toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 18th, 2012 08:52 AM

toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[Stripe]

Personhood is conferred at conception by God.

 

[Cleekster]

at conception it is a living organism, but for me when the heart starts beating i consider it a person.

 

[Granite]

Heart beat and or brain activity.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

at conception it is a living organism, but for me when the heart starts beating i consider it a person.

Heart beat and or brain activity.

Why does a heart beat or brain activity equal a person?

When a person is in surgery and the doctors stop their heart to operate, are they no longer a person? :idunno:

I'm just trying to figure out your rationale.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A person is....

- Alive
- Human
- Unique DNA

Therefore, at the moment of conception we have a living human with unique DNA.

That is objective evidence.

 

[vegascowboy]

At the very moment of conception.

Without question.

 

[WizardofOz]

A person is....

- Alive
- Human
- Unique DNA

Therefore, at the moment of conception we have a living human with unique DNA.

That is objective evidence.

:thumb: Yup!

 

[Granite]

Why does a heart beat or brain activity equal a person?

I'm not saying it "equals" a person, but it's as good a rule of thumb for establishing the beginning of personhood as I can think of.

When a person is in surgery and the doctors stop their heart to operate, are they no longer a person?

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.

 

[Tambora]

toldailytopic: Objectively, when does a person become a person? At conception? Or at some other point after conception?

My life and growth started at the moment of conception.
Other than Adam & Eve, I don't know of anyone who didn't start out this way.

A person is....

- Alive
- Human
- Unique DNA

Therefore, at the moment of conception we have a living human with unique DNA.

That is objective evidence.

Yessiree!

At the very moment of conception.

Without question.

Absolutely!

 

[csuguy]

I like your answer knight :thumb:

A better question I think, though, would be: what is the motivation behind trying to deny that a child is truly a person at conception?

Of course, the answer is that they need to be able to deny the humanity of the child so that they can kill it and be free of the obligations of parenthood. If ever there was an indication of the level of sin and depravity America has reached: this is it.

 

[Cleekster]

Why does a heart beat or brain activity equal a person?

When a person is in surgery and the doctors stop their heart to operate, are they no longer a person? :idunno:

I'm just trying to figure out your rationale.

until the heart starts beating and the brain starts to function i don't consider life to be "intelligent".....but rather a bunch of cells dividing which is nothing more than a bunch of cells dividing.

 

[Thunder's Muse]

At conception.

 

[Granite]

I like your answer knight :thumb:

A better question I think, though, would be: what is the motivation behind trying to deny that a child is truly a person at conception?

Of course, the answer is that they need to be able to deny the humanity of the child so that they can kill it and be free of the obligations of parenthood. If ever there was an indication of the level of sin and depravity America has reached: this is 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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

If it's easy to confirm, then please confirm it for me.

What's your rationale?

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

 

[Granite]

There are plenty of forms of contraception that do no involve killing a fetus.

The pill doesn't. If that's where you were headed this is an example of the kind of thinking we should try to avoid.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The pill doesn't. If that's where you were headed this is an example of the kind of thinking we should try to avoid.

Try to post complete thoughts.

I really cannot understand the point you are trying to make.

 

[Granite]

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.

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.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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?

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.