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

[ApologeticJedi]

The heart is just a muscle (or a set of muscles). How can individuality be tied to that? My son has hypoplastic left heart disease -- so he only has half a working heart. Is he only half an individual?

The brain is just part if your nervous system. Some people have part of their brain, or other parts of their nervous system, damaged. Would it be fair to say they are less a person that I am?

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

 

[Granite]

Seems arbitrary. What is your rationale?

It's the first flicker of future independent life. If we need to pick a line, this seems like a pretty obvious place to start.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

It's the first flicker of future independent life. If we need to pick a line, this seems like a pretty obvious place to start.

How do you know you aren't confusing causation and symptom?

I also question how obvious it is. This is some appeal to an a priori principle?


Wouldn't DNA be a more "obvious" starting point?

 

[Granite]

How do you know you aren't confusing causation and symptom?

I also question how obvious it is. This is some appeal to an a priori principle?

I don't. No one really does when it comes to this issue, which is why we're still grappling with it. We associate the end of a person's life with the cessation of heartbeat and brain activity; the beginning of that individual's personhood, it seems to me, could easily be backtracked/correlated to the first appearance of those functions.

 

[Persephone66]

I wasn't aware that there was a point in a person's development when they were not a person.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I don't. No one really does when it comes to this issue, which is why we're still grappling with it. We associate the end of a person's life with the cessation of heartbeat and brain activity; the beginning of that individual's personhood, it seems to me, could easily be backtracked/correlated to the first appearance of those functions.

Is it possible there is some equivocation here? While related I think there is some difference between the concept of "living" and "individualistic" or "person". As far as rights are concerned they alter once an individual passes, even drastically lessened, but the two concepts are distinct.

(in fact, we cam denote "life" in a child long before brain or heart activity is measured.)

Thats perhaps why DNA itself wouldn't denote a person, but we would have to see life (or that it once lived) to establish he/she as a person. Even in death there are law protecting the dignity of their remains.

 

[Granite]

Is it possible there is some equivocation here? While related I think there is some difference between the concept of "living" and "individualistic" or "person". As far as rights are concerned they alter once an individual passes, even drastically lessened, but the two concepts are distinct.

(in fact, we cam denote "life" in a child long before brain or heart activity is measured.)

Thats perhaps why DNA itself wouldn't denote a person, but we would have to see life (or that it once lived) to establish he/she as a person. Even in death there are law protecting the dignity of their remains.

There's a big difference being life and personhood, which is where a lot of inadvertent disagreement comes from.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why?

Until the zygote implants and begins to grow it is just the potential for a human. We have no idea how many times sexual intercourse results in a zygote that fails to implant in the uterus. There is no practical test to determine the exact moment of fertilization so I think it is rather arbitrary to say a human life begins at fertilization.

In point of fact, human life begins when the soul enters the baby. When does that happen? Does a soul enter a zygote that God knows will never implant? Does a soul enter a zygote when it implants even though God knows that fetus may end in a miscarriage? Does the soul enter the baby when the fetus "quickens"?

 

[CabinetMaker]

And for fish and other creatures that lack a uterus and fertilization occurs in another place? Many species of fish, for instance...are they not fish then since there was no implantation? Or do they become fish at the moment of the joining of the egg with the sperm?

They never become human life and since this thread is directed to the question of human life, your point is irrelevant.

 

[vegascowboy]

...your point is irrelevant.

This is quite often the case, although I believe it holds more water than you give it credit for in this instance, notwithstanding.

 

[Samstarrett]

Until the zygote implants and begins to grow it is just the potential for a human.

What fundamentally changes at implantation?

We have no idea how many times sexual intercourse results in a zygote that fails to
implant in the uterus.

While that is no doubt true, I fail to see any real difference between a zygote prior to implantation and one afterward aside from location(which hardly seems a good test of personhood) and likelihood to survive(equally problematic).

There is no practical test to determine the exact moment of fertilization so I think it is rather arbitrary to say a human life begins at fertilization.

There is no way to determine whether there is or is not a zygote present in a woman's body? I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is, we can certainly know the difference between a measure that prevents conception and one that destroys a zygote afterward, thus for practical purposes as regards contraceptives/abortifacients, there is no problem with saying human life begins at fertilization.

In point of fact, human life begins when the soul enters the baby. When does that happen? Does a soul enter a zygote that God knows will never implant? Does a soul enter a zygote when it implants even though God knows that fetus may end in a miscarriage? Does the soul enter the baby when the fetus "quickens"?

No way to know, hence the only reasonable choice is to protect life all the way down the line.

 

[yankeedoodled]

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[BabyChristian]

Since people don't seem to agree on this, I think we should err on the safe side. Meaning consider it's a life from the beginning.

Blacks didn't used to be considered human at one time also.

How cruel people can be.

 

[sweetlikeshorty]

I agree with the current laws in my country that alow for abortion to be carried out up to a certain point.

HOWEVER, I do not think that abortion should be available to everybody. I think that in certain situations, such as rape, that the woman should have the right to decide whether or not to keep the baby she did not intend on having. I also believe that abortion should not be considered after determining the sex of the child. Thousands of baby girls are not born every year because the family would prefer a boy, for whatever reasons they may have.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...

While that is no doubt true, I fail to see any real difference between a zygote prior to implantation and one afterward aside from location(which hardly seems a good test of personhood) and likelihood to survive(equally problematic).

...

How long will a zygote live if it fails to implant? Does a zygote poses everything within itself that it needs to become a human? The answers are several days and no. Unless a zygote implants and is nourished by the mother it cannot become a fetus.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This is quite often the case, although I believe it holds more water than you give it credit for in this instance, notwithstanding.

Sorry, but I don't agree. A fish is just a fish. It has no soul. A human does. The question is, when does it receive that soul? At fertilization when God knows that particular zygote will be flushed from the body? At the quickening when the mother feels the first movements of the life growing within her? Or as Jewish tradition holds, at birth? Not much room for angles to waltz on the head of a pin.

 

[Samstarrett]

How long will a zygote live if it fails to implant?

Not long.

Does a zygote poses everything within itself that it needs to become a human?

Since I maintain that the zygote is a human, this question is rather like the more famous 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

The answers are several days and no.

OK.

Unless a zygote implants and is nourished by the mother it cannot become a fetus.

And unless a fetus is born alive it cannot become an infant. There is always the potential for a human to die and fail to reach the next stage of development; this does not make him less a person.

 

[Samstarrett]

Sorry, but I don't agree. A fish is just a fish. It has no soul. A human does. The question is, when does it receive that soul? At fertilization when God knows that particular zygote will be flushed from the body? At the quickening when the mother feels the first movements of the life growing within her? Or as Jewish tradition holds, at birth? Not much room for angles to waltz on the head of a pin.

I think you'll confess you don't know what the moment of ensoulment is, right? And in that case, we must protect life all the way down the line.

 

[Nick M]

Heart beat and or brain activity.

I guess that rules you out.

 

[Granite]

As I said once, religion complicates everything. Ensoulment, the personhood of zygotes, the misery and suffering that these beliefs lead to--classic case in point.