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

[Real Sorceror]

Hello Hitler! :wave:

So, you would support post-birth infanticide? Well maybe you don't support it but you certainly couldn't make a case against it based on your logic.

Knight, that was completely uncalled for. :nono:

Of course I don't support infanticide. I don't even support abortion. I was just answering your question.

And yes I can make a case against it. Being a person is not the only thing valuable about a human being.

 

[Tambora]

I believe a "person" does not have to have a physical human body to be a "person".

But I believe the OP question was about a physical human being, right?
Physical human beings start at conception.

 

[Granite]

It sounds to me like you are making your choice based on the consequences though. You'd like to keep certain kinds of contraception available, so you'd like to define it as brain activity/heartbeat.

Contraception's a side note, not the central issue. Personhood as defined by the moment of conception opens the door to potential abuses. This happens to be one of them. Unless I was associated with big pharma (which I'm not, thank goodness) keeping the pill available wouldn't be--and isn't--the basis for my opinion. Like I already said, I base my opinion on the fact that heart and brain activity is easily verified, clean-cut, undeniable, and medically/scientifically objective. Personhood as defined by conception smacks of a mystic, divine endowment that of course I don't think exists.

 

[csuguy]

Contraception's a side note, not the central issue. Personhood as defined by the moment of conception opens the door to potential abuses. This happens to be one of them. Unless I was associated with big pharma (which I'm not, thank goodness) keeping the pill available wouldn't be--and isn't--the basis for my opinion. Like I already said, I base my opinion on the fact that heart and brain activity is easily verified, clean-cut, undeniable, and medically/scientifically objective. Personhood as defined by conception smacks of a mystic, divine endowment that of course I don't think exists.

How is a brain-wave any more objective than a zygote or fetus? Both are physically observable verified phenomenon are they not?

 

[Granite]

How is a brain-wave any more objective than a zygote or fetus? Both are physically observable verified phenomenon are they not?

Yes, but the mere existence of a zygote doesn't speak to its personhood.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, but the mere existence of a zygote doesn't speak to its personhood.

Because Granite says so...

 

[csuguy]

Yes, but the mere existence of a zygote doesn't speak to its personhood.

That depends: how do you define "personhood"

A "person" for me is a human being - and a zygote is the earliest form of a human being, objectively speaking.

 

[Real Sorceror]

How is a brain-wave any more objective than a zygote or fetus? Both are physically observable verified phenomenon are they not?

Brain wave patterns can indicate higher cognitive function, a key sign of personhood. Higher brain function is linked with just about all of the other signs of personhood, like sense of self and the ability to communicate.

A fetus has almost none of these features and a zygote doesn't have any at all.

 

[csuguy]

Brain wave patterns can indicate higher cognitive function, a key sign of personhood. Higher brain function is linked with just about all of the other signs of personhood, like sense of self and the ability to communicate.

A fetus has almost none of these features and a zygote doesn't have any at all.

A body is also a key sign of a person, objectively speaking. And with a successful pregnancy a zygote will necessarily develop higher cognitive functions.

 

[Real Sorceror]

A body is also a key sign of a person, objectively speaking. And with a successful pregnancy a zygote will necessarily develop higher cognitive functions.

In most cases, yes, a human zygote will eventually get there. But that doesn't make it a person, just as an acorn isn't an oak tree.

Ah, here I found my post in the other thread.

For anyone who is unsure of what these qualities are, they include things like consciousness, reasoning, self-motivation, the capacity to communicate, and of course self-awareness.

Objectively speaking a body isn't a prerequisite, but since we haven't confirmed any bodiless entities it sort of goes hand in hand.
It's just science fiction for now, but given enough advancement we could eventually see AI's that qualify as people.

 

[Granite]

That depends: how do you define "personhood"

A "person" for me is a human being - and a zygote is the earliest form of a human being, objectively speaking.

Well, that's the real question...

How about: A sentient being capable of self-awareness.

Personhood recognizes the promise of said being, so, an unborn child would be considered a person. As I said, since personhood's a one-way door, once said being has crossed that threshold, personhood cannot be unbestowed.

:idunno:

Thoughts?

 

[csuguy]

In most cases, yes, a human zygote will eventually get there. But that doesn't make it a person, just as an acorn isn't an oak tree.

An acorn is a seed - and is analogous to the separated sperm/egg in humans. It hasn't started developing into a tree yet - it merely has the potential to start growing. A sapling would be a more appropriate analogy for a zygote/fetus/baby.

And why isn't a zygote a person? What is your definition of a person. Again, mine is that it is a human being.

It's just science fiction for now, but given enough advancement we could eventually see AI's that qualify as people.

An AI would never be counted as a person, at least as I understand the term. A sophisticated enough AI might be able to mimic people convincingly, but it would never constitute a true person

 

[csuguy]

Well, that's the real question...

How about: A sentient being capable of self-awareness.

Personhood recognizes the promise of said being, so, an unborn child would be considered a person. As I said, since personhood's a one-way door, once said being has crossed that threshold, personhood cannot be unbestowed.

:idunno:

Thoughts?

A zygote is merely the earliest form of an unborn child. If you recognize the unborn child as a person then there's no good reason to deny that it is a person in its earliest stage of development.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Well, that's the real question...

How about: A sentient being capable of self-awareness.

Personhood recognizes the promise of said being, so, an unborn child would be considered a person. As I said, since personhood's a one-way door, once said being has crossed that threshold, personhood cannot be unbestowed.

:idunno:

Thoughts?

I would propose that it can be lost. In my line of thinking, a human in a sufficiently vegetative or mentally degraded state could stop being a person.

 

[Real Sorceror]

An acorn is a seed - and is analogous to the separated sperm/egg in humans. It hasn't started developing into a tree yet - it merely has the potential to start growing. A sapling would be a more appropriate analogy for a zygote/fetus/baby.

And why isn't a zygote a person? What is your definition of a person. Again, mine is that it is a human being.

I already laid down what I consider necessary to being a person, and all of those qualities require a functioning brain. A zygote does not have one and is incapable of doing any of those things. A fetus, while it quickly develops a brain, also cannot meet the requirements.

Even a newborn infant isn't a person. They can't communicate, and in their first few months of life they can't even recognize themselves in a mirror.

So to reiterate, personhood is dependent upon higher thoughts patterns and cognitive function.

An AI would never be counted as a person, at least as I understand the term. A sophisticated enough AI might be able to mimic people convincingly, but it would never constitute a true person

The missing components are self awareness and self motivation, two things we have yet to create artificially.

 

[Granite]

A zygote is merely the earliest form of an unborn child. If you recognize the unborn child as a person then there's no good reason to deny that it is a person in its earliest stage of development.

Based on the definition I just gave, there is.

Edit: Remember, we're being asked when to objectively identify the onset of personhood.The religious overtones inherent to conception=personhood make it an incredibly subjective judgment.

 

[csuguy]

I already laid down what I consider necessary to being a person, and all of those qualities require a functioning brain. A zygote does not have one and is incapable of doing any of those things. A fetus, while it quickly develops a brain, also cannot meet the requirements.

Even a newborn infant isn't a person. They can't communicate, and in their first few months of life they can't even recognize themselves in a mirror.

So to reiterate, personhood is dependent upon higher thoughts patterns and cognitive function.


The missing components are self awareness and self motivation, two things we have yet to create artificially.

So you're for abortion of a new born within the first few months then? Its just a bunch of cells right?

 

[chrysostom]

we should be thinking in terms of a human life
and
it is too easy to argue about what a person is

 

[Stripe]

There are no physical traits that define who is and who is not a person. Those who look for traits to define personhood are hiding the fact that they are looking for reasons to deny personhood to human beings after conception.

Personhood is conferred by God at conception.

Granite and friends are being subjective by selecting traits to condemn humans as non-persons. Brain waves, heart beats, physical size and location, skin colour, ethnicity, IQ, the ability to recognise one's reflection .. all are subjective assessments. The OP asks for an objective standard.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Even a newborn infant isn't a person. They can't communicate, and in their first few months of life they can't even recognize themselves in a mirror.

Do mentally handicapped people deserve right's as a person?

So to reiterate, personhood is dependent upon higher thoughts patterns and cognitive function.

Those are the type of beliefs that bring about genocide.