person. If we took the premise that the weaker a being is, the more it needs protection, then it is clear that we should start protecting the unborn the moment they are conceived.

 

[Desert Reign]

But we do know, within our compact, that the moment someone is a person they have the right to defense of their rights by the state, first and foremost their right to exist.

And in the absence of a means of determining where that point or protection, that vesting of right is found we are obligated to protect every point of being lest we do that which we admit we are not entitled nor empowered to do: abrogate without just cause.

:e4e:

Surely, the issue is not one of rights. Rights are legal things and in that sense they are arbitrary. Every right has to be paid for with money or some other resource and this may not be available. Shouldn't we, as Christians, be considering and promoting our duties instead? For example we should protect the unborn child because it is helpless, not protect the rights of that child. We can then avoid the issue of rights altogether.

 

[Stripe]

The question in the OP explicitly referred to objective reasoning. Assertions about God's will and souls are not based on objective reasoning.

Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception?

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy. :nono:

 

[coehling]

The question in the OP explicitly referred to objective reasoning. Assertions about God's will and souls are not based on objective reasoning.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that your comment doesn't address the question being asked.

Everything begins with some assumptions. I evaluate the bible and its absolutes including scientific statements, history, social and family relationships with the science I learned in my objective science courses in high school and college. The objective reasoning I observe outside the bible varies and changes from day to day so it cannot be truly objective. It is as easy to assume Jehovah is, like atheists assume an Alien Life Form is, as it is to assume the evolving objectivity you propose.

 

[firon]

at the moment of conception

at the moment of conception

At the moment of conception