Theological Considerations of Personhood

[marineimaging]

Go forth and multiply.

"This is what the Lord says- He who made you, who formed you in the
womb, and who will help you" --Isaiah 44:2

"For You created my innermost being; You knit me together in my
mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully
made." --Psalm 139:13-14

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
me." --Psalm 51:5

"Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him." --Psalm
127:3

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless...Rescue the weak and
needy." --Psalm 82:3-4

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5 (NIV)

 

[Florin Lăiu]

So what was it that leaped in Elizabeth's womb if not a human person?

Dear DrBubbaLove, I cannot say that a foetus is or is not a person, and I don’t think it is important that anyone should understand it. From conception to birth there is a lot of psycho-somatic development, and we call the embryo a ”person” rather in respect to its future, as much as an unconscious patient, ”living” his or her last days in coma, is a ”person” with respect to his or her past or hopeful future. Person is a human term and human beings define its semantic content in a conventional way. Probably there are some legal definitions of personhood, that must protect human life.

As regards the case of Luke 1:41-44, I cannot say that the leaping fetus (the future John Baptist) is an evidence of personhood, more than the silence of the other fetus (the future Jesus Christ), who did not leap. Elizabeth calls Mary’s embryo ”my Lord”, because she understood He must be Messiah, that is the future King. From many perspectives, we should give each human embryo the moral right of a person. However, at the same time, we should protect the right of any mother for her choice. The Church has a right to prohibit abortion, and Christians must have the right to adopt and rear children, but we should not take this idea of embryos’ personhood too far, developing civil laws that force women to give birth or inflict punishments for abortion. The state and even the Church cannot solve all these problems. Some of them must be left to God’s judgment. But the Church anyway must teach the truth and help women spiritually in order to avoid abortion. (Religious institutions that now pay much respect for the unborn persons, proved historically very cruel toward some fully developped persons, who happened to disagree with the establishment).

 

[geiroffenberg]

Title: Theological considerations of personhood

The abortion debate for Christians sometimes hinges on the term 'personhood.' We acknowledge the biology of a human life beginning at conception, however, is this human life a 'person' in the sense of having a soul?

If your view is 'yes we are human beings, a person, at conception with a soul' then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions for such.

If your view is 'no a human life is not a person with a soul at conception, then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions when this does occur.

OP parameters: Opinions are welcome of course as this is a forum discussion. I do ask if a claim is made to please substantiate the claim (provide either the historic, church, Biblical evidence).

Again, this is a thread to address the theological aspects of the pro-life and abortion debate.

Finally, as a Christian only area of the forum, I ask we all apply Christian charity and not personally attack a poster and not attack a particular Church or Denomination. We are all above this, or should be. Let's be respectful please.

personhood and sould is not the same thing. Soul exist from the beginning of the formation of the human body, but person developes as an attribute of the soul as tmie goes by

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Dear DrBubbaLove, I cannot say that a foetus is or is not a person, and I don’t think it is important that anyone should understand it. From conception to birth there is a lot of psycho-somatic development, and we call the embryo a ”person” rather in respect to its future, as much as an unconscious patient, ”living” his or her last days in coma, is a ”person” with respect to his or her past or hopeful future. Person is a human term and human beings define its semantic content in a conventional way. Probably there are some legal definitions of personhood, that must protect human life.

As regards the case of Luke 1:41-44, I cannot say that the leaping fetus (the future John Baptist) is an evidence of personhood, more than the silence of the other fetus (the future Jesus Christ), who did not leap. Elizabeth calls Mary’s embryo ”my Lord”, because she understood He must be Messiah, that is the future King. From many perspectives, we should give each human embryo the moral right of a person. However, at the same time, we should protect the right of any mother for her choice. The Church has a right to prohibit abortion, and Christians must have the right to adopt and rear children, but we should not take this idea of embryos’ personhood too far, developing civil laws that force women to give birth or inflict punishments for abortion. The state and even the Church cannot solve all these problems. Some of them must be left to God’s judgment. But the Church anyway must teach the truth and help women spiritually in order to avoid abortion. (Religious institutions that now pay much respect for the unborn persons, proved historically very cruel toward some fully developped persons, who happened to disagree with the establishment).

Respecting a person choice where it involves taking another person's life should not exclude the seriousness such a choice or the justification for any person to take that which belongs to God alone. From the beginning of the Bible (Cain/Able) the idea that such a choice belongs with no justification necessary to God alone. To argue now that some person's choice trumps God's seems untenable for a Christian. So I do not agree, much less see how one could simultaneously argue for a right to life and at same time argue another person has a choice to take that life absent very grave cause - as in their own survival - for which we (and even the ancients in the Bible) allow justification in the taking of life.
Convenience, self happiness, adding to self burdens, poverty....etc are never presented as equally in gravity such that it would justify taking the life of another, which is rather the position behind saying a mother should have such a free choice. The pro-life position has never properly been understood as even applying where the other life represents a direct or indirect threat to that of the mother. Exceptions for just that were already made in attempts to save a mother long before pro-choice advocates or more precisely eugenics advocates attempted to make the existing prohibitions to abortion on demand an issue excluding things done (by choice) to protect the mother's life. That is a taking or allow the end of a life to occur in the defense of another life. Which is a related issue, but not one made in the OP.

Two wrongs have never made a right. So am unclear how a Christian can appeal to the historical cruelty of humans towards others to suggest we have no right now to stand for the dignity God clearly gave all human life from the Beginning when He clearly declared Cain and no human has that unfettered right, only Him. We need justification before choosing and then taking, (either directly or indirectly causing/allowing loss of) another human's life. That justification has never involved the various concerns beyond self defense that pro-choice imagine mothers have. The level of gravity of taking a human life is grossly undermined if we set the bar so low that we could look at the life of some people as inconvenient to us. And that is no more evident to us than when such a view is actually directed at our own life by someone else.

 

[redleghunter]

From a Biblical perspective, we must refer to God’s commandment (”You shall not murder!” Exodus 20:13), to God’s Creation (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 9:6), to the wonder of maternity (NJB Psalms 139:16 ”Your eyes could see my embryo. In your book all my days were inscribed, every one that was fixed is there.”), and the legal seriousness of injuring a pregnant woman (Exodus 21:22-25). In addition, every human being is responsible to God regarding his or her own body, which is God’s temple (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

I believe the above addresses the OP. I understand you would argue the exact meaning of 'soul' however, support our human existence at conception is no different than 2 months, 6 months, 76 years later?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

personhood and sould is not the same thing. Soul exist from the beginning of the formation of the human body, but person developes as an attribute of the soul as tmie goes by

I agree personality is a product of both body and soul together. But even personality can be seen already developing in the fetus. Examples; laughter, enjoyment of particular activities, response to particular sounds, having changing moods, responding to particular voices,...etc. all point to the beginning of the development of the person's personality. The ancients, including Christians, never made a distinction between a fully developed personality and something we could label "personhood". Development was actually a part of the argument for saying both a human life in the physical sense (beginning of a body) and a human soul are required to be present from conception in order not just for that to become "a" human, but also so that it becomes "the" human it already is at that point - which is to say a person - an individual. The fact it is not yet fully formed is not an impediment to recognizing that is still a person, a person in the earliest stages of becoming more fully/completely the person they were created (by God) to be.

Besides if we were going to argue that much that "person" can only be properly understood at some point in development we create morale issues where most are not willing to go, especially now that we can see pictures of what these aborted babies actually look like (a person) before they are torn apart. Those pictures have served to make it harder to devalue their life. We could make the same arguments against the equality of those born with "less developed" or others in some manner later losing "development" to the point those lives are devalued like the fetus viewed that way, and can tossed in the grinder with the aborted body parts of those persons, or we could even harvest and sell their parts like PP apparently did with aborted baby parts. Soylent Green becomes more of a reality in that by devaluing any form of life for "convenience", we can see a way decide whose lives matter or are to be seen as inconvenient, to then use their "disposable" bodies to serve the needs of other lives deemed more worthy of life.

 

[redleghunter]

Dear DrBubbaLove, I cannot say that a foetus is or is not a person, and I don’t think it is important that anyone should understand it. From conception to birth there is a lot of psycho-somatic development, and we call the embryo a ”person” rather in respect to its future, as much as an unconscious patient, ”living” his or her last days in coma, is a ”person” with respect to his or her past or hopeful future. Person is a human term and human beings define its semantic content in a conventional way. Probably there are some legal definitions of personhood, that must protect human life.

As regards the case of Luke 1:41-44, I cannot say that the leaping fetus (the future John Baptist) is an evidence of personhood, more than the silence of the other fetus (the future Jesus Christ), who did not leap. Elizabeth calls Mary’s embryo ”my Lord”, because she understood He must be Messiah, that is the future King. From many perspectives, we should give each human embryo the moral right of a person. However, at the same time, we should protect the right of any mother for her choice. The Church has a right to prohibit abortion, and Christians must have the right to adopt and rear children, but we should not take this idea of embryos’ personhood too far, developing civil laws that force women to give birth or inflict punishments for abortion. The state and even the Church cannot solve all these problems. Some of them must be left to God’s judgment. But the Church anyway must teach the truth and help women spiritually in order to avoid abortion. (Religious institutions that now pay much respect for the unborn persons, proved historically very cruel toward some fully developped persons, who happened to disagree with the establishment).

We are not discussing the political aspects nor civil criminal law aspects. That would be a very interesting topic to discuss, however we are dealing with the Biblical and historic Christian positions, and if one disagree with such, to present their theological views. You have already expressed a Biblical approach, although cautious one, where we are to respect human life from conception on. If I am in error, please opine.

 

[redleghunter]

personhood and sould is not the same thing. Soul exist from the beginning of the formation of the human body, but person developes as an attribute of the soul as tmie goes by

Your point is human life at conception has a soul but it not a person yet? If so, when does one become a person.

 

[SPF]

The quickest way to derail an abortion discussion and miss the real issue is to allow it to become a discussion over women's rights. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

All of us agree that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person.

Attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited, temporarily, or permanently suspended. In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the baby in the womb is.

Again, as we know that human life begins at conception, the only reason we would create an arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person, where only human persons have rights is for the sole reason so that we could perform some action against the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

The burden of proof rests with those that would suggest that human life is not intrinsically morally valuable, but grows into moral worth.

 

[Hank77]

So what was it that leaped in Elizabeth's womb if not a human person?

Where did I say that when John moved in the womb he was not a human person? I didn't, in fact I said just the opposite.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The quickest way to derail an abortion discussion and miss the real issue is to allow it to become a discussion over women's rights. The morality of abortion begins and ends with our understanding and classification of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside the mother’s womb.

All of us agree that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But even those rights have limitations. For example, if I'm a kleptomaniac and my pursuit of happiness involves indiscriminately stealing from every store I walk into, there are laws in place to prevent that. My pursuit of happiness can be restricted. For people who break the law, they risk forfeiting their right to liberty either temporarily or permanently depending on their actions. It is even possible to forfeit your right to life by committing heinous acts of violence against another person.

Attempting to justify abortion from a women's rights line of reasoning fails because there are times when our rights can be limited, temporarily, or permanently suspended. In order to determine whether pregnancy is one of those times or not is going to be based upon our understanding of what the baby in the womb is.

Again, as we know that human life begins at conception, the only reason we would create an arbitrary distinction between a human being and a human person, where only human persons have rights is for the sole reason so that we could perform some action against the human being that we would otherwise consider immoral.

The burden of proof rests with those that would suggest that human life is not intrinsically morally valuable, but grows into moral worth.

exactly so and well said!

 

[Philip_B]

Could we please for the sake of clarity in this debate determine what we understand as the moment of conception. I am not a lawyer and I don't like to sound like one, other wise we run the risk that people may be meaning different things.

 

[Hank77]

My understanding is when the sperm penetrates the egg and the process of growth begins.

 

[Theo Book]

Title: Theological considerations of personhood

The abortion debate for Christians sometimes hinges on the term 'personhood.' We acknowledge the biology of a human life beginning at conception, however, is this human life a 'person' in the sense of having a soul?

If your view is 'yes we are human beings, a person, at conception with a soul' then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions for such.

If your view is 'no a human life is not a person with a soul at conception, then please provide your Biblical, Church, and/or historic Christian positions when this does occur.

OP parameters: Opinions are welcome of course as this is a forum discussion. I do ask if a claim is made to please substantiate the claim (provide either the historic, church, Biblical evidence).

Again, this is a thread to address the theological aspects of the pro-life and abortion debate.

Finally, as a Christian only area of the forum, I ask we all apply Christian charity and not personally attack a poster and not attack a particular Church or Denomination. We are all above this, or should be. Let's be respectful please.

At no time, and in no perspective, does life begin at conception. Nor does it begin at birth.

There is no possible way anyone, be he/she preacher, scientist, or ignorant savage, can possibly offer an instance of living Humanity, whose life did not begin in Eden's garden, with the first-parents creation.

From that time till now, all Human life has come from its journey of endless reduplication from parent to child, repeated daily to this moment.

There is no Human life produced from any source other than the lifeline directly traced to Eden's beginning.

ABORTION IS NOT JUST A METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL
I have stood by for a long time, wondering whether my small voice would make any impact upon the debate, currently raging in society, on the subject of Abortion. I look at the whole issue as misnamed, to begin with. The issue does not revolve around Abortion per se, anymore than it revolves around adultry, or Birth Control, per se. It revolves around the issue of determining at what point life begins in the womb.

Once the issue is properly identified, and resolved, the other issues will fall into their natural niches. To resolve the issue, then, let us take a look at life as it is born into the world.

The new baby, most of the time, is said to be "alive," depending upon various and sundry "vital- signs." Yet, we do not conclude that the baby "became" alive at the moment of birth. So I think we can agree, life begins before the moment of birth.

DEFINE "LIFE"
If the very definition of "life" involves the ability to point precisely to some perceived "spark," at which time an embryo becomes viable, or "alive," then I'm afraid the debate will continue to rage unabated. But I really believe we can do better than that in our approach to such an important issue.

The first question I would raise, is a very simple one. Was the egg alive, or dead, at the precise moment it was joined by the sperm? If it was dead, how could it then become a zygote, and grow to an embryo?

The simple answer to this question, then, is, the egg was alive. Did the mother originate life in the egg at the precise moment she passed it from the ovary to the Fallopian chamber to begin its cycle, or was the egg alive when it was first produced into the cycle of the system?

GENERATING LIFE
The second question pertains to the sperm. Did the male give it life at the precise moment it left his ball, to begin its journey in the cycle, or was the sperm alive while it resided in the male, awaiting the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] process?

Now, we know that some Males are sterile, and cannot beget children. I do not address that issue here. And some Females cannot bear children. I do not address that issue, in this offering. The only issue I address is that of identifying the precise moment of the beginning of definable "life" in "the cycle of life."

LIFE IS PASSED ON, NOT RESTARTED
I could get into a discussion of the effect of "puberty" upon the young potential Father, and Mother, but it would prove to be futile, because there have been no definitive scientific studies published, to my knowledge, pertaining to the moment "life" is passed to the egg and the sperm, and how it is effected by Puberty. So, let's move on.

If the child is alive prior to puberty, than Life MUST reside in the body of the child, in order to mature in the adult. Where did it come from? Did the potential parent go to the doctor for a "progeny" shot. No! Is there a vaccine which passes life into the system. Yes! But not within the cycle in question.

Now, if life can be determined to be within the child, and passes to the adult by maturation, prior to mating; and in the child, prior to maturation, and prior to puberty, from where did it come? Vitamins in the food, perhaps? No! Minerals? No! I don't believe it can be shown to be dietary in nature; Though diet may very well play a part in other aspects of the cycle of life, and passing it on.

SOURCE OF LIFE
The answer is simple, and leaves nothing to debate. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a "living" soul." (Genesis 2:7) (King James Version)

THE COMMAND TO PASS ON LIFE TO ANOTHER GENERATION;
"...AND GOD SAID unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..." (Genesis 1:28) (King James Version)

After God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and multiply, and after man was cast from the garden, God revealed to them a secret, which still has men debating to this day. He told them where "life" was located in the cycle of life and death.

(Lev 17:11) For the life of the flesh is in the blood:...

(Lev 17:12) Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

(Lev 17:14) For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for THE LIFE OF ALL FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

(Deut 12:23) Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for THE BLOOD IS THE LIFE the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

"LIFE" PROCCESS
And so GOD TELLS US that the process by which "life" is passed to the egg is accomplished when the egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus, and blood vessels are formed, by which life continues to be nourished in the egg, in the zygote, in the embryo, in the baby, in the Birth canal, In the passage of birth, and after the umbilical cord is cut, life continues in the new-born. It did not originate in any step of the cycle. It was passed from Parent to child, all the way back to its origin..... in the Garden.

Some folks claim "My body is mine, I have the right to abort if I want to." To which I will always respond "What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and Ye are NOT your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God's." (1 Cor 6:19-20)

Life in the womb began in the Garden with Adam and Eve, and has not been interrupted or changed by proclamation, by science, by Priestly incantation, or by any machination of man, of which I am aware, so when one of the debaters can show me someone who came into this world separate and apart from the cycle of life, as herein described, I shall re-evaluate my conclusion.

"Test-tube" babies do not change the cycle, for they began within its purview and were simply transported elswewhere to tintillate the minds of scientists that want to play like they are gods in their own right.

It matters not how science plays with what God has provided, they still must begin with that provision. And it was provided in the garden to Adam and to Eve, and has come uninterrupted to you and to me.

© 1997 by Theophilus Book

 

[redleghunter]

Could we please for the sake of clarity in this debate determine what we understand as the moment of conception. I am not a lawyer and I don't like to sound like one, other wise we run the risk that people may be meaning different things.

Hi Philip, we discussed the issue of the beginning of a new distinct human life here:

The science of abortion: When does life begin?

I provide some other resources mentioned in the above thread below, however want to reemphasize the scientific aspects were already discussed.

These were also biological references on embryology shared in the thread:

Quotes from Textbooks on Human Development

When Do Human Beings Begin?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he. For he cometh in with vanity, and departeth in darkness, and his name shall be covered with darkness. Moreover he hath

Is it safe to build our doctrine on a statement by a man who had 700 wives and 300 concubines?

 

[redleghunter]

From that time till now, all Human life has come from its journey of endless reduplication from parent to child, repeated daily to this moment.

This is called procreation and is observable by science to occur at conception.

Conception is the point that we mere mortals can point to using our observable senses and dare I say modern technology and say "yep there is the beginning of a new human life."

If your approach is we cannot know the unknowable, join the crowd we are all mere puny little hu-mans and not God.

If your point is we should not mess with God's design and given a healthy pregnant woman and pre born child, we should do no harm to either person, by the OP you would be in category 1.

 

[redleghunter]

Is it safe to build our doctrine on a statement by a man who had 700 wives and 300 concubines?

Sometimes one sentence says it all.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Where did I say that when John moved in the womb he was not a human person? I didn't, in fact I said just the opposite.

As all your posts were read, including the first, it was a relevant question. The argument presented was not the opposite all as it was far more muddled than an absolute statement of when a soul is present or not. The position taken still appears to be that it could be, or maybe is maybe not or we are not sure when soul is present or when the fetus becomes a person. So apparently there is agreement Saint John was person when he first heard of the presence of our Lord, glad to hear that. But still seems only in some muddled sense that one could not impose on anyone else believing that perhaps the baby just kicked at that moment by coincidence or simply an autonomic response to the excitement sensed. So pardon me for questioning to discern just how muddled one thinks it may be.

It was also suggested men of the NT day lacked technology/knowledge we possess today which would help make the otherwise supposedly muddled position less muddled. That however is not true of even educated men centuries before the NT day. Aristotle clearly held a position that requires a soul at conception of a human, just as he said animals need a spirit at their conceptions. In his view a soul/spirit is integral to and integrated with (as opposed to the idea of possessing or filling) all animated life. Educated men like Saint Paul or Saint Luke would no doubt be familiar with such arguments and if there was disagreement with it among Christians of there day, one should expect they mention it while talking about the unborn. No insult intended, am just suggesting the idea the NT opinion on the unborn is muddled is both unsupported and unwarranted from anything they wrote, and certainly refuted by the writings of others in or about the same time.

I do not understand the issue being suggested a problem with either twins or various presentations of a chimera. Why would having two lives to contend with create a problem for when those lives are said to be a person?

 

[Nic Samojluk]

'Soul' seems important here and several comments have been made that point to verses with the word soul. Some reduce the question of abortion to a question of when they believe that the soul is present.

Notice that most modern translations use the living being in place of soul:

New International Version
"Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

When oxygen reached Adam's lungs, he became a living being. No ensoulment mystery here! In the case of the unborn, the oxygen is provided by the placenta.