• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life begins at....?

When do you think human life (personhood) begins?

  • Between viability and birth (I'll explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35
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.


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

I think I see where the confusion is; there seems to be two quite different wordings of
the same verse with regards to the condition of the child after the woman is hit/hurt:

Exodus 21:22 in the NIV: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she
gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury
, the offender must be fined
whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

Exodus 21:22 in the CJB: "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."

One mentions no serious injury, the other mentions the baby outright dying.

Isn't relying on ancient texts fun? ;)

-
 

McBell

Unbound
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?

Though I think it should be obvious, I will state out right up front that at no time do i think it not human...

An individual life begins at conception.
I have contemplated when said individual life becomes a person.
Mainly because it has never really been an important factor.
So I guess I will go with birth, seeing as that is when said individual life gets the most rights.
 

McBell

Unbound



I think I see where the confusion is; there seems to be two quite different wordings of
the same verse with regards to the condition of the child after the woman is hit/hurt:

Exodus 21:22 in the NIV: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she
gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury
, the offender must be fined
whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

Exodus 21:22 in the CJB: "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."

One mentions no serious injury, the other mentions the baby outright dying.

Isn't relying on ancient texts fun? ;)

-

Actually, it looks as though it depends greatly on which version you hold to as if verse 22 is even talking about the fetus:
(ASV)
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(BBE)
If men, while fighting, do damage to a woman with child, causing the loss of the child, but no other evil comes to her, the man will have to make payment up to the amount fixed by her husband, in agreement with the decision of the judges.

(Bishops)
If men striue, & hurt a woman with chylde, so that her fruite depart from her, and yet no destruction folow: then he shalbe sore punished according as the womans husbande wyll laye to his charge, and he shall pay as the dayes men wyll appoynt hym.

(Brenton)
And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband may lay upon him, he shall pay with a valuation.

(CEV)
Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve.

(Darby)
And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.

(DRB) If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

(ERV)
"Two men might be fighting and hurt a pregnant woman. This might make the woman give birth to her baby before its time. If the woman was not hurt badly, the man who hurt her must pay a fine. The woman's husband will decide how much the man must pay. The judges will help the man decide how much the fine will be.

(ESV)
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(Geneva)
Also if men striue and hurt a woman with childe, so that her childe depart from her, and death followe not, hee shall bee surely punished according as the womans husbande shall appoynt him, or he shall pay as the Iudges determine.

(GNB)
"If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

(ISV)
"If two men are fighting and they strike a pregnant woman and her children are born prematurely but there is no harm, he is surely to be fined as the husband of the woman demands of him, and he will pay as the court decides.

(JPS)
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(JUB)
If men strive and hurt a woman with child so that she aborts but without death, he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him, and he shall pay by the judges.

(KJV) If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(KJV-1611)
If men striue, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischiefe follow, he shalbe surely punished, according as the womans husband will lay vpon him, and hee shall pay as the Iudges determine.

(LITV)
And when men fight, and they strike a pregnant woman, and her child goes forth, and there is no injury, being fined he shall be fined. As much as the husband of the woman shall put on him, even he shall give through the judges.

(MKJV)
If men strive and strike a pregnant woman, so that her child comes out, and there is no injury, he shall surely be punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him. And he shall pay as the judges say

(RV)
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(Webster)
If men shall contend, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit shall depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

(YLT)
`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;​
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
Human life (individual) begins at conception.

When you become a person is murky for me.

I definately don't think its at conception.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
Where I get stumped is an example like this .

I'm using a man in my example could be a woman .

A 50 year old man who has been to war . Raised his children in love .Loved his wife. Been a faithful and good son to his parents.

He is "equal" to a zygote?
 

Leftimies

Dwelling in the Principle
Where I get stumped is an example like this .

I'm using a man in my example could be a woman .

A 50 year old man who has been to war . Raised his children in love .Loved his wife. Been a faithful and good son to his parents.

He is "equal" to a zygote?

Exactly my reasoning. In my view, the de facto Human Becoming happens after birth, possibly during first few years when lasting memories begin to form.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I think that life begins when a new DNA code is created and the biological processes of a new organism begins, so at conception. I think personhood begins when the brain comes into existence, but personhood is a more nebulous philosophical concept.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Where I get stumped is an example like this .

I'm using a man in my example could be a woman .

A 50 year old man who has been to war . Raised his children in love .Loved his wife. Been a faithful and good son to his parents.

He is "equal" to a zygote?

An 40 year old man is not anywhere equal to a 2 year old boy.

One is smarter than an adult dog and the other one is not. One has an expectanch of more years to live and e other one has less years to live.

If there was oxygen for just one of them on some sort of life or death situation, I would definetely not flip a coin.

To me, being a "person" simply means you are at least supposed to give a #%^ about them, but not that all persons are mecessarily equal at all.several demographic and individual factors will happen.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I think that life begins when a new DNA code is created and the biological processes of a new organism begins, so at conception. I think personhood begins when the brain comes into existence, but personhood is a more nebulous philosophical concept.

As if "when a new DNA code is created" wasn't nebulous as is.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
An 40 year old man is not anywhere equal to a 2 year old boy.

One is smarter than an adult dog and the other one is not. One has an expectanch of more years to live and e other one has less years to live.

If there was oxygen for just one of them on some sort of life or death situation, I would definetely not flip a coin.

To me, being a "person" simply means you are at least supposed to give a #%^ about them, but not that all persons are mecessarily equal at all.several demographic and individual factors will happen.

I said a zygote not a 2 year old boy.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
I said a zygote not a 2 year old boy.

I know what you said. I said something else. I havent said a zygote is equal to a two year old either, but your general 2 year old is not equal to a teen is not equal to a 30 year old is not equal to a 90 year old.

There are gates if life sort to say that make everytng biologically very different.

If we value a zygote by its brain alone (lac of thereof in this case) then sure, it is not important. Bt if we do this to a two year old. Then an adult dog is more important than a human two year old.

Human value is subjective. I d say we just choose to value it as soon as we can.

I think a zygote is less important than a human that is born (or at least than most humans born...) but its still human and important.

Just as I would say in general a 80year olds life is less valuable than a two year olds and then my life is less valuable than a two year olds from a moral standpoint. Different factors will change different stuff (specific 80 year olds and 2 year olds for example) but ultimately, lets just value human life.

Thats my stance.
 

NobodyYouKnow

Misanthropist
Contrary to my belief, I shall say birth.

Birth is the time when prana enters the baby's body for the first time and animates it.
 

Me Myself

Back to my username
Contrary to my belief, I shall say birth.

Birth is the time when prana enters the baby's body for the first time and animates it.

Baby's body was in direct contact with mothers prana. It was already animated with prana since belly.

Everything has prana. Everything is prana.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
I know what you said. I said something else. I havent said a zygote is equal to a two year old either, but your general 2 year old is not equal to a teen is not equal to a 30 year old is not equal to a 90 year old.

A zygote is in a petri dish. with not even a whole human brain.
 
Top