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

[Rau]

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.

I’d suggest “influences” is the better word choice. Feelings are certainly an influencer, but they may be a questionable guide! [A “guide” might suggest something proper about the destination…, influencer is rather more ambivalent about the destination]

If someone has said that no one is influenced by feelings, then make that counterpoint to them. But posts on this thread have suggested that feelings/empathy (or lack of them) PROPERLY dominate in matters of thoughtful decision-making. I am glad we are on the same page in rejecting that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

I wasn’t the one suggesting that empathy can apply to inanimate objects (such as a piece of wood) as well as people. That’s a comparison that you have made.

And can we be clear here? You are suggesting that an embryo outside the womb can be considered differently to one that’s been implanted.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

I’d suggest “influences” is the better word choice. Feelings are certainly an influencer, but they may be a questionable guide! [A “guide” might suggest something proper about the destination…, influencer is rather more ambivalent about the destination]

If someone has said that no one is influenced by feelings, then make that counterpoint to them. But posts on this thread have suggested that feelings/empathy (or lack of them) PROPERLY dominate in matters of thoughtful decision-making. I am glad we are on the same page in rejecting that.

Yeah, I have no problem with that, Rau.

 

[o_mlly]

Fred, you are not being honest in our exchange. And not very clever either.

When called out on your unsubstantiated claim, you attempt to assign that claim as coming from me. This particular kind of straw man, simultaneously abandoning and reassigning one’s own claim to the other, discloses your acknowledgement of your claim’s falsehood. The attempt to shift the burden of defending your error to me is both dishonest and not very clever. The thread’s posts are easily referenced.

Post #193. Your claim.

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

Post #194. My counter.

Wrong. I do.

Post #195. The anticipated snarky reply.

So you can understand and share the feelings and emotions of a blastocyst? Perhaps you can share your experience.

Post #199. The correct emotion cited.

Better than that. I can sympathize with another human being.

Post #200. Fred’s not-so-clever straw man-shift attempt.

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

Post #202 Fred’s mistake disclosed.

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.

Post #208. Fred abandons his sinking ship.

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.

Your problem is you project your erroneous feelings onto others. Because your fickle feelings can empathize for the gazelle downed by the lion but not the child in the womb, you wrongly think that everyone else must feel the same. They don’t. Please get over yourself.

 

[Freddy]

Because your fickle feelings can empathize for the gazelle downed by the lion but not the child in the womb…

A group of cells. A blastocyst for example. Not a child. One can empathise with a child. Or even a gazelle. But not a group of cells. As you said you could. But it’s not possible by the very definition of the word ‘empathise’.

I can imagine a child being distressed or content. Or frightened. As I can with a gazelle. That’s what empathy allows us to do. Please tell us what emotions you can imagine a blastocyst to have. You actually said you could do that (and you’ve conveniently repeated that claim above as post 194).

 

[o_mlly]

Please tell us what emotions you can imagine a blastocyst to have.

Your obsession with making your feelings dominant in determining your attitude toward another is what is questioned. Please tell us how you know with certainty that the child is not a human being?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Please tell us what emotions you can imagine a blastocyst to have.

Your obsession with making your feelings dominant in determining your attitude toward another is what is questioned. Please tell us how you know with certainty that the child is not a human being?

A child is a human being. But we’re talking of a group of cells defined as a blastocyst.

We can empathise with a child. I personally can’t with a group of cells but you said you could (see the cut and paste of post 194 above). I’m waiting to know how you manage it.

Well, truth be told, I’m not waiting for that as I know it’s impossible. What I am waiting for is either a further deflection, a personal definition of empathy or a retraction. I’d say those are listed in the order in which they are expected.

 

[o_mlly]

A child is a human being. But we’re talking of a group of cells defined as a blastocyst.

No, we’re not talking about a blastocyst, only you.

You think that a human being at the blastocyst stage is not a human being because you feel that the blastocyst is not. Please tell us how you know so with such certitude that you think one may kill that living being.

We’re also still waiting for you to identify what species you assign to that living organism at that stage of her development.

From Post# 57:

Freddy:

None of these things are a human being.

The OP hasn’t responded. Do you have an answer?

… what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism if not human.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A child is a human being. But we’re talking of a group of cells defined as a blastocyst.

No, we’re not talking about a blastocyst, only you.

No, we were both talking about it. I said it’s impossible to empathise with a group of cells (defined as a blastocyst) and you said you could. See above for your conveniently reposted answer.

Now I’m waiting for your response to the follow up question as to how you manage to accomplish this. Or rather one of the three options I gave earlier. Deflection, redefinition or retraction. I didn’t think you could possibly use denial (as you just did) as you’d reposted what you’d said. But there you go.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Fair enough. Yet, I’m making the claim that the standard isn’t “empathy is the determining factor”, but rather “human life is the determining factor”.

(After all, if you go with “empathy”, then you’re in the territory of the purely subjective. And that means that, for the same person (your daughter was the example you used, right?), you might say “yes! value!”, and I say “meh… not so much as people I know, but sure – she’s a person”, and Pol Pot says “kill her!”. So, as a guide, “empathy” doesn’t produce usable or consistant answers.)

 

[o_mlly]

No, we were both talking about it. I said it’s impossible to empathise with a group of cells (defined as a blastocyst) and you said you could. See above for your conveniently reposted answer.

Nope. But good try to deflect. If one can sympathize then one also can empathize but, and this is the important point, the object of either emotion is always a person or group of persons; not animals. You need to think about your confusion of feelings, Fred.

Now, what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism if not human? We’ve been waiting a long time for your answer.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Fair enough. Yet, I’m making the claim that the standard isn’t “empathy is the determining factor”, but rather “human life is the determining factor”.

(After all, if you go with “empathy”, then you’re in the territory of the purely subjective. And that means that, for the same person (your daughter was the example you used, right?), you might say “yes! value!”, and I say “meh… not so much as people I know, but sure – she’s a person”, and Pol Pot says “kill her!”. So, as a guide, “empathy” doesn’t produce usable or consistant answers.)

I appreciate your position. And I think you might be close to appreciating mine. But obviously we disagree.

And in the context in which we are discussing empathy, subjectivity doesn’t come into it. I appreciate that one could empathise with a person more than you could with a gazelle (I know what a person is feeling when they feel scared but it’s obviously not exactly the same with a gazelle) so yeah, that’s subjective. But it’s not possible to empathise with a group of cells. No more than a block of wood. So the point about subjectivity is moot. It doesn’t arise.

And again, please note that the impossibility of being able to empathise sheds no light on whether an action is correct ot not. But it informs the decisions we each make.

 

[o_mlly]

But it informs the decisions we each make.

And, equally, emotions can disinform so must be validated by reason. Got that species identified yet?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No, we were both talking about it. I said it’s impossible to empathise with a group of cells (defined as a blastocyst) and you said you could. See above for your conveniently reposted answer.

Nope. But good try to deflect. If one can sympathize then one also can empathize but, and this is the important point, the object of either emotion is always a person or group of persons; not animals.

This is an argumentative word salad. The ‘deflection’ is just a request that you explain how you say that you can do the impossible. Sympathy and empathy are entirely diferent. You can sympathise and empathise with animals and people. You can’t empathise with something that doesn’t have the capacity for emotion. By definition it’s the ability to understand the emotions of others.

You’ve said you can empathise with a group of cells. Good grief, it’s in the post just above this one. So you’ve been asked how you manage to empathise with something that doesn’t even have consciousness let alone emotions.

You won’t reply and you’re not going to. I’ve no interest in further pursuing a conversation with anyone who claims the impossible as a means to further their position and refuses to acknowledge it.

And what’s been conceived is human. If you read what was written and not what you want to see then you’d realise that no-one has claimed otherwise.

We’re done.

 

[o_mlly]

You’ve said you can empathise with a group of cells.

As I and other posters have explained to you, feelings are entirely subjective. I cannot argue with how you feel; neither can you argue how I feel. I feel for the human being in all stages of life; you don’t. I like broccoli; you don’t. We can, however, argue productively how we think.

What do you think is the species of that living being at the blastocyst stage of development?

 

[Gorgias]

But it’s not possible to empathise with a group of cells.

Ask a couple who is hoping to conceive and who has just had sex. You’re telling me that they aren’t hoping that there’s “a group of cells” in her body right then and there? And that they aren’t empathizing with their newly-conceived baby? P’shaw…

 

[Rau]

What do you think is the species of that living being at the blastocyst stage of development?

I think he concedes above - “human”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But it’s not possible to empathise with a group of cells.

Ask a couple who is hoping to conceive and who has just had sex. You’re telling me that they aren’t hoping that there’s “a group of cells” in her body right then and there? And that they aren’t empathizing with their newly-conceived baby? P’shaw…

C’mon, Gorgias. Don’t make me post a definition of the word. You know what it means and it’s not applicable. There may well be an emotional attachment if there was a plan to conceive and the conception was welcomed. But you cannot empathise with a few cells. It’s not possible.

Please use the term as it’s defined.

 

[o_mlly]

I think he concedes above - “human”

Yes, I think you’re right. And I think he’s trying to escape answering using high school debating tactics. Should we let him out of the conversation without answering?

 

[Gorgias]

C’mon, Gorgias. Don’t make me post a definition of the word. You know what it means and it’s not applicable.

There may well be an emotional attachment

Isn’t that precisely what “empathize” means? Isn’t that precisely what you’re expressing with your “do you empathize with your daughter” example? To feel for a person based on your relationship to them?

I think what’s in play is that you’ve dug in your heels on your side of the argument, and I’ve dug in mine on my side, and neither of us will be budged by the other’s arguments. It doesn’t mean that one or the other of us is being unreasonable… just that we’ve each reached personal certainty on the matter.

Please use the term as it’s defined.

I think I am. I also notice that you’ve decided that it cannot be applied as defined. I disagree.