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

[Freddy]

But as far as moral decision-making being affected by how we relate to someone or something else, I don’t think it’s the only factor there.

I agree. I believe I said as much somewhere upstream but the comments get lost in the fog of minor details.

 

[Freddy]

I can’t understand, for the life of me, why you believe that we have to know anything about a human being to be able to empathize with them.

Either human rights are human rights at every stage of being human, or they aren’t human rights at all.

Feeling empathy does not mean that you necessarily grant that person their human rights. It’s only an ability to understand what they are feeling. They can be connected but you don’t automatically grant the latter just because you experience the former.

And if you want to talk about human rights we can check out the first few lines of the Declaration of Human Rights:

‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’.

Now does it say anything about rights being granted at the moment of conception? Does it suggest that a few cells following conception are endowed with reason? Should a blastocyst act in a spirit of brotherhood to others?

It seems it’s not applicable. So if you want to grant rights to that which a woman is carrying after a week or so after conception then you’d do well to skip the DoHR. I’d stick with what the church teaches if I were you.

 

[Rau]

Now does it say anything about rights being granted at the moment of conception? Does it suggest that a few cells following conception are endowed with reason? Should a blastocyst act in a spirit of brotherhood to others?

It seems it’s not applicable. So if you want to grant rights to that which a woman is carrying after a week or so after conception then you’d do well to skip the DoHR. I’d stick with what the church teaches if I were you.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about where the right to life originates. Certainly no earthly power, no document, grants it to the innocent. There may also be a misunderstanding about the prerequisites for said right. The capacity to reason is not one of them.

 

[o_mlly]

So if you want to grant rights to that which a woman is carrying after a week or so after conception then you’d do well to skip the DoHR.

If the civilized world struck down the Nuremberg Laws then the Jews would have done better.

First you appeal to your feelings. And, anyone who doesn’t feel like you do just doesn’t know how to feel correctly. Failing that argument, you appeal to man-made laws that align with your predetermined feelings. The DoHR has no more validity than did the Nuremberg Laws.

When will you using reason directly address the issue in the OP? if not a human being then what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism?

 

[Gorgias]

The point I was making that you need to know that person exists as a person to be able to empathise.

Hence our indifference to faceless people in need and a greater desire to help if we’re shown individuals in need.

Wait – you’re still not making sense. We know about the plight of native peoples in the Amazon region, even if we don’t “know they exist as a person”. So… you are unable to empathize with them? You’re saying, then, that you cannot understand that they value their lives? Again… I think it’s not ‘empathy’ you’re talking about, here.

 

[MamaJewel]

When will you using reason directly address the issue in the OP? if not a human being then what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism?

I’m waiting for this very issue to be addressed, too. I’ve backed it with sound scientific evidence that a human blastocyst is a human in his/her/they/it’s earliest stage of being.

Feeling empathy does not mean that you necessarily grant that person their human rights. It’s only an ability to understand what they are feeling . They can be connected but you don’t automatically grant the latter just because you experience the former.

Well, you prove my point that we don’t have to empathize with a clump of unique, human specialized cells for it to be human. We can study the biology of a “clump of cells” (blastocyst) and determine if it is of human origins, or another mammalian. If it is of human origins, we can recognize it is a new unique human in it’s earliest stages of being and thus a part of the human family.

Now for human rights:

Preamble​

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind…

No empathy needed. Just recognition.

 

[MamaJewel]

And if you want to talk about human rights we can check out the first few lines of the Declaration of Human Rights:

‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood’.

Article 25 DoHr: *(2) *Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Which brings me to the ever- changing status of a child, based on society’s views of abortion.

http://www.un-documents.net/gdrc1924.htm

per Humanium.org : However, neither the 1924 Geneva Declaration nor the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child define when childhood starts and ends, mainly to avoid taking a stand on abortion.

Nonetheless, the Preamble to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child highlights children’s need for special care and protection, “including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

I beg to differ with Humanium’s perspective. In 1924 and 1959, abortion was not a legal issue like it has been since the mid-60’s.

Rather, the 1989 Declaration on the Rights of the Child avoided considering human existence at it’s earliest stages (the world’s 1st test-tube baby was over a decade old by this point), to push abortion rights under the guise of family planning services as child rights.

My reasoning is based on Principle 4 from the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child:

Principle 4

The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and to his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care. The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical services.

https://www.humanium.org/en/declaration-rights-child-2/

What happened in 30 years, from 1959 to 1989?

Loading…

www.ohchr.org

A human in his mother’s womb was no longer considered a “child”.

And under Article 24 (CoRTC 1989)

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:

(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.

Today the former prenatal “child” no longer exists and is subject to state sanctioned destruction via FP services like abortion. Strange if you ask me.

 

[Freddy]

I’m waiting for this very issue to be addressed, too. I’ve backed it with sound scientific evidence that a human blastocyst is a human in his/her/they/it’s earliest stage of being.

There’s no requirement to do so. Nobody has argued that it’s not.

And I think we can ignore any document that implies human rights. I only brought it up in response to a remark you made. Whether it’s codified somewhere that the woman has the right to an abortion or whether there is a right to life doesn’t matter at all. We are talking about how individuals perceive the matter.

 

[Rau]

We are talking about how individuals perceive the matter.

I thought that was done and dusted. But note that is NOT the thread topic as established by the OP, though some have been fixated on feelings and perceptions and the like as if those served to establish reality or justify acts.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

We are talking about how individuals perceive the matter.

I thought that was done and dusted. But note that is NOT the thread topic as established by the OP, though some have been fixated on feelings and perceptions and the like as if those served to establish reality or justify acts.

Feelings and percetions which inform our acts. Not necessarily justify them.

 

[Rau]

inform our acts.

“May Influence…“. I do recall some posters placed quite a deal more weight on feelings than you or I do here Fred.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

inform our acts.

“May Influence…“

I’ll agree with that, yeah.

 

[o_mlly]

When will you using reason directly address the issue in the OP? if not a human being then what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism?

Freddy:

MamaJewel:

I’m waiting for this very issue to be addressed, too. I’ve backed it with sound scientific evidence that a human blastocyst is a human in his/her/they/it’s earliest stage of being.

There’s no requirement to do so. Nobody has argued that it’s not.

Well, @MamaJewel, it appears either Fred is claiming his 5th Amendment rights or, we hope, now claims he never said that and will never say it again.

 

[EmmaSowl]

Since the attempt to a conduct a respectful discussion about abortion was unsuccessful

Wow. You didn’t mention this to me.

What is the definition of a human being?

A living, growing entity whose DNA is human.

At which point of the development would qualify the entity to be called a new human being?

At the point when it begins to grow on it’s own (i.e., fertilized egg).

Or when does the potential human being become an actual human being?

You are assuming the existence of a theoretical “potential human being” and not allowing for needed prior discussion of whether or not a human being either is or isn’t.

To help you, here comes an analogy: “let’s take a large piece of marble. The sculptor starts to work on it. When does the potential statue become an actual statue?”

This analogy does not apply. The marble will never begin to form itself before the sculptor even knows it’s there.

Dude, seriously? You started a different thread on the same topic, even though I’ve been nothing but polite?

Dude.

 

[Freddy]

This analogy does not apply. The marble will never begin to form itself before the sculptor even knows it’s there.

The analogy doesn’t need to correspond exactly in all respects. The point being made was that you start with something that is undoubtedly marble yet is not a statue but gradually becomes a statue over time. For marble substitute human and for statue substitute person.

I appreciate that you won’t agree that the analogy is valid in any case. But I hope that you understand that a lot of people see the situation in exactly those terms. That was the point of the analogy. Not to get you to change your mind but to allow you to see how others see the problem.

 

[Rau]

The analogy doesn’t need to correspond exactly in all respects. The point being made was that you start with something that is undoubtedly marble yet is not a statue but gradually becomes a statue over time. For marble substitute human and for statue substitute person.

That would be a good analogy for child turning to man. But at the more fundamental level - we have marble before and after, and human before and after.

Some would have it that “person” refers only to a human of sufficient age and that one must by that definition attain personhood to have a right not to be terminated. The threshold “age” of personhood seems to move about in various jurisdictions based on various considerations.

 

[EmmaSowl]

But I hope that you understand that a lot of people see the situation in exactly those terms. That was the point of the analogy. Not to get you to change your mind but to allow you to see how others see the problem.

I do understand that. I hope you understand that I was pointing out the flaw in what they are seeing. Apples and oranges.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The analogy doesn’t need to correspond exactly in all respects. The point being made was that you start with something that is undoubtedly marble yet is not a statue but gradually becomes a statue over time. For marble substitute human and for statue substitute person.

That would be a good analogy for child turning to man. But at the more fundamental level - we have marble before and after, and human before and after.

Some would have it that “person” refers only to a human of sufficient age and that one must by that definition attain personhood to have a right not to be terminated. The threshold “age” of personhood seems to move about in various jurisdictions based on various considerations.

It’s not a legal definition to which I’m referring. It’s conceptual. And yes, everything is human including the sperm and the egg. It’s human all the way through the process and even before the actual process begins.

But what a woman is carrying a few days after conception and what she is carrying a few days before birth are considered to be entirely different aspects of the process. And I mean considered by everyone.

The difference is that those who want to deny abortions at any stage argue that the cells a few days after conception have an equal value to the baby a few days before birth. I would say that the majority of people don’t accept this. Including me. And there’s not much to be done about it.

Is a blastocyst human? Of course. Is it a potential person? Naturally. Does that mean we treat it exactly as a fully formed baby…? Obviously there are different views on that. And never the twain.

So why all the arguments? What are people trying to do when arguing? Well, personally speaking, I am not trying to change anyone’s mind. All I am trying to do is to attempt to get people to understand why people who have abortions and agree to them having that right see the problem. To that end, a comment such as ‘I see what you mean but I completely disagree’ would be classed as some sort of success.

But the situation as it stands, most people do not want to grant those who support a woman’s choice to have even that. It’s a refusal to even acknowledge that there are two sides to the argument, even if the other side is wrong.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But I hope that you understand that a lot of people see the situation in exactly those terms. That was the point of the analogy. Not to get you to change your mind but to allow you to see how others see the problem.

I do understand that. I hope you understand that I was pointing out the flaw in what they are seeing. Apples and oranges.

I don’t see a flaw. It’s an apt analogy. If you want a different one then it’s like a small trickle of water which becomes a stream which becomes a river. It’s always water but a trickle of water is not the same as a river. There is no fixed point when one can say it’s changed from one to the other and we view them differently.

 

[Rau]

And yes, everything is human including the sperm and the egg. It’s human all the way through the process and even before the actual process begins.

You use human here as an adjective. I think the meaning intended generally on this thread is the noun. As in a “human being”, as opposed to human tissue.

But what a woman is carrying a few days after conception and what she is carrying a few days before birth are considered to be entirely different aspects of the process. And I mean considered by everyone.

Yet both are “human beings” right?

Is a blastocyst human?

Do you mean a human being? I believe so. A very young one.

Is it a potential person?

It’s the word “person“ that leaves me uncertain as to your definition. What makes a person in your mind? What age of human being? What characteristics must be in evidence? Or is it simply a matter of the value attributed by the mother to her offspring at the point of development in question?