So what is the difference between a potential and an actual human being?

[Thorolfr]

You said it yourself: empathy. Personal value. And neither trump the intrinsic value of human life.

Many people in this forum seem to be making the argument that a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same and that both deserve equal protection and have an intrinsic value greater than that of other living things. Furthermore, they seem to be arguing that this is the only rational position whereas other positions are not based upon reason but only upon feelings.

What I would like to know is why this position is more rational than, for example, the position of the Jains in India that all life deserves special protection, even the lives of insects? This makes some sense since they believe that all living beings have souls which can be reincarnated as a human or as an animal or even as an insect. If someone believes that the soul of an ant might eventually be reborn in a human, I can see why they would think that even insects must not be harmed. So, the Jain position also seems quite rational if you subscribe to their religious beliefs. Most Christians, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t think twice about stepping on an ant and they certainly wouldn’t believe that the lives of individual ants need to be protected and have some sort of intrinsic value similar to the lives of humans.

To me, it seems that the argument that a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same and deserve equal protection is ultimately based upon religious beliefs.

 

[o_mlly]

What I would like to know is why this position is more rational than, for example, the position of the Jains in India that all life deserves special protection, even the lives of insects?

Deferring to practicing Jainists, it seems the particular belief you cite parallels ours in respecting the sanctity of human life. Since they believe that the human soul cycles through some animals (but not all ?) before reincarnating again as human, they, like us, in ignorance of which animals possess human souls, will not kill any animal. It seems that the animal life per se is not what they wish to protect but the possibility of killing an animating human soul.

We, in ignorance of the ensoulment event of the developing human being, also will not kill.

To me, it seems that the argument that a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same and deserve equal protection is ultimately based upon religious beliefs.

I think the irreligious, logical argument has been proposed.

• No one may intentionally and directly kill an innocent human being.
• In grave circumstance, we may act only with a certain conscience, e.g. knowledge of the morality of the act.
• We do not know the time of ensoulment.
• Therefore, we may not kill the child.

 

[Gorgias]

What I would like to know is why this position is more rational than, for example, the position of the Jains in India that all life deserves special protection, even the lives of insects? This makes some sense since they believe that all living beings have souls which can be reincarnated as a human or as an animal or even as an insect.

But, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, it’s human life in particular that’s in the image and likeness of God. So, whereas Jains believe that a mosquito might harbor a human soul, our tradition says “nope; only humans, and only one life per human.” On that basis, are believe is just as rational as theirs. What’s our basis for holding our position, then? We believe that God has taught it, and therefore, our believe has more solid grounds.

To me, it seems that the argument that a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same and deserve equal protection

You’re mischaracterizing the argument. I can’t assert why you’re doing so, but you’re doing so. The argument isn’t “a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same.” (They’re not, obviously.). The argument is “both a human zygote and a one year old baby are human life, and human life deserves equal protection.”

I agree that the Judeo-Christian tradition is the basis for the (pretty near global) assertion that “human life is sacred and deserves protection.” Are you saying that this is a bad thing?!?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, it’s the group of cells with which you said you could empathise.

Nope, that’s what you feel is the person in the womb. Because I know the person to be in essence the same as me, I can sympathize.

It seems that you have reached a point where you have no reasonable response available. If you have a different definition of empathy at some point then let me know.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

o_mlly:

Freddy:

A group of cells is not a person and it’s not possible to empathise with it.

Wrong. I do.

Or more likely give us a personal definition of empathy which more suits your purpose.

Acknowledging the humanity of another human being. Acknowledging the common humanity of the other human being and myself and all others. Identifying with another human being. Not subjecting our common identification to one’s capacities to function or one’s potency, but rather basing that common identification on the simple existential reality that we are both human beings.

How’s that?

Not very good, goout. I’m asking how one can empathise with a group of cells. And I’m not asking because we need this information. I’m asking to emphasise the fact that it’s not possible. There is no answer available. Else we’d have one immediately.

So what we have is you and o-mlly talking about sympathy and acknowledgement and ‘knowing’ and identifying. None of which have anything whatsoever with empathy. None at all.

It’s been my main point of discussion throughout. We’ve had examples and counter examples. We’ve seen how it works and how if affects our actions. And now we’ve reached a point when I’m actually asking how you might empathise with a few cells, you refuse to address the question.

I can’t see this continuing much further, can you?

 

[Freddy]

Thorolfr:

To me, it seems that the argument that a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same and deserve equal protection

You’re mischaracterizing the argument. I can’t assert why you’re doing so, but you’re doing so. The argument isn’t “a human zygote and a one year old baby are essentially the same.” (They’re not, obviously.). The argument is “both a human zygote and a one year old baby are human life, and human life deserves equal protection.”

That’s a valid argument. Not one with which I’d agree. But there is an additional argument which says, as Thorolfr has indicated, that a few cells are not just human life (nobody could argue against that) but that it is ‘a person’. And one with which you can actually empathise. That is, one with which you can share emotions and feelings.

That is a position which is, if it needed to be pointed out, nonsensical.

 

[Rau]

Now reverse the concept. Rather than feelings guiding and informing our decisions and even determining our actions, a lack of feeling or a lack of empathy to be more accurate can also influence our decisions.

A lack of positive feelings toward someone does not “authorize“ me to do something I “know” to be wrong. Feelings are always in the mix, a factor, an influencer, one may even hide behind them as justification for some act - but they are not the guide to what is right and wrong.

 

[Rau]

People react automatically to help someone in obvious distress. I guess you need to think about it first.

So feelings are required to be recognized to instinctively act when someone falls over?

Isn’t the larger question about the proper basis for our decisive acts, not why we act instinctively? Should our decisive acts be determined based on feelings?

 

[Rau]

Your gift of $25 will make sure she gets the medicine she needs to survive." Fundraise better: what you need to know about empathy ⋆ Hands-On Fundraising

You’ll be affected just as everyone else. Maybe you just don’t realise it. Or maybe you think you’re different to everyone else.

You continue to argue what is not in debate. Why? Feeling are influencers - no question. But not the debate.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Now reverse the concept. Rather than feelings guiding and informing our decisions and even determining our actions, a lack of feeling or a lack of empathy to be more accurate can also influence our decisions.

A lack of positive feelings toward someone does not “authorize“ me to do something I “know” to be wrong.

But you don’t ‘know’ it to be wrong. That’s the point! If you think about it and decide it is wrong then, despite what you feel, you can change your actions. What you feel never authorises you to do anything whatsoever.

This argument is raised all the time and it’s nonsense. If I point out that a lack of empathy means you don’t feel any connection to whatever it is we’re talking about then that doesn’t mean that therefore you have carte blanche to do whatever you choose. It’s not a moral compass.

 

[Rau]

What you feel never authorises you to do anything whatsoever.

At last! Yes this is the point Freddy. How i feel about someone has no bearing on what acts towards that person are right or wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your gift of $25 will make sure she gets the medicine she needs to survive." https://mcahalane.com/why-empathy-is-key-to-great-fundraising/

You’ll be affected just as everyone else. Maybe you just don’t realise it. Or maybe you think you’re different to everyone else.

You continue to argue what is not in debate. Why? Feeling are influencers - no question. But not the debate.

Exactly. The feeling of empathy guides the decisions of those making those decisions. They generally don’t determine them. Certainly they shouldn’t in the case in point. But if you ignore it then you are missing the first part of the sequence of decision making that women make in having an abortion.

It is impossible to ignore. It’s part of the equation. It has to be accepted.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What you feel never authorises you to do anything whatsoever.

At last! Yes this is the point Freddy. How i feel about someone has no bearing on what acts towards that person are right or wrong.

This is the whole point right there. The feeling of empathy does have a bearing on how one acts. But it does not determine the morality of that act in itself.

However…how one perceives the morality of an act is also affected by the feeling of empathy. It’s part of the equation.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

People react automatically to help someone in obvious distress. I guess you need to think about it first.

No, neglect and indifference are common. There are protests in the United States for a reason.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

People react automatically to help someone in obvious distress. I guess you need to think about it first.

No, neglect and indifference are common. There are protests in the United States for a reason.

Exceptions that prove the rule. Else why the protests…

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Exceptions that prove the rule. Else why the protests…

But that the problem exists indicates that there needs to be something else to determine it since empathy guides both groups, so the point that I actually cared about stands.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Exceptions that prove the rule. Else why the protests…

But that the problem exists indicates that there needs to be something else to determine it since empathy guides both groups, so the point that I actually cared about stands.

Empathy doesn’t commit you to a course of action. It is not a moral guidance system. You can empathise with someone’s pain and take pleasure in it. It’s simply an ability to understand what others are feeling. How you respond to that is another matter.

 

[MamaJewel]

o_mlly:

Freddy:

No, it’s the group of cells with which you said you could empathise.

Nope, that’s what you feel is the person in the womb. Because I know the person to be in essence the same as me, I can sympathize.

It seems that you have reached a point where you have no reasonable response available. If you have a different definition of empathy at some point then let me know.

and

I’m asking how one can empathise with a group of cells. And I’m not asking because we need this information. I’m asking to emphasise the fact that it’s not possible. There is no answer available. Else we’d have one immediately.

By definition, o-mlly and goout are giving you a reasonable answer.

Definition of empathy​

1 : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner also : the capacity for this

2 : the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

So, if o-mlly and goout are human beings that went through their blastocyst stage of human development, they certainly can empathize with a blastocyst as a human being in that stage of development. Under both definitions, they have empathy for the human blastocyst.

Definition of projection​

6a : the act of perceiving a mental object as spatially and sensibly objective also : something so perceived

b : the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects

Where are they wrong in their empathy? Those few cells are very specialized, living human cells that make up a (super)human being at that stage of his/her/they/it’s development.

Science does not know much about these humans at this stage because of a lack of technology and the fact that ethical individuals don’t like the idea of blatantly experimenting on other humans or human tissue without the consent of the actual donor.
And at some point (ie late blastocyst stage or early gastrulation?), the developing human being becomes succinctly differentiated from it’s parental-donor cells and it’s own placental and amniotic structures (epiblast). Who is a scientist or doctor to violate that new human’s right to bodily autonomy?)

Gotta love those totipotent superhumans! What I would give to have to those totipotent cells back from when I was in my epiblast stage. I could get my TSH, estrogen, normal menses, and my memory back!

So back to the question of what is the difference between a potential and an actual human being? At what point does a doctor intrude on a human being in a petri dish? Or in utero?

First, do no harm.
Do good.

 

[Freddy]

…the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects.

So I can attribute feelings of sadness to a person - as I know that person is capable of that emotion. But you say I can also do it to a piece of wood.

I’m not sure your argument is heading in the direction you thought it might.

At what point does a doctor intrude on a human being in a petri dish? Or in utero?

I note that you appreciate that there is a difference to be discussed. That they are not the same. I guess I’ll put that down to some sort of progress.

 

[MamaJewel]

I’m not sure your argument is heading in the direction you thought it might.

Oh, my argument is heading in the right direction.

Again, in the late blastocyst stage, given an adequate, healthy DNA/HARs and an adequate medium for development, you will have a superhuman being whose cells can become any kind of cell in the human body.

And you equate totipotent epiblast cells to an object like a piece of wood?
Yeah, right. Puhlease.

I bet there’s not a thought in your brain that isn’t the result of your development in your epiblast stage. In part of the development process, we go from blastocyst, through gastrulation, and boom neurulation. How your HARs regulated your DNA to create the foundation of your brain/nerves/gut/endocrine/heart makes who you are today. You can’t escape your biology.

Here is a link to The Virtual Human Embryo which states:
Stage 1 is the unicellular embryo that contains unique genetic material and is an individually specific cell that has the potential to develop into all of the subsequent stages of a human being.
https://www.ehd.org/virtual-human-embryo/intro.php?stage=1

So, stage 1 is the initial stage of a human being. Sorry if you philosophically can’t grasp the fact that is what you were in your earliest stage of being.

Given that the materials for life are in order, a Stage 1 human being has the potential to develop into the next stage of a human being and subsequent stages as well.

That “individual specialized cell” is not comparable to a dead piece of wood. It is not an object, it is a human at the initial stage of his/her/they/it’s being.

I note that you appreciate that there is a difference to be discussed. That they are not the same.

Yes. There is a difference. In “location, location, location” as one CAF pro-lifer once pointed out to me.

That said, who is a woman to expect a doctor to abort her viable pregnancy and yet expect mad scientists to stay ethical and abstain from creating some type of humanoid monster out of an embryo in a petri dish?

If it’s not a human being why can’t researchers splice genes and grow it as a humanoid-bat-mouse in a pig or shark?

First, do no harm.
Do good.