RE: When does personhood begin?

RE: When does personhood begin? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics

Message

solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/13/2008 11:20:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude Without venturing into discussions about the soul, I'll give my opinion. First, we have to define what a person is. I'm sure that there are many varying opinions on what constitutes a person, but here are mine: to me, a person is not any of their consistent parts. That is, since molecules are constantly being exchanged, within and without a body, 'you' are not made of the same stuff that 'you' were made of a few months, or years ago. So if a person is not their parts, then, to me, they must be the pattern of those parts. To me a person is the dynamic pattern that is contained within their neural system. 'You' are the unique, but changing, collection of memories, beliefs, thoughts, etc... that reside in your brain. In this vein, I believe that a person achieves personhood roughly four weeks after conception, when nervous system starts its development. Real, I know some people (doctors, pastors, etc.) who believe that life begins when the brain is organized or when the person is self-consious/rational/aware, etc. I suppose that's a bit reflective of many believing that life ends when brain function ceases also. (I believe that.)

solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/13/2008 11:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: called2valor They already have a nervous system [;)] The brain doesn't stop developing until the late teen years on average, so by your definition they are not a full person until then. Also, the brain begins to deteriorate in later life, so I guess we are less of a person then. If personhood has only to do with neurobiology or levels of human sentience, then all sorts of weirdness creeps in. If we try to put a qualitative aspect to what it means to be a person, we are also saying what it means to be a full human being. Eugenics movements have started because of that kind of thinking. If I kill a baby before it is 4 weeks old, does that mean I killed a non-person? If I take a Black&Decker drill and drill 50 holes in your head and for some strange reason you aren't the same as you were before, but instead just stare and drool a lot, are you no longer a person? Once fertilization of a human ova with a human sperm begins we know the result is always a human being... the developing human may die somewhere in the process, or be born abnormal or be mostly like the average human being (but no two humans are exactly the same in any respect except general form). You don't have to be religious or a scientist to get this. It is plain logic. personhood has to begin with conception (no matter how you want to try and define it) or it is arbitrary. They do NOT have a nervous system at conception. I'm pretty sure Real was saying that when brain function begins and we have cognitive thinking abilities, that's when he/she thinks we are people. (They can come back and clarify though.) And, I would argue, that when the brain fully deteriorates at later life, yes, we aren't the people we were. Most whose brains do that (in my experience) still have some cognitive ability though, until their brain function just leaves altogether. When it's completely gone (brain function), then so are we. You have said that we should not try to use biology to help us with this, yet this is what YOU are doing. You use conception as your point of personhood, but conception is biology-- not theology. You're using biology to attempt to tell you something that only theology can. Yet you say we're wrong for doing the same thing. Doesn't make sense. [8\|] If it's wrong for us to do it, why is it right for you? Biology can't tell us when someone is a person. That's not its job anyway though.

called2valor -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/13/2008 7:33:30 PM)
I misread the 4 weeks thing... I thought they said after birth... my bad ;) the rest of my post stands peace :)

solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/13/2008 8:02:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: called2valor quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 quote: ORIGINAL: called2valor quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 I'd say a person begins to form when the person has a soul. They begin to form immediately after conception... that is when formation begins... so that must be when they have a soul: at conception. And why is that? Does biology tell us when people get souls (in your opinion)? When Biology develops a Soul Detector or a test for souls, then it might be able to... until then, your use of the word soul is your personal subjective test for personhood ;) You are trying to place biology as the determiner of things that aren't even in its realm... that would be like asking a biologist, who knows of the existence of a force called electricity (like they know life SOMEHOW exists) to come and rewire my house. The domain of Biology/Medicine can't even discuss personhood coherently... add in Psychiatry or Neuro-Biology and Neuro-Psychology and you still won't get an answer Souls and higher thinking are what make us different from animals. Without a soul I'm pretty sure a human is just an animal anyway (I do know some call humans animals regardless). A human can have the semblance of a human and be souless (IMO); braindead people are dead and gone on, but their bodies can be functioning. That doesn't mean their soul is there, although their biology is fully functioning. The Bible never tells us at what point He gives us a soul.

CCCdnt -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/14/2008 10:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 quote: ORIGINAL: CCCdnt quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 quote: ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom quote: I think a good thing to note here is that not everyone buys the "fact" that bc causes this to happen, including some doctors and scientitsts But it is still fact that it is designed and intended to to this, and it is stated by the makers themselves. If the makers themselves state it, that doesn't make it true-- that goes for everything. [8\|] Even the literature conflicts about it. The fact is that they SAY this or that, not that it is so. Some don't believe that it is so. It's fine if people do; all I'm saying is that not everyone believes it or holds it. I suspect it may work that way for some women, but not all. Do you have a reference for the literature that says this mechanism does not exist? I have read much literature that supports it, including the Physician's Desk Reference. Just how common of a practice is it for doctor's to recommend/prescribe a drug of some kind to someone that may have a side affect or mechanism of action stated by the manufacturer and/or PDR that the person would take issue with, but the doctor recommends/prescribes it anyway because the doctor does not believe what the manufacturer/PDR says? I'll see if I can dig some up when I'm back (low on time today). But that secondary mechanism (that it makes the endometrial lining inhospitable this preventing implantation) is a hypothesis. People want to say it's a fact. A hypothesis isn't a fact. But there are different kinds of birth control. It doesn't really matter to me if someone thinks it does or doesn't do that; what bothers me is when people say something is fact but it's not. The mechanism may exist, but call it what it is, and tell patients the truth as we know it right now. They can decide for themselves.. if it bothers them that it might prevent implantation, then they don't have to go with it. I was able to find one quick article from a google search for you though: HERE; it's basically one paragraph (the top and bottom are the same-- I think the top was meant to be the abstract). And this one site here... it's a pro-life one actually: "An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions..." From HERE This one might especially interest you: "Although these changes are consistently seen in women taking OCs, there is currently no direct evidence to link these changes to preembryo or embryo loss in women taking OCs. *However, this hypothesized postfertilization effect seems to be so well accepted that in many medical articles and textbooks it has been explicitly listed as the third mechanism of OCs* (after suppressing ovulation and prefertilization effects).1,10,17,18 For example, the Food and Drug Administration–approved product information for OCs in the Physicians’ Desk Reference states, Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation.11" From HERE I'm sure I've saved some articles or can find some. Most of the places that I learn about this is in some kind of biology or science where we have to know how things work. The paper trail may have long thus escaped. Lol. Even if it is a hypothesis, the decision should still be to err on the side of caution since what is at stake is a human life. To me, the whole issue of "personhood" is just a way for people to try to justify certain actions.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 12:48:14 PM)
But why lie about it? Just like with bcp, people state things as fact that really are not, I presume most of the time it's to get the person on their side. If you have to lie to do that, then that's not right-- you're doing wrong by doing that. Just tell the truth, have YOUR opinion, and tell people what the real facts are in order for them to choose what they believe. Don't tell people bcp is causing abortions (by the definition of abortion, even if it did cause some embryos not to implant, that's not an abortion)-- or tell them "in my opinion it may cause preembryos not to implant." Tell people it's unproven but may do so. I don't see the travesty there in just being honest. [&:]

drmark -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 1:08:35 PM)
quote: Even if it is a hypothesis, the decision should still be to err on the side of caution since what is at stake is a human life. To me, the whole issue of "personhood" is just a way for people to try to justify certain actions. I could not agree more with you, CCCdnt! As seems to happen with most socio-cultural issues of today, the concept of "personhood' has become totally politicized to satisfy the hedonistic agenda of self-serving pleasure at any cost. The fertilized zygote is alive and human - debating the ephemeral onset of personhood can never change this basic fact. Do we as a society desire to uphold the dignity of human life, especially when so helpless in its own defense? If not, God help us!

drmark -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 1:16:16 PM)
quote: (by the definition of abortion, even if it did cause some embryos not to implant, that's not an abortion)-- Excuse me s_s, but what medical dictionary did you fail to use? From Webster's Medical Dictionary: abortion - the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus Obviously, any medical treatment or surgical procedure which prevents implantation of an embryo is by definition causing abortion, by terminating pregnancy resulting in death of the embryo.

WesP -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 1:29:04 PM)
Saddly enough, arguing the definition of abortion will not help. Typically, people do not care to even go that deep into the discussion. They begin with no viability, no person yet, and that pretty much kills all the other considerations. There is very little respect of "personhood" for the majority unless they can define it by convenience.

phosadaud -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 4:08:28 PM)
Biologically speaking, the moment of conception is the moment a new life begins. That fertilized egg is no longer "mom" and it's no longer "dad". It is "alive" by every sense of the term because it's cells are dividing and it's body, albeit so very, very small, is forming ON IT'S OWN. Mom's brain isn't telling it to divide it's cells. Dad's brain isn't sending messages to it to create arm and leg buds. At conception, the new creation has it's own unique DNA (which it will have until it's death) and it's cells operate independantly of another person (mom or dad, egg or sperm). It is a life that is dependant on outside forces (kinda of like we adults are dependant on outside forces like oxygen to breathe and water to drink), but it is unique to it and only it. It is not a tumor (cells growing out of control but still have mom or dad's dna). It is not a parasite that "invaded" mom. It is a unique creation. Now, as far as when a child receives their soul. The Bible doesn't give us a timeline, but that doesn't matter to me. Once that egg is fertilized, it will either get a soul right then, or it will get a soul a few months later. It's not a tumor that will never have a soul. If it's a fertilized egg, it is it's own person - with a future and a hope. We do know that the Bible views the unborn at some point in time, as being persons. In the OT, the Law tells us that if 2 men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (before the baby was viable), the penalty is limb for limb and life for life. We also know that when Mary visited Elizabeth, John the Baptist (who was in Elizabeth's womb at this point) leapt for joy within her. It doesn't say SHE leapt for joy, it said her BABY leapt for joy. It wasn't a "future" person or a "blob of tissue" that was devoid of any personhood or soul. It was a person who responded to the coming Messiah. So to me when God chooses to give a child a soul is not an issue. The issue to me is do we value life even before it has a voice? Do we value life even before we can see it's 10 little fingers and 10 little toes? Do we value new creation or do we only value that which we can hold and "interact with"?

drmark -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 4:22:49 PM)
quote: Now, as far as when a child receives their soul. Is this point in time the onset of personhood?

solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 4:25:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WesSavedByGrace Saddly enough, arguing the definition of abortion will not help. Typically, people do not care to even go that deep into the discussion. They begin with no viability, no person yet, and that pretty much kills all the other considerations. There is very little respect of "personhood" for the majority unless they can define it by convenience. Didn't say it did matter. [;)]

Real_Solitude -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/15/2008 9:45:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: called2valor The brain doesn't stop developing until the late teen years on average, so by your definition they are not a full person until then. Also, the brain begins to deteriorate in later life, so I guess we are less of a person then. If personhood has only to do with neurobiology or levels of human sentience, then all sorts of weirdness creeps in. quote: Nope, because to me personhood is a binary, not an analogue. It's an off/on state. You are either a person, or not a person. You can't be half a person. The second you get your first neuron, your pattern beings, and so you have become a person. quote: If we try to put a qualitative aspect to what it means to be a person, we are also saying what it means to be a full human being. Eugenics movements have started because of that kind of thinking. If I kill a baby before it is 4 weeks old, does that mean I killed a non-person? If I take a Black&Decker drill and drill 50 holes in your head and for some strange reason you aren't the same as you were before, but instead just stare and drool a lot, are you no longer a person? quote: Again, it's a binary thing. You are either a person, or not. I don't really care about humanity or not, I care about sentient societies. If we found an alien race that was sentient, they would also be a society populated by persons. If someone is born with less mental capacity than an ape, they are still given personhood because they are part of a population of persons. Basically, if you're part of a sentient species, the second you gain your first neuron, you are a person. If you destroy a blastocyst, you have destroyed tissue, not a person. You may have destroyed the 'potential' of a person, but no actual person was involved. With modern technology, we can create people from skin cells. If you scratch your nose, you have just destroyed thousands of 'potential' persons, but no actual persons. As far as brain-dead goes, I'm not sure. If there is no neural activity, and no hope of regeneration, I would tend to say that there is not a person there, but just tissue. quote: Once fertilization of a human ova with a human sperm begins we know the result is always a human being... the developing human may die somewhere in the process, or be born abnormal or be mostly like the average human being (but no two humans are exactly the same in any respect except general form). You don't have to be religious or a scientist to get this. It is plain logic. personhood has to begin with conception (no matter how you want to try and define it) or it is arbitrary. You're using a different definition of person than I am. When I use person, I use "a self-conscious or rational being." Humans are the only 'persons' we know of. This does not mean that person=human. So all humans are persons, but all persons are not human. If a computer were capable of sentient though, it would be a person. If a plant were capable of sentient thought, it would be a person. As far as we know, sentient thought is contained within the brain. Without this tool of sentient though, you are not a person. To be safe, I say that the second this tool starts forming, you have achieved personhood, even if you're not capable of rational though. Yes, this is subjective. But it is how I define person.

OneOfHisJewels -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/17/2008 3:03:10 AM)
I haven't read the whole thread, but ALL HUMANS ARE MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE, whether they are just conceived, helplessly handicapped, 100 years old, in a vegetative state, a pair of conjoined twins, etc. I have read through the whole Bible, and NOWHERE does the word "personhood," come up. However, I do see a lot about being made in God's image, being fallen sinners, and a God who sent His son to die for those who would believe in Him. In light of the fact we are image bearers of God, while we can never love others as much as Christ did, we are called to have compassion on the poor, the blind, the lame, the helpless. Tami, you know I really like you, but the fact that you would even question the humanity of any human that God sees fit to have here on earth, and still giving life and breath to(OK, so unborn babies don't breathe the same way we do, but they still are being sustained), grieves my heart. Questioning what makes people people is what led Hitler to do what he did, and it's what led many of our founding fathers to believe it was OK to have people as slaves based on their skin color. I mean, if we say people in a vegatative state aren't people, and we euthanize them, then whats next? Getting rid of diabetics, Cystic Fibrosis patients, people who are too tall, too short, not pretty enough, etc., until we have an artificial society? Please, please rethink your viewpoint here. This kind of viewpoint can lead you down a slippery slope, and as you plan on going into the medical field, I pray you would go into it upholding life, and wanting to honor God in the medical care of each and every human being that you treat.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI