jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (201 posts)

When Does a Person Become a Person?

  1. Kyle Payne profile image61
    Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago

    When Does a Person Become a Person? Is it during conception, after conception? What are your thoughts?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      My thoughts are this probably could have been addressed in any of the four currently active threads on the subject.

      1. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        +1

        1. 0
          Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          We are all constantly developing, so that the person we are at 20 is not the same one at 80 physically or mentally.  The only time we stop developing is at death, although many people believe that it continues even after this time.  So, it depends what you mean by person.

    2. feenix profile image61
      feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hello, Kyle,

      What it all boils down to is, when does a person become a person in this world, and when does a person become a person in The Eyes of God?

      Well, so far as when does a person become a person in this world, there are a number of answers to your question.

      In this world, for example, some would answer, At the point of conception -- others would answer, At the point when an infant leaves the womb and is born alive -- and still others would answer, At the point when a young human being has been out of the womb for two years.

      So far as the way God sees it; I do not have any idea. 

      The only thing I have concerning the answer to a question such as yours is my opinion -- and you know what "they" say about opinions.

    3. 68
      paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From the time when one starts hearing and seeing.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Helen Keller= Not a person.

        1. feenix profile image61
          feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Wow! Great come back. You are really fast on your feet.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            LOL, thank you.  That's not really fair though, he makes it so damn easy for me.

        2. 68
          paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          She could see through things and communicate with signs.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, okay.  Helen Keller + X-Ray vision= Person.  Got it.

            And since she didn't sign until adulthood then she wasn't a person for a large portion of her life.  Got ya.

      2. anywell profile image59
        anywellposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You become a person as soon you are born. for instance when you are not born, you are like a thought in the mind, when you are born you are like a speech that have be heard. in this case is only the spirit that can some time know your mind, but when it come to a speech or an act, is being carried or spoken which got a space or mark of notification.

      3. lizzieBoo profile image78
        lizzieBooposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You become a person at the moment of conception. You don't have to be religious to think that. Even Christopher Hitchens said that an un-born baby is a person with rights.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thumbs up!

      4. tgopfrich profile image79
        tgopfrichposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe a person is a person or human while in the womb or at conception. For example, if a dog is pregnant she is pregnant with a puppy. The puppy will be born and grow into an older dog. So when the dog becomes pregnant she gives birth to a puppy. When a woman gets pregnant its a little person growing inside of her, not a dog, or a cat but a human.

    4. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

      When they are registered and certified!

      person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)

      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

    5. MrMaranatha profile image86
      MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago

      Depends on what a person or society choose to define the word to mean.   If your definition is according to the worlds standards then Life begins whenever it is convenient for their own laws and rules of conduct.

      If your definition of the word however stems from the Bible and your beliefs are Christian: then Life begins at Conception and we know the mess that makes of this worlds attempts at justifying its own actions... 

      To a Christian:  Abortion is a Child Sacrifice on the altar of Immorality.

      1. feenix profile image61
        feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Sweeping generalizations and stereotyping.

        Many just cannot restrain themselves from stereotyping others and making vast, sweeping generalizations.

        First, not all Christians are opposed to abortion. In fact, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Christians in such areas of the world as Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand are NOT opposed to aborion.

        Second, you wrote, "...To a Christian: Abortion is a Child Sacrifice on the Altar of Immorality."

        Well, my first reacton to that is, you certainly do have a flair for the dramatic. That sounds downright Shakespearean.

        My second reaction is, for those of us who oppose the procedure, "Abortion is NOT a Child Sacrifice on the Altar of Immorality."

        We simply view abortion as being premeditated murder; first-degree homicide -- and as a means to carry out genocide against certain groups of human beings, such as black people.

        1. MrMaranatha profile image86
          MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are so correct in something... I almost forgot...  That my definition of "Christian" is that it means Christ Like.... and you are correct that many so called christians of today probably do not appose things that the Bible would condemn and that the Christ /Jesus would have apposed...   

          Not everything that says it is a "Christian" today is even close to that... Not even with all of the so called Spirituality that they can muster... 

          Jesus said in Mat 7;22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
          23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

          1. feenix profile image61
            feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The way I see things is the following:

            Because God, in His Infinite Wisdom, knows that human beings are of a "sin nature" -- and that not a one of us will ever come anywhere close to being a "perfect Christian," or a "perfect anything else," for that mattter -- He sent His Only Begotten Son, Jesus, to this world to sacrifice Himself for everyone's sins and shortcomings.

            1. novicemuse profile image61
              novicemuseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you're trying to justify abortion by saying God did it to his son than you've overlooked something pivotal to your argument: His son also freely chose to accept it and did it out of love. He wasn't being forced into a fate. The innocent children aren't given a chance to choose what they want because others either think the choice is of no concern to them and they have a superior say or that the child isn't a child Yet. Who doesn't have a more superior right to their life or the decisions about it than the Human Being whose life is being taken away? You may say well we make decisions for little children everyday because they don't know what's best for them but no matter how you skew the phrase Death isn't! And if becoming human is a matter of time than the elderly are the most human and the rest of us are just what?

              1. feenix profile image61
                feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obviously, you do not know a damned thing about me and have never read any of my hubs.

                I am so anti-abortion that I believe that the procedure should be outlawed, even in the cases of rape and incest, and even when carrying a baby to term would endanger the health or life of the mother.

                I am a stone-cold "pro-lifer."

                Finally, I strongly suggest that the next time you decide to get on somebody's case around here, you do your homework first.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So, you believe you have the right to tell someone else what to do with their lives?

                  1. feenix profile image61
                    feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Debating 101: When you want to gain the upper have over your opponent, put words into his mouth -- then go about the business of tearing down what you said he said.

                    Where did I say that I believe that everyone else should have the same opinion as mine, or that the law should be changed to coincide with the way I see things?

                    I did no such things. I merely stated my own opinions concerning the issue.

                    So, please, stop trying to run your amateurish games which are nothing but pathetic little attempts to build yourself up.

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Unless I misread your post, he simply highlighted two of your statements and asked a valid question.

                      Outlawing abortion would, in essence, push your opinion on another and force them to live by your opinion. You would be telling them how to live their lives.

                    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Your words are bolded above, did you not write those words? How did I put those words in your mouth? Could you be any more dishonest or is that how Sunday school taught you to act?

                    3. Chris Neal profile image83
                      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I would not waste time getting angry with ATM. He just likes to push people's buttons.

                  2. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why not? You do it all the time!

                    lol lol lol

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Then, show me where I have told someone what to do with their lives so we can all have a good laugh.

                2. novicemuse profile image61
                  novicemuseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I am sorry feenix, I must've read it too fast and as it is hard to distinguish tone in these posts, I wrongly assumed. I am just very passionate about this topic and was too hasty in my judgement.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting statement. Since Christianity is the primary religion in America, and it is Christians who are the majority voters; and, of course, the lion's share of politicians are Christian.....how do you come up with that statement?

        Some Christians are against abortion, obviously. The minority within Christianity are against abortion, obviously. Don't attempt to lump all Christians into the class of the dissenting minority. Facts too easily refute your statement. Unless your argument is that any who don't agree with the minority aren't really Christian. Which wouldn't be outside of the norm for the minority voice.

        1. MrMaranatha profile image86
          MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually it is Biblical... that most who proclaim to be God's people are not...

          But with todays version of Christianity anything goes.. and the Bible (God's Word) is the first thing that seems to be thrown out.

          1. Kyle Payne profile image61
            Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are completely correct MrMaranatha!

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That is your opinion and your interpretation of God's word. You do understand this?

            1. Kyle Payne profile image61
              Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes I do, obviously.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I think, it's more important that mrmaranatha understands that since he's the one who made the statement.

                Unless he's your sock puppet. In which case, I wouldn't broadcast that. I don't think it's allowed. smile

                1. MrMaranatha profile image86
                  MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well I personally question which part of my Statement that you are calling "Opinion" and secondly I will agree that in some definitions of the word Opinion that My opinion stands true for what it is.. 

                  If Your Usage of the Word Opinion is catagories 2 though 5 then I will categorically accept your statement.  If However your usage of the word is catagory 1, then by all means let me know what you would like clarified with chapter and verse substantiation...

                  Here is the Definition of o·pin·ion   [uh-pin-yuhn]  Show IPA noun
                  1.
                  a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
                  2.
                  a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
                  3.
                  the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
                  4.
                  Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
                  5.
                  a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, it isn't 3 or 4. And I'm not sure you are qualified, so I wouldn't count it as 5 either. So, your statement only falls into 1 and 2. Imo. smile

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The question then becomes, is there any such thing as the "correct" interpretation of God's Word? And if there's not, then what is really even the point in debating who is and is not "Christian?"

              Did Jesus really claim the things attributed to Him but 4 different authors?
              Are we free to "allegorize" statements that were not made allegorically?
              When do we decide what's right and wrong, and how?

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You make a very strong argument for atheism. Well done, sir!

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hmmm...

                  When you got nothing, attack!

                  Well done, sir!

                  lol

              2. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Where did Jesus comment on the subject of abortion?

                You read what you want into things and claim to know God's mind by your interpretation. You shouldn't argue about it anyway. Live your life by what you know to be right in your own mind. Give others room to do the same.

                1. MrMaranatha profile image86
                  MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Matthew 19:18

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. That is your interpretation. The Mosaic laws clearly show that the death of an unborn child is not viewed in the same manner as the death of an individual. You've added, to suit the conscience you have developed. You cannot prove the words in that text support your interpretation.

                    1. MrMaranatha profile image86
                      MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      That is your Type 1 interpretation. Nor have you given in context support for your supposition that Mosaic Law is of that determination.  Most particularly there is evidence in Mosaic Law that supports the killing of an unborn child as a matter of Manslaughter in today's terms.. and of this you are probably already aware. which means you are a deceiver.

                2. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Where did Jesus comment on the subject of abortion? "

                  Where did THAT come from? Did I say that? Talk about reading into things what you want...

                  But to respond to your statement, you imply, strongly, that the only real "right and wrong" is what is right or wrong for the individual. As in, there is no objective truth. I don't agree, and even if I simply "live life by what I know to be right in my own mind," that means I can't simply sit back and let others tell lies. Because the point of objective truth is that it comes from a source outside oneself.

                  But pointing out that a lie is a lie is not the same as ramming my beliefs down somebody else's throat.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The abortion comment came because you interjected a comment into a conversation about beliefs on abortion. I assumed you were on the same subject we were.

                    I personally think the laws of the land follow a moral code. We don't murder our neighbor. It's wrong to steal. Etc. Etc. The laws are developed to allow the pursuit of happiness in harmony with those around us. The written law is the minimum standard.

                    You know that anyone who lives by the letter of the law can certainly cause strife for others. They don't care about others. They attempt to gain everything they can. Their only concern is staying out of jail. Throw an attorney into the mix and the law is easily circumvented.

                    Those who live by the spirit of the law don't need the written law. They know what hurts their neighbor. They are open to learning when they cause strife and will work to change actions on their part when they find that their behavior is not in line with the spirit of ensuring liberty and the pursuit of happiness by someone who also lives by the spirit of the law.

                    It's a continuing learning experience. It's a process that has a life of its own. But, the law is always in the background to remind us of what we, as a society, have determined is right and wrong.

                    That isn't to say every aspect of the present written law  ultimately determines what is right and wrong. It never has. Our written laws waiver with the wind. That is why debate on issues such as abortion continue. The spirit of the law becomes clearer as more people explain why behavior patterns have inhibited their pursuit of hapiness. We don't always agree on what is morally right. But, to impose my beliefs on another would inhibit their pursuit and I don't feel that legislating belief falls in line with the spirit of the law. I am free to stand firmly by my beliefs. Others should be given the same freedoms.

                    The bottom line. The spirit of the law is the only objective truth. What is right or wrong for the individual is unique and can only be determined by them. They are only wrong, in my mind, when their decisions trample the rights of another. I expect the written law to fall in line with the spirit of the law as our citizens speak their concerns.

                    If you point out a lie is a lie, I agree. But not when it comes to religion. Religion is opinion of spiritual truth and no one can definitively define spiritual truth. IMO.

                    1. Chris Neal profile image83
                      Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Hmm...

                      Although I certainly don't agree with everything you wrote, it is well stated. I appreciate that.

                      "What is right or wrong for the individual is unique and can only be determined by them." Boy, would I love to live my life by that code. Unfortunately, the potential for real harm to other individuals grows exponentially when that is done. And since this is a debate about abortion, then the question becomes "Is the fetus a person?" Personhood has an unfortunate tendency to be defined by the state (which brings it under the "letter of the law") which is why the state is sometimes wrong. And if fetus' are people too (as the Bible teaches they are,) then you have to wonder if the unique, self-determined right of one person really makes it okay to terminate the unique, self-determined right of another, especially when the "another" can't defend themselves.

                3. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually this would be a great hub.

                  Jesus did say He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.

                  God did say He knit us together in our mother's wombs.

        2. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          By that logic, then it is society that defines the right to be called a person. In other words, there is not intrinsic "person" as such, there is only what the society (which inevitably will mean the state) chooses to grant the definition to.
          Which make slavery and incest okay, by the way, as long as someone can get the state to declare that the slaves or the relatives are not really fully autonomous human beings.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Is that what you would do?

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's amazing how desperate you are.


              lol

      3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

        A person becomes a person once they are born.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why? What makes them not a human being while they are still in the womb, or in the birth canal?

          Would a 26 week-old baby taken from the mother for whatever reason and being kept alive on a respirator in an incubator with a feeding tube really have a better claim on "personhood" than a 35 week-old baby still in the mother's womb? Why?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A person is defined as an individual, before you are born you are not. Human does not mean the same as person.

            1. Kyle Payne profile image61
              Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You couldn't be more incorrect.
              Person-a human being
              human-relating to a person

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They why were women and blacks at one time not classified as persons? Person is a legal term...

                1. MrMaranatha profile image86
                  MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  By this same type of analogy... Blacks were Slaves... slaves could be beaten or killed legally as they were property and not human according to the laws of the time...  Did that really make them any less alive??? or any less Human???  No, but the hardness of peoples hearts allowed them to exist in that state of legalized brutality...

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Amen!

                2. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But if "person" is strictly a legal term, then only what the state chooses to legally define as a person has any rights. In which case Dred Scott was perfectly acceptable because blacks were not defined as full persons in a legal sense. Of course it was wrong, but it was legal. However, it is the exact logic that makes Roe v. Wade acceptable, because rightly or wrongly, we define the mother as a full person and the unborn child as not being a person at all. If the unborn child had a legal definition of personhood, then abortion would be much harder to justify. And remember that Roe v. Wade defined the "right" to abortion for any reason or no reason at all.
                  That having been said, that doesn't mean I think it's easy for the women to make this decision. There's a lot that goes into the decision to abort. So please don't think I'm demonizing women who choose, for whatever reason, to have the procedure performed.

      4. feenix profile image61
        feenixposted 4 years ago

        A Troubled Man Wrote:

        feenix wrote:

        I believe that the procedure should be outlawed...

        ____________________________________________________________________________


        The keywords in that statement is I BELIEVE which is clearly not a case of my dictating anything to anyone else.

        As examples, I BELIEVE there should be world peace -- I BELIEVE that everyone in the U.S. should have health-insurance coverage -- I BELIEVE that the rate of poverty should not be as high as it is in the U.S. -- I BELIEVE that every child in America should get enough to eat every day -- I BELIEVE that all of the roads and bridges in the U.S. should always be in good repair -- I BELIEVE that I should not have to explain that I BELIEVE qualifies a statement as an opinion or personal code -- and that those two words make it clear that what is said is not a direction, dictate or an attempt by one to impose his will on others.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          To say that you believe abortion is wrong could certainly  be viewed as a statement of your personal code. Saying that you believe the procedure should be outlawed is saying that you believe everyone should live by your personal code.

          Do you see the difference?

          1. Kyle Payne profile image61
            Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good thoughts Emile.

      5. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

        Oh look, I have a stalker. lol

      6. MrMaranatha profile image86
        MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago

        Someone posted this on my wall in another site...
        thought it was relative to this discussion so here it is.. enjoy:

        Would you consider abortion in the following situations?

        1. There's a preacher and wife who are very, very, poor. They already have 14 kids. Now she finds out she's pregnant with her 15th. They're living in tremendous poverty. Considering their poverty, and the excessive world population, would you consider recommending she get an abortion?

        2. The father is sick with sniffles, the mother has TB. They have 4 children. 1st is blind, 2nd is dead, 3rd is deaf, 4th has TB. She finds she's pregnant again. Given the extreme situation, would you consider recommending abortion?

        3. A white man raped a 13 year old black girl and she got pregnant. If you were her parents, would you consider recommending abortion?

        4. A teenage girl is pregnant. She's not married. Her fiance is not the father of the baby, and he's very upset. Would you consider recommending abortion?

        In the first case, you have just killed John Wesley. One of the great evangelists in the 19th century.

        In the second case, you have killed Beethoven.

        In the third case, you have killed Ethel Waters, the great black gospel singer.

        If you said yes to the fourth case, you have just declared the murder of Jesus Christ!

        SAY NO TO ABORTION AND REMAIN BLESSED.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's good!

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Evangelizing does not make one great, quite the contrary.



          It could be just been as easy to say that abortion could have killed Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.

          Your point is entirely moot.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, the point is good. Just because the villains could have been killed does not render the point that great people could have been killed moot. Abortion is still wrong.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, it does.



              So sayeth the believer with nothing to support his claim other than scriptures. lol

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                As opposed to the unbeliever who spouts gibberish with nothing to support other than his desire to jab at others?

                That's you!

                lol lol lol

          2. MrMaranatha profile image86
            MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good point... In other words:  Abortion Kills Human Beings... good and bad.

            1. Kyle Payne profile image61
              Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But is it moral?

              1. MrMaranatha profile image86
                MrMaranathaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Is killing innocent victims ever Moral???

                1. mischeviousme profile image60
                  mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It is not moral and it is like killing the self, there is no purpose in it, but it happens. Death is an unfortunate side effect of living and it is visited upon all. Accepting it won't take the sting out of it, but it makes it easier to avoid harming others.

                2. Kyle Payne profile image61
                  Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No it is not, the point of my question was for them to search themselves and hopefully find the correct answer, because everyone knows it.

      7. 60
        WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago

        The Zygote is a fully formed strand of DNA, which represents in whole, an individual.

        Thus, you have a live person.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol So now a strand of DNA is a live person?

          1. 60
            WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So DNA is not alive?

            And DNA does not represent an individual?

            I think you need to go read up on the subject.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              DNA represents every known living organism on the planet.

              1. 60
                WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Your DNA is also YOU.

                The individual.

                Your statements show your lack of understanding, troub.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  One question. A piece of your DNA is unique to you. If you extract a DNA sample from me, does that sample become a living breathing human being?  Are we going to have the religious start screaming that we are killing babies in a DNA test?

                  1. 60
                    WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    In todays laboratories... yes it can continue to be a living person.

                    ie; cloning. IVF, etc...

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      No. It can't. No one has cloned a human. That I am aware of.

                      1. 60
                        WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Only because it is illegal and against all morals and ethics as of yet.

                        But the tech is there.

                        And IVF occurrs every day. And test-tube babies have been born.

                        So yes it can.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So what? Your argument is invalid simply because all living things have DNA, hence it is as reprehensible for a woman to have an abortion as it is to pick a small spud potato out of the ground and eat it, based on your logic.



                  How quaint. lol

                  1. 60
                    WhoBeYouBeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    One is a human, the other is not.

                    How lame is that BS logic you're attempting to sling.

                    Man you are funny. lol

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

      8. 68
        paarsurreyposted 4 years ago

        When an individual gains wisdom; I think that makes him a person.

        1. Kyle Payne profile image61
          Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What is your definition of wisdom?

          1. 68
            paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            When one can look after one with some independence.

            1. Kyle Payne profile image61
              Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wisdom means:
              1. Accumulated knowledge, erudition or enlightenment
              2. The trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight 
              3. Ability to apply knowledge, experience, understanding or common        sense and insight
              4. The quality of being prudent and sensible

              Your definition of wisdom does not fit, by any means, stringent molds of wisdom as defined by the dictionary. I do know that I asked you your definition, but maybe you should reconsider how you define wisdom.

              1. 68
                paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I meant here sensible in general terms.

                1. Kyle Payne profile image61
                  Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Could you please clarify?

                  1. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    We see a man walking in the street; most of the time just with a glance we know the person is a normal sensible person or not; this much is enough for observation.

                    1. Kyle Payne profile image61
                      Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      So you are saying that you believe that an entity becomes a person when another thing, already person, recognizes it as a sensible entity?

      9. kirstenblog profile image76
        kirstenblogposted 4 years ago

        Honestly? I don't know. Maybe its not a specific point. One second just a bit of protoplasm, next moment a 'proper person' doesn't sound right to me.

        I decided a long time ago that I was capable of making sure I don't find myself pregnant and in need of an abortion (outside of the rape scenario of course) and that I would choose not to have an abortion in this life. I imagined it would be more traumatic then I could handle. This might not be the case for other women and until I have the god like supreme powers to know what other women are capable of, I shall avoid trying to impose my views/opinions on them or judge them. When I have total and complete knowledge of everything in all of time and space, maybe then I will be in a position to judge and dictate to others what is right and wrong but until that day..... *sigh*

        1. Kyle Payne profile image61
          Kyle Payneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you for your comment. I believe the commitment that you made personally is a very good one, and I encourage you to keep it.

      10. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 4 years ago

        At the moment of conception.

      11. Chris Neal profile image83
        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago

        "Jesus was an example of a life well lived. If you want to draw people to the idea; follow his example"
        Yet Jesus taught that man goes to Hell. There are many verses on it. He taught that He is the only way to Heaven. He taught that He is equal to God. If I say these things, I am preaching "my" ideas about sin and judgement and parroting Paul, yet it was Jesus who said these things. Jesus told the woman to stop sinning. He preached that those who claimed His name but did not do what He said were going to Hell. Yet it is unloving to point this out.
        Yes, He did teach "Judge not lest you be judged." Who, exactly, did He say that to and why?
        Yes, He did teach that public piety for its own sake will receive the reward due it on earth on none in Heaven. That goes back to His teaching about those who claimed His name but did not do what He said to do.
        He taught that only God is good, but that means that sinful man cannot merit any favor with a Good, Perfect and Just God. Only His sacrifice can achieve that. If you read His words (not Paul's) then it's impossible to think that all can be saved, that there will be no suffering and that the world would be a better place if we just kept our noses out of others' business. That doesn't mean we can but in whereever we want, but it does mean that we shouldn't bury our heads in the sand.

        "Complete freedom of conscience is the only manner by which any government can fully ensure that everyone is given the latitude to find the truth within themselves that is right for them." That's kind of what the early settlers and Founding Fathers had in mind. They absolutely wanted a place where they could worship God as they saw fit, without the government tellling them how to worship. That is what America was founded upon. But it was freedom TO worship, not freedom FROM worship they sought.

        Yes, you are absolutely right about the mistreatment of Christians by other Christians. It happens when the spiritual realm strives for temporal power. I would love to say that it's not true, but I know history all too well to say otherwise.

        "They spoke in favor of complete and total separation of church and state" Yes they did. They spoke in favor of the government staying out of the church so that people could be free to worship as they chose (also known as the Abridgement Clause of the Constitution.) None of them advocated for religion to be shuttered off in a corner and told to shut up about public worship. As a Christian, I don't mean that only Christians should be allowed to worship. Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims and Jews should also be accorded that God-given right.

        "I realize you cannot accept this, but you are advocating spiritual slavery." There's nothing like a sweeping assumption, insultingly made, to show that you're the more open-minded party in this debate. However, no, I am saying that the only true freedom lies in Jesus Christ. You don't have to accept it. But telling you about it is not the same as forcing my will upon you. If you don't want to read my responses, then leave the argument. That's obviously not what I want, but neither is slavery. I want you to be truly free and alive in the Spirit of God.

        Nor have I "killed off" the spirit of the Constitution. Free debate is necessary and a point of view is essential.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Okee dokee Chris. That is what you want to focus on, that is your decision. It's really sad, though. He taught so much more and you just want to beleive you are better than others, so you focus on the fact that you believe you get a free ticket out of hell and everyone else has to worry about it. It's your life. Definitely not one I would want to lead.



          That's rich.  You ignore the entire point that the tale was retold.  He advised that if there was a person without sin, they should cast the first stone. That was the point. Or, are you without sin so therefore qualified to continue to cast stones at the poor women who have enough on their minds where they shouldn't have to worry about a holier than thou attitude.



          I think you know that. People such as yourself. The ones accusing someone else of sins. You know, kind of like telling a woman she is murdering a baby when she has an abortion.




          It wasn't meant as an insult Chris, simply a fact. When you use words like murder in a conversation about abortion; you are speaking from your beliefs on what you have been taught that God would want. God is considered to be spirit. You are asking others to fall in line with your understang of the spirit. If you badger them into believing that they are sinning; that is spiritual slavery. If you are offended; you have only offended yourself.



          I thought we were having a discussion. It's an argument?



          You are the one who said that I had no right to consider the Constitution a living document. So, do you want to kill the spirit, or not?  You have to make up your mind.

          1. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            “Okee dokee Chris. That is what you want to focus on, that is your decision. It's really sad, though. He taught so much more and you just want to believe you are better than others, so you focus on the fact that you believe you get a free ticket out of hell and everyone else has to worry about it. It's your life. Definitely not one I would want to lead. “

            No, you are wrong. He did teach so much more, I was the one pointing that out. You focused on loving your neighbor, then went on to define neighbor in such a way as to say you were off the hook about the unborn. I disagree, and my reasoning is based on everything, everything, that Jesus taught in the Bible. He taught us to love our neighbor, and that our neighbor is the one we would least think of as our neighbor as well as the one who we would most think of as such. You are my neighbor. Muqtada al Sadr is my neighbor. And unborn children are my neighbor.
               Jesus' death IS a free ticket out of hell. Not just for me or people who think like me, but for you, and TroubledMan and kirstenblog and parrysurrey and CastlePoloma and everyone else who has ever lived. The thing is, you have to accept it. Everyone has to worry about it, and if you think I don't worry about it or don't think I need to then you truly don't understand this point at all. And you shouldn't want to lead my life. Everyone has to work out their own salvation.


            “That's rich. You ignore the entire point that the tale was retold. He advised that if there was a person without sin, they should cast the first stone. That was the point. Or, are you without sin so therefore qualified to continue to cast stones at the poor women who have enough on their minds where they shouldn't have to worry about a holier than thou attitude.”

            Do I? Retold by whom? Eyewitnesses? Yes, by eyewitnesses. Matthew and John were were eyewitnesses, Mark knew Peter, another eyewitness. Luke talked to a lot of different eyewitnesses. And no one who was around at the time ever was recorded as saying, “No, that didn't happen. He didn't feed those people, he didn't heal that blind man, he didn't say that he who is without sin should cast the first stone.”
               To say that I am casting stones at the women is a misrepresentation of what I have repeatedly said, to you and to TroubledMan and everyone else here. Wanting to preserve the life of the baby and also take care of the needs of the women who may not have resources of their own is what I have said, and it's not casting stones. If you don't believe me, go back and look at my posts. And it doesn't come from a place of being holier than anyone else, it comes from a knowledge of just how unholy I am compared to the living God.



            “I think you know that. People such as yourself. The ones accusing someone else of sins. You know, kind of like telling a woman she is murdering a baby when she has an abortion.”

            This goes back to a point I have made several times, where it's a tragedy that we have allowed this conversation to be about the woman vs. the baby. It's not, it's about both. But answer me this, then, why do so many women (not all, but many) when they have had an abortion, immediately think, “I've killed my baby.” Don't think that happens? Then try doing the research and talking to more than a handful of women who have had abortions. And answer me this, why are there so many conservative religious organizations that try to help the women? Is that casting stones?




            “It wasn't meant as an insult Chris, simply a fact. When you use words like murder in a conversation about abortion; you are speaking from your beliefs on what you have been taught that God would want. God is considered to be spirit. You are asking others to fall in line with your understanding of the spirit. If you badger them into believing that they are sinning; that is spiritual slavery. If you are offended; you have only offended yourself.”

            God is spirit. It teaches that in the Bible, so there's no argument there. I have been taught by God what He would want. Don't for one second think I don't understand how that probably sounds to you. I'm fully aware of how I'm viewed in these forums. I didn't arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum, nor by a process of indoctrination.
            I am asking others to look into what I am saying, not demanding that they "fall in line" with my thinking. Am I so special? NO! I am not smarter, or purer, or holier than anybody else.



            “I thought we were having a discussion. It's an argument? “

            It is when you use insulting language and broad assumptions then say, “I'm just being honest.” That isn't debate, that's badgering. If I've been guilty of it, then I'm sorry, I try not to (except with TroubledMan, but that's a different story.)



            “You are the one who said that I had no right to consider the Constitution a living document. So, do you want to kill the spirit, or not? You have to make up your mind.”

            What spirit am I trying to kill?

            You make a lot of sweeping assumptions about me. To an extent, that's an unavoidable hazard of these forums. If somebody presents a point of view, then everybody who reads it makes assumptions about that person based on what they've read and what they think about it. Of course I do that too. But I try to adjust my assumptions based on the conversation I am having with a particular person. I try to be respectful, most of the time (ref. TroubledMan.) I don't always succeed. But I don't make sweeping accusations against people most of the time.
            I am 45. I became a Christian when I was 21. I didn't come from a Christian background before that, so there was no “indoctrination”. I was living in New York City before I became a Christian, and partook of a lot of what it had to offer, so it's not like I haven't lived in the “real world.” Nor was I any big fan of the Moral Majority, I wasn't even a Christian at the time.
            I have a very sick wife and three children, one of whom is severely autistic. I have tried hard to explain what I think and why. I know that many people reading these posts still don't understand, and I actually understand that. But this is my last post in these forums, at least for a good long time. I wish everyone here well (even TroubledMan,) and that you would all find the greatest good that anyone can know, which is an actual relationship with Jesus.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And, you will fill all your neighbors with talk of being saved by Jesus while telling them how to live their lives and what to do with their unborn children.

                 

              lol Once again, you telling us we HAVE to accept it. Classic stuff.



              No, we don't.

                 

              Balagna. big_smile Your agenda has been revealed...

              "...the most loving thing we can do is point people to Jesus."



              Like the Christian run pregnancy clinics the governments are trying to shut down?



              No second thoughts, no questioning of source, no alternatives, no other religious beliefs that also describe god, nothing at all to oppose that claim as nothing but a fact.



              Parting is such sweet sorrow. Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol That didn't last very long, 4 days? But at the very least, your dishonesty is consistent.

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, my situation just changed. Thanks for asking. That empathy and concern for your fellow man just continues to shine through.

                Consistent, though, I will give you that.

                At least your agenda is revealed! lol

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, you said you weren't coming back for a good long time and that changed to you coming back after just 4 days. smile

                  1. Chris Neal profile image83
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Dude,

                    You will continue to act like a child and I will continue to treat you like one. If you need to see things in such black and white terms that you make me look positively New Thought, then go for it!

                    I said that I have a sick wife and a special-needs kid. Did you actually rejoice to hear that, like I deserve it somehow?

                    If so, then you just relinquished any right you ever had to have me treat you like an adult.

                    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Your own dishonest words define you, not me.



                      Wow, that is low. Show me where I said anything about your wife and kids or kindly provide an apology.

                      1. Chris Neal profile image83
                        Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Ah, the desperation of those trapped by their own need to be right!

                        You never fail (to fail) at any rate, I'll give you that!

                        You rejoiced when I said I was leaving. I had listed as my reason my sick wife and special-needs kid. You said "Halleluja, thank you Jesus."
                        I was verifying whether the two had any connection. I guess that being guilty of not reading my entire post before reacting is better than rejoicing in my pain.

                        But why in the world would I apologize to the single most dishonest person I've run across in these forums? Anything I say you take and try to twist to whatever you want them to mean (notice I wrote "try.")
                        So, no, your dishonesty marks you out every time. The one or two times you seemed like you were actually starting something that required thought and integrity (even if I didn't agree with them) you abandoned them quickly.

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Emile -

            It occurred to me in my last response to you that I might have come across as lacking any sympathy for what you've gone through.

            I'm sorry if that's the case, I do have sympathy for what you've gone through, and I certainly wouldn't wish that on anybody.

            I haven't read anything since then, so I don't know if you let me have it both barrels or what, but in any case I'm sorry if I seemed like I have no compassion for you or your son.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I may have forgotten. What have I been through? Are you talking about having to deal with white trash for a couple of years? If that is the worst life throws our way, I'll consider myself lucky. smile

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes that was what I was talking about.

                Well, good on ya!

      12. 0
        Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago

        A living child is made as soon as the mother's egg unites with the father's sperm.  All through the pregnancy you can follow the growth of the child and see the development of that child.  It is not a "fetus", it is a child. Abortion is murder, and should be dealt with as such.  It is interesting to note, the Bible never uses the term "pregnant", but rather says "with child".  You can see what God's view on the matter is.

        1. kirstenblog profile image76
          kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So why do most pregnancies terminate early? Many women don't even know they were pregnant until a doctor discovers the after effect. I guess its OK for God to murder unborn babies......

          1. 0
            Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            God does not murder unborn babies.  You cannot take everything you find wrong and blame God for it.

            1. kirstenblog profile image76
              kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If God says they are already people, then he is murdering them just as he has done through out the bible.

              1. 0
                Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                First of all, when a child is taken early, it can be for a number of reasons.  It could be the result of the mother's choices in life, it could be a medical reason, etc.  God loves children.  Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto Me."  I don't know exactly why God chooses to take the child before he is born, but I do know God has, in His infinite wisdom, a plan that we cannot know or understand.  Perhaps God is sparing that child a life of misery and pain in this world.  Maybe God is sparing that child and his parents a life of heartache because of a health problem or disease that child has.  I do know God loves children, and He has a master plan in life for each one of us if we will bit let Him lead.

                1. kirstenblog profile image76
                  kirstenblogposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So all the starving children of the world weren't so blessed that God would murder them and spare them a young death after much starvation. What a deity!

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nor should you take a natural biological process you apparently don't understand and infuse it with religious belief in an effort to find reason to condemn others. I would think.

              1. 0
                Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why would you say "I apparently don't understand"?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Read your initial post. Do some research. Set religious dogma to the side and take what we know for facts only into consideration. I trust you are intelligent enough to figure it out from there. smile

                  1. 0
                    Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please be specific.  What exactly did I say that you disagree with in "the natural biological process"?

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      First. Let's be honest. If we view your idea of 'God's view' we will find it is really more a reflection of your view than that of a deity. Rummaging through the Mosaic laws will help you understand that.

                      And, you stated that as soon as sperm meets egg you've got a baby. That isn't correct. Using that definition for that stage in the development is purposely inflammatory, or willfully ignorant. Only you can be the judge of that.

                      1. 0
                        Emily Sparksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                        Can you prove that it does not become a child at conception?  Because I can prove it does.  When the sperm and egg unite, within 24-36 hours, the cells begin to divide amd multiply--it begins growing as a child even at that point.  Within 3-4 days the child (mass of cells) enter the uterus where he continues to grow.  6 days after fertilization a women is considered pregnant (with child).

          2. Chris Neal profile image83
            Chris Nealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That's a bit of a stretch...

      13. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 4 years ago

        It seems to me that "We think" that life begins when it becomes measurable by our standards.
          As to say that the great White Shark did not exist until one of us stumbled across one and lived to tell about it, And even then; for quite some time it was considerer to be a mythical creature.

           I think that life existed before it morphed into our physical existence  (at the moment of conception).        ...  And then that life morphs again when it leaves this cocoon.   
         
           When does a butterfly become a living thing? 

           What does this statement have to do with the OP?   …
           Nothing! … and … everything! 
          That depends upon how you see it or NOT.

           




        It seems to me that "We think" that life begins when it becomes measurable by our standards.
          As to say that the the great White Shark did not exist until someone stumbled across one and lived to tell about it. And even then, for quite some time it was considerer to be a myth by many.

           I think that life existed before it morphed into our physical realm, at the moment of conception.   ...  And then this life morphs again.

      14. Diane Inside profile image86
        Diane Insideposted 4 years ago

        at conception.

        check the DNA it will be human.

        Hope that clears it up for ya.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not in the least. smile

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And, every sperm is sacred.

       
      working