CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[Chuz Life]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chuz Life]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

My daughter was born (induced delivery) very early. Over six weeks early to be specific. She was not breathing when she was delivered and it was a long few minutes before we were able to coax her to draw her first breath.

I reject your claim that she was not a person before that first breath. She was my daughter, a human being and a person - long before that first breath.

Also, If your claim is that a person is not a person until they draw their first breath. . . what then is the basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws? Not even viability is required for a murder charge under those laws.

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much do you want to bet that study did not consider the possibility that the "21 grams" of weight loss might have been attributable to anything else?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much do you want to bet that study did not consider the possibility that the "21 grams" of weight loss might have been attributable to anything else?

Actually, he was stopped from his research before he could verify it was that or something else.

Personally? I kinda wish that he'd been allowed to continue, we might have found out something that we still don't understand.

 

[Stephanie]

if they NEED to ask that question there's something missing in a persons morals and care about life.

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood is a modern concept as it apples to the unborn. Traditional Christian teaching in this area is based on some well-known Biblical passages and a key concept that is fundamental to Christian teaching: the immortal soul created uniquely by God. Many Christians think "I have a soul" this is actually inaccurate. Christian tradition teaches "I am a soul; I have a body."

It is the immortal soul which is the key to the abortion issue. If the fetus has a soul, it is a human being for all eternity. If that human being dies unbaptized, e.g. a fetus with a soul is aborted, that human is damned for all eternity due to the sin of Adam. Harsh but universal Christian teaching from the earliest times.

So when does God create an immortal human soul within the fetus? Some Christians today believe this miracle occurs when the sperm enters the egg. Of course, no one thought this way until very modern times for the simple reason that no one understood what the sperm and egg were and how they interacted. The Bible is silent about the whole business.

What the Bible does tell us is the process whereby God created Adam. Adam was fashioned out of clay and when God breathed into him, he became alive. From this passage Christian teachers developed two different schedules for the creation of the immortal human soul.

The first declares the fetus a human being (i.e. an immortal soul) at the quickening, that is the point at which the fetus first moves independently in the uterus, i.e. is "alive". The second marks the point at the first breath of the baby on delivery from the mother, i.e. God's breath enters the baby.

Modern obstetrics provides more information about fetal development than anyone knew before. This information, of course, says nothing about the immortal soul. That is a purely spiritual concept and the authority is the Bible, not medical science. Christians who chose to do so are, of course, free to believe that the soul is created at conception; however, neither the Bible nor Church tradition claims this view.

I would like to see any proof that you have that "souls" actually exist.

My observation is that living human bodies have the rights of "persons" whether their souls actually exist or not.

Actually, there was one scientist that tried to measure the soul by weighing people who were on their deathbead from tuberculosis, looking to see if there was a change in weight when the person died.

Unfortunately, their research was considered too macabre to continue, and he was only able to measure 6 people. He thought the weight of the soul was to be about 21 grams.

Duncan MacDougall (doctor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much do you want to bet that study did not consider the possibility that the "21 grams" of weight loss might have been attributable to anything else?

Actually, he was stopped from his research before he could verify it was that or something else.

Personally? I kinda wish that he'd been allowed to continue, we might have found out something that we still don't understand.

So we still have no actual proof of the claim that souls exist.

Agree?

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

Fallacy of false derivative analogy. They were considered persons. Their rights as humans were being debated, not their personhood.

You are wrong about that. "Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." - Supreme Court Decision Dred Scott They were not recognized as "persons" equal to themselves under our Constitution.

No, you don't get to move the goal posts.

The argument was not about the equality of persons, but rather about personhood.

So try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

My daughter was born (induced delivery) very early. Over six weeks early to be specific. She was not breathing when she was delivered and it was a long few minutes before we were able to coax her to draw her first breath.

I reject your claim that she was not a person before that first breath. She was my daughter, a human being and a person - long before that first breath.

Also, If your claim is that a person is not a person until they draw their first breath. . . what then is the basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws? Not even viability is required for a murder charge under those laws.

Your belief is not the law. Your belief is your own feeling, and good for you. But that has no claim on anyone else.

 

[Stephanie]

this thread is running at a bad time my dear. someone on the board just lost a baby .

and I'm not sure there is ever a good time to ask that question. No blame on you dear

 

[320 Years of History]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

A human being becomes a person when a family accepts it and gives it a name.

 

[2aguy]

Life begins at conception. End of story.

 

[Dovahkiin]

It's opinion.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's a matter of opinion, nothing more.

Was it only a matter of opinion when women and African American's "personhood" rights were being debated?

Fallacy of false derivative analogy. They were considered persons. Their rights as humans were being debated, not their personhood.

You are wrong about that. "Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ." - Supreme Court Decision Dred Scott They were not recognized as "persons" equal to themselves under our Constitution.

No, you don't get to move the goal posts.

The argument was not about the equality of persons, but rather about personhood.

So try again.

It is a historical fact that slaves were not recognized or treated as persons.

It wasn't until 1787 that they were even considered to be 3/5th of a person for the purposes of voting and taxes. That was the closest they got to any legal recognition of their personhood at that time.

It should have been obvious to you in my original post - that the question of personhood is also a question of equality.

That's what the Constitution says and that's why I pointed it out that it is "INCLUSIVE" and not exclusive in its context.

 

[Chuz Life]

this thread is running at a bad time my dear. someone on the board just lost a baby .

and I'm not sure there is ever a good time to ask that question. No blame on you dear

Thanks for the heads up and I am very sorry for their loss.

 

[Chuz Life]

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous.

I agree that they are synonymous and that they should always be synonymous.

One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

How many ways does this claim of yours have to be refuted?

Biologically; ". . . denial that human embryos are human beings in the embryonic stage of development cannot be sustained in light of the scientific facts. Modern embryology and human developmental biology establish beyond any doubt that human embryos are wholes and not mere parts, that they are indeed determinate individuals; and that they are organisms that endure throughout the developmental process, that is, both during gestation and after birth." - Robert P. George is a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.

Legally; "(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (murder), 1112 (manslaughter), and 1113 (attempted murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being. - U.S. Code 1841

Your denials have been refuted.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

Apples and oranges.

Corporations are legally recognized as "persons" in name only. No-one can be (nor likely ever will be) charged with MURDER for killing a corporation.

On the contrary, people have been charged and convicted of murder for killing a child or children in the womb.

You are failing to recognize the legal distinctions between a "natural person" such as a human being (in ANY stage of their life) and a "legal person" such as a corporation. The adjectives are there for a reason.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person.

Neither do I. And this thread has nothing directly to do with the moral issues of what to do about the rights of the child after their "personhood" has been recognized.

There are many people who hold that abortions (for example) would still be justified. . . even if and when the "personhood" of a child in the womb has been established.

That would be a conversation worth having but that is not what this thread is about.

I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Again, apples and oranges. The two (at no point) are every legally recognized as the same kinds of "beings." Corporations are "persons" in name only. Human beings are (supposed to be) "persons" in every respect.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus.

This raises an interesting question.

Are we as a society to define human beings / person's by human traits and characteristics that the new observed organism "has?" (inclusive)

Or, do we as a society define human beings / persons by the human traits and attributes that they may only temporarily LACK? (exclusive)

I think it should be the first one.

Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

As a person in the fetal stage of their life already is "a person" - at least as established by our laws against fetal homicide - Your comment doesn't make any sense.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb.

Got any cites or references to back that up?

If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.

Emerging from the womb is what makes a person "born" a "citizen." (14th Amendment) You seem to be confusing the two. A lot.

How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman?

I see at least two and more importantly the laws already see them as more than one person (at least in some respects) as well.

I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

Hopefully with the information provided, you will revisit that belief.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins.

No. the word for that is "origin" and "beginning" and both are synonymous with the words Conception and Inception for good reason. Biologically, the new organism is originated at conception. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledges this as biological fact.

What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

That is a Red Herring to the debate as people / persons have existed for centuries before "birth certificates" were ever invented. And as a matter of fact, some Chinese cultures do in fact recognize conception as a person's birth date instead of the day they emerged from the womb.

Neither has anything to do with whether or not the child is a human being and as such should be recognized as a person.

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

Ummmm. Under that system, whether the child is a born heir to the throne or whether the heir is still in the womb. . . A Regent would be appointed to handle the affairs of the State until the child is old enough to assume the role.

So, this does not support your denials at all.

 

[Chuz Life]

Are there any mods who can help me edit the first answer in my poll at the start of this thread? I somehow edited out the word "begin" in that choice.

 

[320 Years of History]

No. the word for that is "origin" and "beginning" and both are synonymous with the words Conception and Inception for good reason. Biologically, the new organism is originated at conception. Even Planned Parenthood acknowledges this as biological fact.

Quite simply, the time of origination and the time of birth are two different points in time.

This raises an interesting question.

Are we as a society to define human beings / person's by human traits and characteristics that the new observed organism "has?" (inclusive)

Or, do we as a society define human beings / persons by the human traits and attributes that they may only temporarily LACK? (exclusive)

I think it should be the first one

The answer is both. You are free to think that, but you are naive or ill informed by doing so.

We know all forms of life by what they are and by what they are not. For example, we know a whale is not a fish because it cannot extract oxygen from the water in which it swims and because it's tail bones are horizontally oriented in relation to the rest of its skeleton. We know the whale is a mammal because it has all of the defining characteristics of mammals.

As a person in the fetal stage of their life already is "a person" - at least as established by our laws against fetal homicide - Your comment doesn't make any sense.

Quite frankly, for the sake of discussing the matter at hand, I don't care what the law says. Laws have said plenty that's been found to be inaccurately rationalized and concluded upon before. What the law says on the matter of personhood is as far as I'm concerned irrational on the matter of personhood, not just with regard to human personhood, but also with regard to corporate personhood.


Other:

What you failed to realize through all of that is that I have my own definition of what is and is not a person. I do not accept the definitions and lines of argument you've presented because I find them unacceptable. I don't care whether one or a million scientists think a fetus is also a human being. I don't and that's in part what drives my views on the matter.

Can you find credible scientist who'll assert that personhood begins before birth? Of course you can. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple positions within science on when life begins:

• Metabolic View:
  The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.
  
  
• Genetic View:
  The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. During this developmental event, the genes originating from two sources combine to form a single individual with a different and unique set of genes. One of the most popular arguments for fertilization as the beginning of human life is that at fertilization a new combination of genetic material is created for the first time; thus, the zygote is an individual, unique from all others.
  
  
• Embryological View:
  In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government. The implications of a belief in this view include giving support to controversial forms of contraception including the "morning after" pill and contra-gestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.
  
  
• Neurological View:
  Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.
  
  
• Ecological View:
  Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates this point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb).
  
  
• Philosopher's Conundrum:
  There are philosophers, although not very many, who would dare to make the stance that a fetus nor an infant is a human being because it does not possess a consciousness of itself. This of course means that neither a zygote nor an embryo is a person either. Michael Tooley is one of these philosophers who describes his perspective in the article "Abortion and Infanticide." Essentially he argues that abortion and infanticide are really no different, if you support one, then you must support the other. His argument is that in order to claim that an adult has the right to live and an embryo or a fetus does not, one must be able to identify some moment where the moral status of the organism in question changes. There is nothing inherent about birth that it should automatically be hailed as this defining moment. A more justified moment, Tooley argues, is the moment at which the human child gains consciousness. At this moment, not at birth, should the child be considered a full fledged person, entitled to all the rights, particularly the right to life, that human adults are entitled to.
  
  The main problem that most people find with this position on when human life begins is that it condones infanticide, arguing that infants do not have the same right to life as adult humans do. Must people reject this view of when life begins, finding it impossible to support a view that logically leads to the conclusion that infanticide is acceptable. Tooley, however, argues that this rejection of his perspective is based on a purely emotional response to the idea of infanticide and not on logic or reasoning.

Historically, the question of when human life begins was answered by a progression that was initiated by edicts on abortion which were governed by the popular notions of moral acceptability. These popular notions were decrees put forth by God, delivered to the populous through religious texts. Modern technological innovations of the twentieth century have reversed the order of this progression; contemporary scholars often address the question of when human life begins by first evaluating scientific data. The conclusions reached via the scientific method become the tools used to create popular standards of moral acceptability. These contemporary notions of moral acceptability then provide the framework for the modern abortion debate.

The temporal divergence between the progressions of thought leading to answers of when human life begins reveals a shift in the source of knowledge that is used to answer one of humanity's most puzzling questions. Prior to the twentieth century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge. In recent years, however, scholars have terminated the utility of God's omniscience and in its place have raised science and technology as their source of absolute knowledge. This shift is evidence for, perhaps, the most determinant factor of any argument for when human life begins. The reasons governing the variation in both historical and modern views of when life begins is largely due to a variation in moral standards.

However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question. One opinion is that the acquisition of humanness is a gradual phenomenon, rather than one that occurs at any particular moment. If one does not believe in a "soul," then one need not believe in a moment of ensoulment. The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science.

Parting thoughts:
The thing I find noteworthy in this discussion with you is that the question you asked is when personhood begins and I happen to think that personhood and life are not the same things. Life clearly can and does exist without that life being a person. A human fetus is no exception. It is not a human being; it is a human fetus or embryo. Is it alive enough to call it so? Probably yes, but alive or not, it is yet a proto-human, not a human; thus it is also not a person.

Most importantly, however, that there are talented and learned folks on both sides of this issue informs me that more likely the matter isn't one well or best decided by science until such time as science agrees on a single "truth" about the matter. You see you and and scientists you cited are arguing based on whether an embryo/fetus is alive. In contrast my answer derives from what I think is a person/human being, which is what you asked about.

The simple fact is that I have no issue with person electing to terminate the existence of proto-person provided the proto-person belongs to the person who makes that decision. I have no need to encourage one from doing so, but neither have I a need to discourage one from doing so. I don't have to live with their choice. I have enough worries of my own without having to add to them the welfare of a proto-human for which I had zero role in effecting it on the path toward becoming a person.