Question about conception and personhood

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Where do you draw the line about a conceived egg being a person? Is it right away or several weeks later? Why?

Thank you
Undecided

[Rayado]

Right away. Conception is what makes a person a person.

[yxboom]

Where do you draw the line about a conceived egg being a person? Is it right away or several weeks later? Why?

Thank you
Undecided
moment of conception. murder is a pretty big deal. err on the side of life

[spiritmech]

According to Orthodox theology, personhood is prior to nature. Which means that for a human, the nature (zygote) assumes that there is a person already involved.
sm

[D. Medvedev Fan]

It's just a single celled thing with no neurosystem or anything, how can you be sure it has a soul already?

According to Orthodox theology, personhood is prior to nature. Which means that for a human, the nature (zygote) assumes that there is a person already involved.
sm
And while I am posting here, can you explain that a little more simply, or give me a good reference?

[rita riley]

some chinese and african ancient societies give an individual 2 birthdays the day of conception and the day of birth. this to me points to the validity of the bible which says God knew us before we were in our mothers womb

[spiritmech]

Joan,

Here's a few references:

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ethics/hodges_stem_cell_research.htm

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/zizioulas-and-the-church-that-is-communion/

From what it looks like, St. Basil was the first who said "Person is prior to being." Zizioulas takes that and goes with it in other directions, but it also means that before any existence, personhood already occurs.

The thing is, if one is going to deny personhood at conception, there's really no reason to not deny personhood, or a soul, or whatever you call it, entirely. There are many scientists who deny anything beyond material existence.

sm

[Teallaura]

Conception. Personhood is an arbitrary, subjective and extra-constitutional legal construct.

[D. Medvedev Fan]

Conception. Personhood is an arbitrary, subjective and extra-constitutional legal construct.
So you would believe that a conceived egg has a soul and thus abortion is murder but personhood is subjective as a way of describing the soul or something like that?

[EvoUK]

I think that personhood is a social and legal construct based on what we value in other human beings. I place it when the foetus becomes neurologically active, near the end of the second trimester, in the fifth month, though I am erring on the cautious side. Proper neurological link ups within the cerebral cortex are not completed until the end of the sixth month.

[familyof6]

I don't know if this question is for everyone, but here is my 2 cents.

If you're asking about when a fertilized egg has a soul, I'm obviously not even going to comment.

However, I think that what gives us our 'personhood', so to speak, is our brain. Without a brain, what are we? Also, without a brain, can pain be detected or felt?

There is some debate in the medical field as to when exactly the brain is fully formed in a fertilized egg, but I think the general consensus is that it is fully formed by the end of the third month. I would hope that after three months, abortions would only occur in instances of danger to the mother.

As far as I'm concerned, the beginning stages of cell reproduction is not at all unlike many other cells in our body that do nearly the same thing. However, upon completion of a functioning brain, the fetus can feel pain, has a personality, and begins learning, even inside the womb.

Obviously, this isn't going to help you out if you're looking for a strictly Biblical explanation, but that's my take on the issue.

Good luck!

[Sheepdog]

as much as we argue over it, the fact is, we don't know when the soul comes into play in the womb. but then, why shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

if an infant drowns in a pool, every one of us would make the effort to save her. i don't know CPR, but i know i'd try to anyways. and why shouldn't we? no one would ponder whether there is still a soul in the child's body or if, legally, we can still define her as a person or human being. i know it's not a good analogy, but it should make us ponder these issues, i think.

[Philosophickle]

I am pretty sure that a mere embryo is not a person. However, "pretty sure" is not enough to risk killing life. Roe Vs. Wade legalized abortion precisely on those grounds, and I oppose abortion precisely on those grounds.

[WindowOrMirror]

Do you mean to say, "I desire to know your opinion on when a line is crossed such that it becomes wrong to prevent or discontinue a pregnancy"?

I'd like to say that our opinions on this - on anything - are irrelevant if God has an opinion on it. If asked to describe when a "person" begins, that we have two frames of reference, God's and ours. God's is the one that matters, but since He has known us all along - from before time began - it seems fruitless to "discuss it" from His point of view. So we have only our frame of reference to discuss, and that's limiting. If only God gave us direction that crossed from His frame of reference into ours!...

Enter the Scripture...

Hosea 9:11 seems to indicate that birth, pregnancy, and conception are all connected as the start of life.

Ps 139:13-16 seems to indicate God's reference frame as eternal but further seems to indicate His view of our unique "personhood" while we are in the womb being formed.

If we employ reason and attempt to reconcile Christ's life and actions with this topic, it becomes evident - to me - that we had better treat a baby as a person from conception. To do otherwise is very likely not Christlike. That is, rationalizing it isn't "a life" primarily so that we can be rid of consequences is not congruous with Christ's walk on this earth, and He is who we are to emulate.

The potential for life exists upon conception, and I believe that it is God's desire that we protect life; from conception forward. Let's not make the mistake, however, that many pro-life activists make and save the baby, and then ignore both baby and mother from that point on. Let's help people from conception to hospice, rather than bringing them into the world and then cutting them loose to fend for themselves.

[Paintbucket]

When born, you are a person. Bottom line. When inside of mommy, you are not.

[joel]

It's just a single celled thing with no neurosystem or anything, how can you be sure it has a soul already?In the context of abortion, what you are asking is "how can you be sure that this killing is murder?" Wouldn't it be safer, if in doubt, just to refrain from killing?

[joel]

before any existence, personhood already occurs.
Amen; essence preceeds existence!

[mossrose]

When born, you are a person. Bottom line. When inside of mommy, you are not.
So we come then to the question that has been asked on these boards a dozen times in the past few months.....

What is the magical process that occurs during birth that confers personhood on the baby?

Maybe you can answer it when all the other proponents of abortion could not.

[Spheniscine]

I do wonder which side he is on, and if he was being facetious.

[Paintbucket]

Just curious, is a fetus counted in a census?

[WindowOrMirror]

I think we are seeing - in many discussions under many topical headings - the issue of "reference frame". That is, if we are to hold the power to state - as a people, individual, society - who is alive and who isn't, that we have a large issue as our opinions will vary and will change over time.

If only there was a Person with an infinite reference frame... Who never changes... and if only He gave us knowledge of His thoughts and direction... like a Book.

;-)

[nickcopernicus]

some chinese and african ancient societies give an individual 2 birthdays the day of conception and the day of birth. this to me points to the validity of the bible which says God knew us before we were in our mothers womb
Nick:
Welcome to theologyweb.com, mother.

.....You're wrong and I'm right.


Cheers,

Nick

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Where do you draw the line about a conceived egg being a person? Is it right away or several weeks later? Why?

Thank you
Undecided
Technically, once thje egg has been fertilized, it's not an egg. There's no fertilized egg, there's a zygote after that (actually there may be some finer distinctions, but the point is, there's no longer an egg).

This will all depend on what you think a person is, and whether or not you think personhood is a very important criterion in determining status. I think it's at conception. I do not believe that a soul is added to the body at conception, or at any point after conception, or after birth. I think a living human body is a living soul, and as such, a living soul exists right from conception. Given that those are the important terms (in my opinion), the question of personhood becomes moot.

I think that instead of personhood, it's better to talk about the traits that some (but not all) people associate with personhood. The unborn does not gain sentience for a while, and it does not gain real self awareness for a long time. In fact the latter is still developing at birth. I just don't take those things to be all that important in this debate, as fully developed adults can temporarily lack those things as well.

[SteveF]

My take on the matter is that the question isn't massively relevant. Statistically speaking, the foetus will become a person however you define it, so thats the most relevant criteria.

[Teallaura]

So you would believe that a conceived egg has a soul and thus abortion is murder but personhood is subjective as a way of describing the soul or something like that?

That you have to ask the question tells us it's subjective in nature, doesn't it? You're defining personhood here are having something to do with the soul - but those who don't believe in souls define it completely differently. We don't know when 'personhood' begins so establishing a timeline is necessarily subjective and arbitrary.

Murder by law is defined as the intentional killing of a human being (exceptions are made for war). Whatever else a zygote may or may not be it is human - the exception for fetus' is arbitrary and based on an extra-constitutional construct. Blackmon's reasoning stunk to high heaven.

[Teallaura]

I am really confused how people can speak past each other so often. Jack, the link you provided showed that conception, aka fertilization, entails a number of subsequent processes: Penetration (of the corona radiata, zona pellucida, resulting in a cortical reaction) followed by fusion (of the cell membranes, followed by transformations, replications, and finally mitosis). Jabr's very simply question was exactly which step is the magic moment that creates a person?

If I may continue with the following question: If it is mitosis, would a drug that prohibits replication be allowable, by your moral understanding of personhood?


He answered correctly - he seems to be defining it as the creation of the zygote. Further processes are irrelevant to that definition.

[Gabby]

Please let's remember that this forum NOT open to the debate of abortion or to promote pro-choice. If you feel you need to go that direction PLEASE start your own thread in the appropriate forum such as Civics 101.