Life begins at....?

[freethinker44]

I was wondering when you think human life begins. And by human life I mean at what point should an organism be considered a person. And in an attempt to avoid the inevitable derailment of this thread:

NOT ABOUT ABORTION OR WOMEN'S RIGHT'S

So let's leave the debate about women's right's and abortion out of the discussion. I don't want to discuss whether or not abortion is right or wrong or whether it should be left up to the woman to decide, I just don't care. There are plenty of threads about that already. Let's just talk about when you would define the beginning of human life, when an organism becomes a person and should be treated as such. Is it conception, viability, birth, before conception, after birth, somewhere in between? And why?

 

[Ouroboros]

I was wondering when you think human life begins. And by human life I mean at what point should an organism be considered a person.

I actually think that human life and person are two different concepts. Human life starts at conception, but person is something you become over time. Exactly when the organism becomes a person depends on philosophical views and beliefs. Everyone has a different idea of what a "person" is.

My personal definition is that it beings at birth, after the first breath. Then there are a progression of this personhood throughout life with experiences and social engagements that just add labels to what this "person" is. Like citizenship, educated, chef, banker, etc.

So again, I differentiate between "human life" and "person".

 

[adi2d]

Biblically. With your first breath.

 

[Amechania]

I guess you could say the sperm and the eggs are "alive" so when fertilization occurs it is really a continuation of life in a different form. Nothing is born and nothing really dies, its just the same old info in a recycled form.

 

[nilsz]

Consider Baby K, a baby born without a functioning brain.

 

[raw_thought]

I honestly do not know when a fetus (or more developed inhabitant of the womb ) becomes conscious. However, before that it is just a biological machine. After that moment it is human and worthy of protection.

 

[Vinayaka]

none of the above ... In Hinduism, or at least my branch of Hinduism, the person begins at the point when the soul enters the fetus.This varies, depending on how long the shopper (the soul) shops. The soul can be a spontaneous compulsive shopper, or give it more consideration.

 

[Astravalon]

Let's just talk about when you would define the
beginning of human life, when an organism becomes a person and should be

treated as such. Is it conception, viability, birth, before conception, after birth,
somewhere in between? And why?

This is relatively new for me, but I voted “Before conception (i.e. the egg and
sperm)”.

I think we may exist as full persons (spirits) before slipping into whatever
physical earth-suit we'll be wearing each incarnation we take. Whether or not I
have a physical body to drive around in at any given time doesn't add or detract
from my personhood/individuality.

It's not a hill I'd die on to uphold, but lately I've questioned why I should have to
believe I didn't exist before I assumed this form.


-

 

[The Sum of Awe]

This is a question that has always struck me, along with "Would it still be me born in a different body if my mother did not marry my father?" and "Why did I get the luck of being born a human rather than a pig on a farm?" etc.

It makes me think: What if life doesn't begin at all? What if there is no 'observer of thoughts' only thoughts? What if there is no consciousness, only senses and memories (senses of old) and thoughts (memories bundles into something new)? What if we are just a ball of meat, a biological robot, with no actual consciousness? The term life becomes differentiated when we define plants as living.

 

[Pegg]

Biblically. With your first breath.

there is a mosaic law stating that if a man hurts a pregnant woman and her baby is injured, he is to have damages imposed upon himself.

If her baby dies, he is to be given the death penalty in harmony with the 'life for life' law.


This law proves that God views the unborn baby as a living human.

 

[adi2d]

there is a mosaic law stating that if a man hurts a pregnant woman and her baby is injured, he is to have damages imposed upon himself.

If her baby dies, he is to be given the death penalty in harmony with the 'life for life' law.


This law proves that God views the unborn baby as a living human.

A man made law doesn't prove Gods view on anything

 

[Pegg]

A man made law doesn't prove Gods view on anything

judging by the tone of this thread, that mosiac law does not reflect mans view.


Most people dont think unborn babies should have the right to life. The mosaic law is most certainly not a man made rule.

 

[adi2d]

judging by the tone of this thread, that mosiac law does not reflect mans view.


Most people dont think unborn babies should have the right to life. The mosaic law is most certainly not a man made rule.

Maybe you should read the OP again.

 

[McBell]

I was wondering when you think human life begins. And by human life I mean at what point should an organism be considered a person. And in an attempt to avoid the inevitable derailment of this thread:

NOT ABOUT ABORTION OR WOMEN'S RIGHT'S

So let's leave the debate about women's right's and abortion out of the discussion. I don't want to discuss whether or not abortion is right or wrong or whether it should be left up to the woman to decide, I just don't care. There are plenty of threads about that already. Let's just talk about when you would define the beginning of human life, when an organism becomes a person and should be treated as such. Is it conception, viability, birth, before conception, after birth, somewhere in between? And why?

It depends upon how you define "person".

 

[freethinker44]

To the people who believe human life/'personhood' begins before conception, in a physical sense, do you believe a sperm cell or ovum is a person once it is fused with a 'soul' (for lack of a better term)? And if you do believe that a cell is given a soul and becomes a person, are you against male masturbation for this reason? If not, how do you reconcile killing sperm that may contain the soul of a person, assuming you believe killing a person is wrong?

And for everyone, once an organism becomes a living person from your perspective, what, if any rights should they be granted, and why or why not?

 

[freethinker44]

It depends upon how you define "person".

I already know what I think, I want to know what you think. How do you define a person and when do you think an organism should be defined as such?

 

[Skwim]

there is a mosaic law stating that if a man hurts a pregnant woman and her baby is injured, he is to have damages imposed upon himself.

If her baby dies, he is to be given the death penalty in harmony with the 'life for life' law.

Didn't find that, but I did find quite a few variations on:

Exodus 21:22 CJB (Complete Jewish Bible)
"If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges."
​

No mention of death as a penalty, only a fine.

 

[Pegg]

Didn't find that, but I did find quite a few variations on:

Exodus 21:22 CJB (Complete Jewish Bible)
"If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. He must pay the amount set by the woman's husband and confirmed by judges."
​

No mention of death as a penalty, only a fine.

that verse says that if they fight, and hurt a pregnant woman, and her children come out 'BUT NO FATAL ACCIDENT OCCURS' he should have damages imposed upon him.

this is clearly a case of premature labor where the baby is born, but has not been fatally wounded. Women are known to give birth prematurely when they are in some kind of accident. Often the baby is ok.

And that is really what this verse is saying...if her child comes out prematurely but nothing fatal occurs (ie, it doesnt die) then the men are to have penalty imposed according to what the husband prescribes for them. They didnt kill the baby, but it still warranted a penalty for their bad actions.

Vs 23 says: 23*But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24*eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25*branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

 

[Leftimies]

Huh. I was the only one going at mental development milestone. Feeling kinda lonely

 

[Skwim]

that verse says that if they fight, and hurt a pregnant woman, and her children come out 'BUT NO FATAL ACCIDENT OCCURS' he should have damages imposed upon him.

Exactly what do you think the words " her unborn child dies" means?

"If people are fighting with each other and happen to hurt a pregnant woman so badly that her unborn child dies, . . .
. . . then, even if no other harm follows, he must be fined. ​

Do "die" and "fatal" really have to be explained to you?

die

intransitive verb \ˈdī\ : to stop living

fa·tal

adjective \ˈfā-təl\ : causing death
​

this is clearly a case of premature labor where the baby is born, but has not been fatally wounded.

I give up. You're inability to read simple English without filtering through the necessities of your faith is sad. Quite sad, in fact.