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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Then one should use ‘a human’. It would then be apparent that the person is talking about ‘a human being. I’ve been quite clear how I’ve used the term. To say ‘it’s human’ is to say nothing more that the cells, the tissue…whatever is being referred to, is of human origin. Which is stating the bleedin’ obvious if I may.

And I’m using ‘person’ as a synonym for human being. A baby a week after being born is a person/human being. As it is a week before it is born. It is most definitely not a person a week after being conceived.

When that changes is a personal decision (as are all decisions in this matter). There’s no fixed point. It’s a matter of degree.

 

[Rau]

And I’m using ‘person’ as a synonym for human being. A baby a week after being born is a person/human being. As it is a week before it is born. It is most definitely not a person a week after being conceived.

“Most definitely”? Such certitude must mean the criteria, the dividing line, is clear. What is it then? And when is the leap to human being made?

I guess there would be no argument that a week after conception we have “a human life” (which to avoid confusion I’m sure we agree is not mere human tissue).

 

[Elf01]

The threshold “age” of personhood seems to move about in various jurisdictions based on various considerations.

Usually considerations include is the baby wanted (wanted babies magically become people before unwanted babies), and is the baby healthy?

 

[Elf01]

And I’m using ‘person’ as a synonym for human being. A baby a week after being born is a person/human being. As it is a week before it is born. It is most definitely not a person a week after being conceived.

If a woman knows she had conceived a week ago and wanted the baby, but the father didn’t and slipped her the abortion pill, should he be charged with a crime? If so what?

 

[o_mlly]

And yes, everything is human including the sperm and the egg. …

To say ‘it’s human’ is to say nothing more that the cells, the tissue…whatever is being referred to, is of human origin.

There is only one source for human tissue – a human being.

You’re trying to characterize the child as if it is no more than the nail clippings of its mother. But that is not scientifically true.

Knowing that the “human tissue” belongs to some human being, let’s examine the possible sources of this “human tissue”.

Human sperm is human tissue. The sperm DNA identifies the source as a pubescent male human being.

The human egg is human tissue. The egg DNA identifies the source as a pubescent female human being.

The child’s tissue is human. The tissue’s DNA identifies the source as neither mother nor father but a separate human being at a prepubescent stage of development.

May we kill prepubescent human beings? No.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I’m using ‘person’ as a synonym for human being. A baby a week after being born is a person/human being. As it is a week before it is born. It is most definitely not a person a week after being conceived.

“Most definitely”? Such certitude must mean the criteria, the dividing line is clear.

Personal opinion only (and I appreciate that your view may be your personal opinion and that of the church - but your church’s opinion is a religious one and so I don’t consider it). And as I’ve said (and will keep on saying if necessary), there is no bright line.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And I’m using ‘person’ as a synonym for human being. A baby a week after being born is a person/human being. As it is a week before it is born. It is most definitely not a person a week after being conceived.

If a woman knows she had conceived a week ago and wanted the baby, but the father didn’t and slipped her the abortion pill, should he be charged with a crime? If so what?

You’d need a legal expert to answer that. But I would say that their relationship would be over if the woman found out. It would be completely immoral to take a decision like that which directly imposes your will on someone else without their consent.

 

[Elf01]

You’d need a legal expert to answer that.

Pretend you are one

But I would say that their relationship would be over if the woman found out. It would be completely immoral to take a decision like that which directly imposes your will on someone else without their consent.

What, exactly has he done?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And yes, everything is human including the sperm and the egg. …

To say ‘it’s human’ is to say nothing more that the cells, the tissue…whatever is being referred to, is of human origin.

There is only one source for human tissue – a human being.

You’re trying to characterize the child as if it is no more than the nail clippings of its mother. But that is not scientifically true.

Knowing that the “human tissue” belongs to some human being, let’s examine the possible sources of this “human tissue”.

Human sperm is human tissue. The sperm DNA identifies the source as a pubescent male human being.

The human egg is human tissue. The egg DNA identifies the source as a pubescent female human being.

The child’s tissue is human. The tissue’s DNA identifies the source as neither mother nor father but a separate human being at a prepubescent stage of development.

There was no need for all those points You are simply stating what I have already confirmed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You’d need a legal expert to answer that.

Pretend you are one

But I would say that their relationship would be over if the woman found out. It would be completely immoral to take a decision like that which directly imposes your will on someone else without their consent.

What, exactly has he done?

I honestly do not know if it would be illegal or not. I suspect so but what he could be charged with I have no idea. You need to ask someone who has studied law. And, good grief…I just said what he would have done. And you reposted it.

Don’t you read what I write?

 

[Elf01]

You need to ask someone who has studied law. And, good grief…I just said what he would have done. And you reposted it.

Imposed his will. Say he imposed his will by slipping a vegetarian meat, would you feel the same about that?

 

[Elf01]

I honestly do not know if it would be illegal or not.

I’m not asking what the law is. I’m asking what you think it should be.

 

[Rau]

Personal opinion only (and I appreciate that your view may be your personal opinion and that of the church - but your church’s opinion is a religious one

Not sure why you say this - I can’t imagine what science you bring to bear to conclude that my offspring, a weak after conception, is not a human being. Certainly your “personal opinion” seems more one of convenience (for those arguing for abortion to be freely available) rather than one of science.

You skipped the rest of my post I notice?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You need to ask someone who has studied law. And, good grief…I just said what he would have done. And you reposted it.

Imposed his will. Say he imposed his will by slipping a vegetarian meat, would you feel the same about that?

Why are we talking about food now? I gave you the answer you wanted in regard to the topic at hand. If you want to talk about vegetarianism then start another topic.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I honestly do not know if it would be illegal or not.

I’m not asking what the law is. I’m asking what you think it should be.

I think it’s an immoral act. I’m not the slightest bit interested in whether it could or could not be illegal.

Might be a good idea to make your point rather than asking about legal matters.

 

[Rau]

I think it’s an immoral act.

Would the moral wrong in that act be more akin to stealing a lock of hair, or more like killing a child? Recall - the mum was delighted to be pregnant.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Personal opinion only (and I appreciate that your view may be your personal opinion and that of the church - but your church’s opinion is a religious one

Not sure why you say this - I can’t imagine what science you bring to bear to conclude that my offspring, a weak after conception, is not a human being. Certainly your “personal opinion” seems more one of convenience (for those arguing for abortion to be freely available) rather than one of science.

I’m not aware of any scientific position that classes a blastocyst as a person. And the leagal position changes whichever jurisdiction you’d prefer to quote. The answers I give are only my personal opinion (which are obviously shared by a significant proportion of people).

 

[o_mlly]

There was no need for all those points You are simply stating what I have already confirmed.

Sorry, Fred, there is a need. We’ve been trying to extract from you a rational argument that permits killing the child. Your latest attempt was to label the child as “nothing more than the cells, the tissue … of human origin”. Of course, all human tissue is of human origin. The important point that you did not make is what human being generates the human tissue in question.

To say ‘it’s human’ is to say nothing more that the cells, the tissue…whatever is being referred to, is of human origin.

And the last point that you left out, why?

May we kill prepubescent human beings? No.

 

[Elf01]

Might be a good idea to make your point rather than asking about legal matters.

Would that be because you think it’s murder, but won’t admit it, because it would imply that a woman who doesn’t want her baby is also committing murder?

If not feel free to state what law you think is appropriate.

I think it’s an immoral act. I’m not the slightest bit interested in whether it could or could not be illegal.

If it’s immoral purely because he is imposing something on her against her will slipping a vegetarian meat is equally immoral. Is that what you believe?

 

[Rau]

The answers I give are only my personal opinion

Yes, clearly. So maybe your earlier “most definitely not” a human being was a bit hasty?