Help Defining a Person

[catharina]

What is the best way to define a Person in an abortion debate?

Many great explanations have been put forth in this thread. Before it ends entirely, I’ll add my explanation. It’s usually effective in pro-life work.

Conception is the beginning state of brand-new, never-to-be-repeated person. Under most circumstances, all that is required to make this person both visible and viable among us is meeting the proper requirements for food, clothing and shelter for the mother. That society might often tell a mother “you’re on your own” means nothing in terms of the absolute value of that new existence. Those who do not support the growth of new life will be judged for their neglect, be it neglect through ignorance or malice.

 

[skeetor]

You should use their argument against them.

Because there is absolutely no physical difference between a nine month old baby in the womb and a nine month and one day old baby out of the womb. then there is no physical difference between a person outside the womb and a person inside the womb.

a person is a person. anything they answer with will be subjective in nature and not really truth. but then again they aren’t concerned with truth only with feelings of convenience.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You should use their argument against them.

Because there is absolutely no physical difference between a nine month old baby in the womb and a nine month and one day old baby out of the womb. then there is no physical difference between a person outside the womb and a person inside the womb.

Not strictly true.
The embrio in the womb is running on external supplies provided by the umbilicus.
The internal power supply is inoperative.
One of the greates hazards of child-birth is the transfer from external supplies to internal. Countless babies suffer irreversible brain damage during this procedure, some even die. Child-birth is not a piece of cake either to the mother, or the baby.

a person is a person. anything they answer with will be subjective in nature and not really truth. but then again they aren’t concerned with truth only with feelings of convenience.

Yes, but can the embrio still be a person when it lacks the equipment to express personality?

 

[catharina]

Not strictly true.
The embrio in the womb is running on external supplies provided by the umbilicus.
The internal power supply is inoperative.
One of the greates hazards of child-birth is the transfer from external supplies to internal. Countless babies suffer irreversible brain damage during this procedure, some even die. Child-birth is not a piece of cake either to the mother, or the baby.
Yes, but can the embrio still be a person when it lacks the equipment to express personality?

Isn’t this a rather vague (and faulty) question, that is, the questioned implication that one is not a person without a personality. The elderly have massive strokes, small children enter comas, babies are born anacephalic. Is it fine to decalre them less than human because they can’t express personality?

Talk about a very slippery slope … this notion sounds like one.

 

[catharina]

I’d argue that an human embryo is very much a person since given protection, time and nutrients, it will only become a larger person, not a dog, cat or frog.

 

[skeetor]

Not strictly true…(snip)

sure it is. Is my car physically different when setting in the garage hooked up to the battery charger than on the interstate going 65 mph? It’s performing different process sure but it’s not any different physically.

 

[whatevergirl]

Stick with science…

What distinguishes a human being… from a fish, or a tree, or a bear?
Our DNA.
Human DNA is definitive… it cannot be mistaken for another being. Yet, each human has a unique set of DNA.

When the sperm and egg unite at conception, a new and unique set of HUMAN DNA has just been created. This new DNA has never existed before… it’s unique.
That DNA does not change during the development of the baby… it’s the same DNA at conception as it is when the baby is born and when the elderly die. It doesn’t change. It was “human” from the moment of conception.
That is the best definition/‘argument’ I have seen for this, yet…thank you Em…I will remember this the next time I’m confronted with such a debate.
Hope that helps!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Isn’t this a rather vague (and faulty) question, that is, the questioned implication that one is not a person without a personality. The elderly have massive strokes, small children enter comas, babies are born anacephalic. Is it fine to decalre them less than human because they can’t express personality?

Talk about a very slippery slope … this notion sounds like one.

Yes, it is a slippery slope.
That is where wisdom is required.
Laws cannot replace wisdom.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

sure it is. Is my car physically different when setting in the garage hooked up to the battery charger than on the interstate going 65 mph? It’s performing different process sure but it’s not any different physically.

No, it is like the first time you run your computer haveing just loaded the software.
It comes up with all kinds of questions, who you are, where you live, what time and date it is.
this is called ‘INITIALIZATION’
Physically, there may be no detectable difference, but in terms of status, the difference is very real.

Please note that I do not in any way devalue a human-being under-construction.
I just assert that a human-being under-construction must be considered in the same light a a house under-construction.

In the very early stages, such as completed plans and granted building permission, it may be technically a house, but that is not meaningful.

I do not hold that personhood begins with the quickening, only that the quoickening is the first sign of a functioning CNS that is normally observed without complex internal monitoring.

Yes, the design of the person is present from conception, but there is no guarantee that the design will be fulfilled.

Is the zygote a person.
Do you hold a funeral for a zygote which fails to implant?
The zygote indeed, according to teaching has a life-principle, or soul, but then so did the gammetes that formed it.

Science cannot give good guidance on these points, and it may be that the old traditions are more useful.

 

[skeetor]

Physically, there may be no detectable difference… (snip)

well thats all I’m really concerned with when “defining a person,” because the law claims that completely viable babies can be killed in the womb, babies which are no different physically or mentally than babies outside the womb and who are protected by law from infanticide.

 

[JimG]

No, it is like the first time you run your computer haveing just loaded the software.
It comes up with all kinds of questions, who you are, where you live, what time and date it is.
this is called ‘INITIALIZATION’

And for a human being, initialization occurs at conception. That’s when all the data gets loaded. There is no other alleged ‘start-up’ point one can point to at some later stage that is as significant.

Science cannot give good guidance on these points, and it may be that the old traditions are more useful.

This is quite remarkable. We have what one would consider the theological contingent arguing the scientific data, while you are arguing for a medieval understanding of humans.

 

[catharina]

And for a human being, initialization occurs at conception. That’s when all the data gets loaded. There is no other alleged ‘start-up’ point one can point to at some later stage that is as significant.

**This is quite remarkable. ** We have what one would consider the theological contingent arguing the scientific data, while you are arguing for a medieval understanding of humans.

Jim, this thread is quite remarkable indeed and the points you made with this point are simply wonderful. Thank you.

 

[Jennifer123]

Yes, the design of the person is present from conception, but there is no guarantee that the design will be fulfilled…

How does that fact erase the inherent dignity of a human being? The “design” for a person may be unfulfilled at any point of “being” - am I less of a person because I failed to graduate medical school, for instance?

Is the zygote a person.
Do you hold a funeral for a zygote which fails to implant?
The zygote indeed, according to teaching has a life-principle, or soul, but then so did the gammetes that formed it.

Science cannot give good guidance on these points, and it may be that the old traditions are more useful.

Zygote = human embryo = human being, so yes it is a person. I haven’t met a person who wasn’t a human being.
Science, at least medical science, also has a tradition of “First do no harm”. If science can’t agree as to what a human being is, why are we so eager to end its existance without all facts present? (And all facts available saying that abortion does more harm to baby and mother than not).

 

[catharina]

How does that fact erase the inherent dignity of a human being? The “design” for a person may be unfulfilled at any point of “being” - am I less of a person because I failed to graduate medical school, for instance?

**

Zygote = human embryo = human being, so yes it is a person. I haven’t met a person who wasn’t a human being.
Science, at least medical science, also has a tradition of “First do no harm”. If science can’t agree as to what a human being is, why are we so eager to end its existance without all facts present?** (And all facts available saying that abortion does more harm to baby and mother than not).

re above: it does seem most scientists/physicians skipped school re this point.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

How does that fact erase the inherent dignity of a human being? The “design” for a person may be unfulfilled at any point of “being” - am I less of a person because I failed to graduate medical school, for instance?

I never said anything about erasing the dignity of a human being, I just said that the potential was there, but was not at this point fulfilled.
We have completed and approved drawings, and the site is cleared and prepared. Services have been laid, and the ground has been cut for the footings.
There is as yet no house, but you can begin to see the form that will become.

Zygote = human embryo = human being,

No!, your equasion is fanciful. The zygote has the potential to become an embryo, with external supply support.
The embryo has the potential to become a human being.
But these are only potentials, they are not fulfilled.
Likewise, the human being has the potential to become a person, but that too is only a potential.
To equate potential with actuality is a gross travel of fancy.
I agree that to deny a G_d given potential is a grave sin. Certainly I consider deliberate abortion, other than for the grave necessity for saving the live of the mother, to be an act of murder, if it is performed after the quickening, which is traditionally seen as a sign from G_d that a new life is waiting to be born.
Before that time, I am open to doubt as to whether the potential has become actual. As I have said over, science cannot answer this question, other than by indicating whether the CNS is sufficiently developed as to be able to be a vehicle for a mind.
If there is no vehicle for the mind, then there cannot be a mind.
If there is no mind, there can be no expression of personality.
If thee can be no expression of personality, then the potential person has not become actual.
So I doubt your next conclusion.

so yes it is a person. I haven’t met a person who wasn’t a human being.

Oh I have, several, but then you probably doubt that dogs have souls, but they certainly have personalities, hence they have minds, and so, albeit in a limited way, they too are persons.

Science, at least medical science, also has a tradition of “First do no harm”. If science can’t agree as to what a human being is, why are we so eager to end its existence without all facts present? (And all facts available saying that abortion does more harm to baby and mother than not).

Who is so eager?
Certainly not me.
The use of abortion as a means of contraception is in my eyes a grave sin, and even if done very early, is little, if any, better than murder.
However, that brings is to contraception:
I can see NO effective difference in any means of contraception, whether mechanical, temporal, or chemical. I do not believe that the ‘rhythm’ method is any more moral than any other. To this extent, I am pro-choice, provided that this choice is made for the welfare of the family, and not just for convenience or license.
I agree that when the population of the planet needed to be expanded, the commandment: ‘Go forth and multiply!’ was vital, and action counter to that was a grave sin, but now, when the planet is bursting at the seams, a different view is needed.

 

[Rosalinda]

[SIGN]No!, your equasion [sic] is fanciful. The zygote has the potential to become an embryo,[/SIGN]

Voco Pro Tatiano, Kindly remember the difference between scientific fact and scientific myth. According to the science of embryology the zygote is an embryo.

[SIGN]"… the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon *makes contact *with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."[/SIGN]

Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994).

If you can’t prove it Voco Pro Tatiano your opinions are neither based on science nor in reality.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

My error.
I was confusing ‘embrio’ with ‘foetus’.
Correct the text thus to read:
The zygote, called by some, a unicelular embryo has the potential to become foetus, with external supply support.
This foetus has the potential to become a human being.
But these are only potentials, they are not fulfilled.

 

[mlchance]

This foetus has the potential to become a human being.

You keep saying things like this as if mere repetition equalled truth. Since you cannot demonstrate the truth of the proposition that a foetus is not a human being, no rational person has any real reason to believe the proposition.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Jennifer123]

My error.
I was confusing ‘embrio’ with ‘foetus’.

They are not to be confused as entirely separate entities - it is just a stage in the process of growth in a human being.
The fact is that this is just one part of a life-long series of changes in human beings’ development. One is no less a human because they happen to be in the toddler stage, or the teen-age stage, or the senior stage of living.

 

[Jennifer123]

The embryo has the potential to become a human being…

The embryo is a human being. The sperm and egg, at the point of fertilization, combine to create a single-cell embryonic zygote, at which point the sperm and egg no longer exist. The zygote now has 46 chromosomes (plus/minus with Down’s and other syndromes), the exact number needed to create a member of the human species. This new single-celled being then immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes that drives his or her development throughout its whole life.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

The potential argument is philosophical, not scientific.

I agree that when the population of the planet needed to be expanded, the commandment: ‘Go forth and multiply!’ was vital, and action counter to that was a grave sin, but now, when the planet is bursting at the seams, a different view is needed.

The planet is not bursting at the seams with a population crisis, but that is a point for another thread I guess. Just wanted to point out an ideological fallacy that drives the abortion agenda.