toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at
TOL Topic of the Day - Chime In!Every day we will post a new topic and we want to get your comments on that topic. The topic could be about literally anything from the vague to the specific, important or trivial. The TOL membership can take that topic and run with it!
I'd disagree. There are other (legitimate) reasons to question personhood's onset right at conception. I don't want the door open to denying someone contraception, for example.
There are plenty of forms of contraception that do no involve killing a fetus.
If it's easy to confirm, then please confirm it for me.
Maybe you're missing something. If a heart beat is detected, it's detected. If brain waves are detected, they're detected. The presence of either is easy to confirm and definitive--that's why I regard either as a good rule of thumb for establishing the onset of personhood.
Quote:
After all... I gave you the example of the adult having heart surgery and his heart is stopped so the doctors can perform the surgery. Under your logic, the patient is no longer a person while his heart is not beating.
Well, again, you're missing what I actually said. The example doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. Brain wave/heart activity as far as I'm concerned conclusively establishes when personhood begins. That's it. We're supposed to be talking about when personhood starts, correct? That's all I've discussed so far.
P.S. As for when personhood ends? I'm not sure it ever does.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Maybe you're missing something. If a heart beat is detected, it's detected. If brain waves are detected, they're detected. The presence of either is easy to confirm and definitive--that's why I regard either as a good rule of thumb for establishing the onset of personhood.
You have already said that... now I'm asking you why?
Why do brain waves or a heart beat amount to personhood?
Quote:
Well, again, you're missing what I actually said. The example doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote. Brain wave/heart activity as far as I'm concerned conclusively establishes when personhood begins. That's it. We're supposed to be talking about when personhood starts, correct? That's all I've discussed so far.
Exactly!
You have said... a heart beat or a brain wave are the things that determine personhood. Yet I have given you examples of adults (whom I assume you agree are persons) that have had their heart beat stopped and I am wondering if you still consider them a person??
It's your "logic" not mine.
I'm testing your logic to see if it has any value. If it does have value you should easily be able to respond to my question.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
May 18th, 2012, 10:23 AM
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.
Why do brain waves or a heart beat amount to personhood?
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.
Quote:
You have said... a heart beat or a brain wave are the things that determine personhood.
Actually, no. I haven't. I said either determines when personhood begins; I haven't commented at all about personhood's definition.
Quote:
It's your "logic" not mine.
See above.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
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.
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.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
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 believe in Christianity, as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
"Don't believe that there's nothing that's true, don't believe in this modern machine." Switchfoot
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.
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.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
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.
Uh.... GuySmiley contradicted you and you say... "Very well put."
More evidence that Granite has no observable brain waves.
No. Heart activity or brain waves is the marker for the onset/existence of personhood, as far as I'm concerned. If we need a litmus test, this one seems undeniable, clean cut, and easy to confirm.
Why do you need to listen for a heartbeat to determine personhood?
And it's not easy to detect a heartbeat. It's nigh on impossible to determine when the tiny heart hits its first beat.
Linear Mode
