Help Defining a Person

  • Thread starter Thread starter FuzzyBunny116
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But again you’re selectively reading the text. The most basic definition of “person” is “human.”
Yes im selectively reading but I still use general concepts. The reason I dont want to limit ‘person’ to ‘human’ is because i’m convinced that idea would become obsolete. For many years now more and more people are coming to realize that even an advanced artificial intelligence can be considered a person. Like the fictional android commander Data from Star Trek. Its only a matter of time before we develop computers sophisticated enough to have fee will and personality.
As has been stated frequently in this thread: Let’s grant for the sake of argument that prior to Time X, a developing human embryo isn’t a person. The question then becomes, “When is Time X?” No one can ever answer this question with anything other than this or that arbitrary standard.
but we could answer when it is not. for sure it cannot be within the first 3 months from fertilization.
 
Its only a matter of time before we develop computers sophisticated enough to have fee will and personality.
You’re artificially constraining the terms of debate in order to make allowances for something that doesn’t exist outside science fiction? I guess that’s one way to avoid being sensible about the subject of abortion.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
let me clarify then. the idea that its the mind that makes a person can be best understood through webster’s definition#5:

webster.com/dictionary/person
*Main Entry: per·son

5: the personality of a human being : self*
the personality, the self itself, is the mind is it not?

Now how does your religious postings relate to the definition of ‘person’? 🙂
According to you, it is.

Yet as above:

"366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people “wholly”, with “spirit and soul and body” kept sound and blameless at the Lord’s coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. “Spirit” signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one’s being, where the person decides for or against God.""

Other frames of reference exist, outside of the scientificic realm. One wouldn’t say that a beating heart defines a person or that brainwaves define a person. Whence is life, before the soul? Where “goes” life after death? To limit life to a series of formulae might suffice in theory but never in action. Even in invitro, either life occurs or it doesn’t. Who decides? The medical team? The folks in the lab? No - or every attempt would be successful. It’s not. The only success assured is that (and when) God grants life.

Even catechetically, man is seen as more than a scienctific equation. The very use of the term “heart” in the poetic sense, better defines man than the mere organ of the heart would.

Webster does not define “personhood” for me.
 
You’re artificially constraining the terms of debate in order to make allowances for something that doesn’t exist outside science fiction? I guess that’s one way to avoid being sensible about the subject of abortion.
ok then lets define ‘human’. you first. please use unbiased sources.
 
You’re artificially constraining the terms of debate in order to make allowances for something that doesn’t exist outside science fiction? I guess that’s one way to avoid being sensible about the subject of abortion.

– Mark L. Chance.
Exactly. As long as terms are not defined to a point of mutual acceptance, there is nothing to validate any argument.
 
uhm, miss catharina, its according to webster too.

webster sees person and personhood as the same thing. try it.
That you accept Webster and his literary heirs for your authority in defining matters of life (definition #5, no less) gives a big look into your preferred biases. I can’t imagine many on this site who limit their definitions for person/personhood, to Webster.

ahhh, miss agnos-theist?
 
That you accept Webster and his literary heirs for your authority in defining matters of life (definition #5, no less) gives a big look into your preferred biases. I can’t imagine many on this site who limit their definitions for person/personhood, to Webster.

ahhh, miss agnos-theist?
Who said im limiting myself to webster? Try this for a change:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

*1. a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.
2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.
3. Sociology. an individual human being, esp. with reference to his or her social relationships and behavioral patterns as conditioned by the culture.
4. Philosophy. a self-conscious or rational being.
5. the actual self or individual personality of a human being: You ought not to generalize, but to consider the person you are dealing with.
6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person.
7. the body in its external aspect: an attractive person to look at.
8. a character, part, or role, as in a play or story.
9. an individual of distinction or importance.
10. a person not entitled to social recognition or respect.
11. Law. a human being (natural person) or a group of human beings, a corporation, a partnership, an estate, or other legal entity (artificial person or juristic person) recognized by law as having rights and duties.
12. Grammar. a category found in many languages that is used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to or about whom he or she is speaking. In English there are three persons in the pronouns, the first represented by I and we, the second by you, and the third by he, she, it, and they. Most verbs have distinct third person singular forms in the present tense, as writes; the verb be has, in addition, a first person singular form am.
13. Theology. any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
—Idioms14. be one’s own person, to be free from restrictions, control, or dictatorial influence: Now that she’s working, she feels that she’s her own person.
15. in person, in one’s own bodily presence; personally: Applicants are requested to apply in person. *

Admit it, my only preferred biases is to use unbiased sources. Amen? 😃
 
Tiny reminder: you referenced Webster.

Really, you go on ahead and consider the Catholic teaching. This is a Catholic site after all, and any convincing you might do to the contrary (and that seems to be your goal) should be based in negating Catholic teaching. Incidentally, patroninizing or “cute” as the Miss Catharina was, I’m not a “Miss.” Regards to you too, Ma’am?
 
Really, you go on ahead and consider the Catholic teaching.
This is about social justice. I dont think we are required to limit our rationale to catholic teachings unless catholics plan on implementing a catholic sharia law. Until then social justice should be entirely secular.
Incidentally, patroninizing or “cute” as the Miss Catharina was, I’m not a “Miss.” Regards to you too, Ma’am?
Im sorry I was led to believe that you are a female. I am a guy too. A straight guy. 😃
 
This is about social justice. I dont think we are required to limit our rationale to catholic teachings unless catholics plan on implementing a catholic sharia law. Until then social justice should be entirely secular.

Im sorry I was led to believe that you are a female. I am a guy too. A straight guy. 😃
You are a remarkably obtuse guy. I’m a female and not a “Miss” so you can attempt to work that out. (It’s very simple.)

Now, yoohoo? A Social Justice forum on a Catholic site?
Ring any bells regarding probable frame of refernce?
 
You are a remarkably obtuse guy. I’m a female and not a “Miss” so you can attempt to work that out. (It’s very simple.)
AH! A MOMMA! aright i got it. 😃 hey i was just trying to be polite. Arent you being a bit uncharitable by calling me ‘obtuse’?
Now, yoohoo? A Social Justice forum on a Catholic site?
Ring any bells regarding probable frame of refernce?
Jesus did say give to ceasar what is ceasars and to god what is god’s. Catholics can influence secular social justice. And isnt that what many people want to do here? A way to rationalize catholic ethics to non-catholics without using religious justifications? So people like me provide you guys with practice. To test out your ideas.
 
AH! A MOMMA! aright i got it. 😃 hey i was just trying to be polite. Arent you being a bit uncharitable by calling me ‘obtuse’?

Jesus did say give to ceasar what is ceasars and to god what is god’s. Catholics can influence secular social justice. And isnt that what many people want to do here? A way to rationalize catholic ethics to non-catholics without using religious justifications? So people like me provide you guys with practice. To test out your ideas.
Not uncharitable, simply direct. It fits (Webster’s #1). Now it fits even more precisely since your leap from singlehood to motherhood is not the ordinarily reasoned leap. Meaning: I’m a Mrs., not a Miss - although yes, I happen to be a mother too.

Latch ditch effort? Invoke the name of Jesus?
To Caesar what is Caesar’s, to God what is God’s?

Life is God’s though it’s lived in the realm of Caesar.

Many people who’ve been educated in the social sciences would not accept your presentation of the notion of “rationalizing” the ethics of Social Justice in the Catholic faith If you mean that you’re hoping to find someone who will present RC ethics in a reasonable way, then that’s another matter. Check with those in the social sciences for the difference. Meanwhile, my guess is that none of us needs “practice.”
 
Now it fits even more precisely since your leap from singlehood to motherhood is not the ordinarily reasoned leap. Meaning: I’m a Mrs., not a Miss - although yes, I happen to be a mother too.
oh c’mon wheres your sense of humor? 😃
Many people who’ve been educated in the social sciences would not accept your presentation of the notion of “rationalizing” the ethics of Social Justice in the Catholic faith If you mean that you’re hoping to find someone who will present RC ethics in a reasonable way, then that’s another matter. Check with those in the social sciences for the difference. Meanwhile, my guess is that none of us needs “practice.”
whatever. the thread is about defining ‘person’ in a debate. if the debate is purely between catholics then your religious postings gives you the clear edge. otherwise your catholic sources are irrelevant. right? 🙂
 
oh c’mon wheres your sense of humor? 😃

whatever. the thread is about defining ‘person’ in a debate. if the debate is purely between catholics then your religious postings gives you the clear edge. otherwise your catholic sources are irrelevant. right? 🙂
I have to guess that the majority who’ve posted in this thread are Catholic - so that in itself makes my references relevant.
 
I have carefully read Voco Pro Tatiano’s posts. Is this a fair summary?

[SIGN]All new human life begins with conception.(post #95) An embryo can fission. Therefore an embryo cannot be a new human life. [/SIGN]

Can we agree the early embryo may be one, two or more human individuals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top