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

[goout]

goout:

Freddy:

Rau:

Freddy:

It’s an analogy, Emma. They’re not meant to correlate exactly.

But Fred, when the analogy fails in what It is intended to explicate - in the key issue, well, that’s just a FAIL.

Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.

This is an incoherent argument, as it denies life as a continuum.

No. Just the opposite.

Anyone can read the words. And here is my full observation to you since you cherry picked it.

This is an incoherent argument, as it denies life as a continuum. As if a tree appears magically out of nowhere.
Any conservationist know that an acorn is necessary if you are to appreciate the tree. The tree presents a different representation of the reality, but without appreciating the acorn with the same value, your position on the value of a tree is meaningless.

Your reply will be that yes, this is all true but foresters manage the growth and harvest and conservation of trees, and you probably think that justifies the management of human beings at different stages. (“objectification”)
But here we see the inadequacy of the analogy, as humans beings have exceptional value as compared with trees, and the value of human existence outweighs your option to “manage it” at any stage.

 

[Freddy]

This is an incoherent argument, as it denies life as a continuum. As if a tree appears magically out of nowhere.
Any conservationist know that an acorn is necessary if you are to appreciate the tree. The tree presents a different representation of the reality, but without appreciating the acorn with the same value, your position on the value of a tree is meaningless.

Your reply will be that yes, this is all true but foresters manage the growth and harvest and conservation of trees, and you probably think that justifies the management of human beings at different stages. (“objectification”)
But here we see the inadequacy of the analogy, as humans beings have exceptional value as compared with trees, and the value of human existence outweighs your option to “manage it” at any stage.

Perhaps you know someone who puts as much value in an acorn as they do in a mature tree.

But wait a minute…were you comparing human life to wood? No, of course you’re weren’t. You were using the tree as an analogy. Not usually necessary to point that out, but a few people do seem to have a problem with the concept.

 

[MamaJewel]

You’re conflating human with human being.

I absolutely am not.

Science has proven that a human blastocyst is a “distinct individual” as it commences gastrulation. It is literally a unique human individual in his/her/it’s earliest stages of being.

I absolutely agree it is not a “person” as defined by law, but it is a new human individual at its youngest age.

In vitro, it is a distinct individual and in utero, it is a distinct individual. But ethics and law expect doctors to take very different approaches toward that distinct individual, depending on its location.

That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.

But value is subjective depending on the individual or group assigning value.

I can see where a 15 day old embryo would be of much more value to a doctor in a lab than to a doctor who performs abortions. In the former case, a distinct human being closer in age to it’s origin will be more valuable.

Because value is subjective, it is fair and just to consider all humans with an inherent dignity, since they are members of the human race, regardless of age or stage (natural moral law).

In the context of abortion,

In the context of abortion…
doctors who treat pregnant human beings are expected to provide elective abortion services up to 24 weeks gestation when their patients chose to terminate a pregnancy.

Yet, doctors experimenting with human embryos in vitro are expected to terminate that embryo by day 14, before it starts its gastrulation stage as a new distinct human individual.

Why the disparity? (I do not condone such unethical behavior, btw)

Wanna make people angry…?
Ask if doctors in a lab setting should have the same access to a living fetus that an abortionist does.

Most people have no issue with a doctor taking the tools of medicine to a healthy, living human embryo or fetus to end its life.

But they do have an issue with the thought of a doctor taking the tools of medicine to a living human embryo or fetus for study in a lab setting.

So much for a clump of cells, eh?

In philosophical terms, does it have the form ‘human’?

Yes, for it’s age/stage of a newly minted human being. If philosophy wants to reject science, that’s a entire issue that needs to be addressed in and of itself.

Is the tumor a human life or not?

A tumor in a human body is a mass of abnormal cells (benign or malignant) and is not a “distinct individual”.

Perhaps you know someone who puts as much value in an acorn as they do in a mature tree.

It might just be one of these United States, so be careful of which seeds and plants you interact with. Touching a legally protected plant or animal can get you arrested, fined, or even jail time. Good to know if you’re visiting Florida’s beaches.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You’re conflating human with human being.

I absolutely am not.

Science has proven that a human blastocyst is a “distinct individual” as it commences gastrulation. It is literally a unique human individual in his/her/it’s earliest stages of being.

I absolutely agree it is not a “person” as defined by law, but it is a new human individual at its youngest age.

That ‘science has proved’ that a blastocyst is human and that it is the very first stages in the development of what will become a person is not required to be brought up for discussion. It is not in dispute. I am not sure how many times I will have to say this.

And it seems that I will have to keep repeating that it is not a human being. It will become a human being. There is no definition for ‘human being’ that you will find that applies to a blastocyst. Feel free to make that definition yourself but please note that I will be equally free to reject it.

And yes, value is, almost by definition, relative. I can’t tell you what you should consider to be valuable. You might consider a few cells to have equal value to a young child. I don’t and I would suggest that the majority of women who have abortions don’t either.

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve said time and time again that no-one would consider terminating a pregnancy a day before giving birth. So why ask such a question? I’m not sure you have been following the discussion.

No one? Apparently, it is rather you who is not following the discussion. To wit:

Eventually the fetus is separated from the woman by cutting the umbilical cord, and then the fetus - the potential baby becomes and actual human being.

The difference between your position as to the moment a human being exists and this poster is that yours is one of total ambiguity. You do not define the “moment” a human being exists. Rather you claim that there are many unspecified moments after conception that the living being is not a human being but refuse to tell us the species of this living being.

So, how about 2 days before birth, or 3 days? Are you OK with killing that child?

 

[Freddy]

Rather you claim that there are many unspecified moments after conception that the living being is not a human being but refuse to tell us the species of this living being.

This will be the last time. Because I’ve said it 4 or 5 times so far and I’m up to the back teeth in repeating myself for anyone who cannot be bothered to read what I write. There is no argument that prior to conception, during conception, immediately after conception and as far forward from conception as you’d like to go, what is involved is human.

 

[o_mlly]

There is no argument that prior to conception, during conception, immediately after conception and as far forward from conception as you’d like to go, what is involved is human.

And you’ve been dodging the actual question. The question is when is it a human being?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

This will be the last time. Because I’ve said it 4 or 5 times so far and I’m up to the back teeth in repeating myself for anyone who cannot be bothered to read what I write. There is no argument that prior to conception, during conception, immediately after conception and as far forward from conception as you’d like to go, what is involved is human.

As I looked at the OP, I see a very pertinent question about the difference between DNA, cell, tissue, organ and organism. As I scrolled thru the posts, I did not see an analysis pertaining the difference made among these categories. I wonder why?

Maybe because it wasn’t pertinent I guess.

 

[Rau]

That ‘science has proved’ that a blastocyst is human and that it is

Then why do you keep amending mama’s words. You omit “being” or “individual”. Why don’t you quote her accurately and respond to what she actually said? I see @o_mlly making the same point.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That ‘science has proved’ that a blastocyst is human and that it is

Then why do you keep amending mama’s words. You omit “being” or “individual”. Why don’t you quote her accurately and respond to what she actually said?

Because she is using definitions with which I don’t agree. As I have said on a number of ocassions. And which I find I am doing yet again.

Human is an adjective. Human cells. Human society. If it’s used as a noun it’s short for human being. Which, in this context equates to ‘person’. Or ‘individual’ as you have just used. You won’t find any dictionary that defines a group of cells that a woman is carrying shortly after conception as ‘a human being’. Nor ‘a person’. Nor ‘an individual’ used in the same sense.

You’ll find it described as a blastocyst. Which is human (adj) and will become a human being (noun). And there is no doubt about that and neither is there any doubt about the fact that there is no bright line when you can say it has turned into ‘a person’ or a ‘human being’. Just as there is no bright line differentiating a child from a boy or a boy from a man. So it’s a nonsensical question to ask when it occurs.

A point which not only has also been explained a few times already but is really the basis of most of the points which have been made. That all these questions keep getting asked time and time again after already been covered numerous times shows me that those who are asking them have nothing else to offer to the discussion.

Please don’t expect me to keep repeating myself.

 

[o_mlly]

… there is no bright line when you can say it has turned into ‘a person’ or a ‘human being’.

So, science tells you that they cannot know when the child is a human being. If true then logically, science can neither tell you when it is not a human being. In this state of ignorance, when may you morally kill that possible human being?

Please don’t dodge the question any longer. It’s more tiring to continue ask it than dodge it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Gorgias]

If philosophy wants to reject science, that’s a entire issue that needs to be addressed in and of itself.

How is philosophy “rejecting science” here?

 

[EmmaSowl]

Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.

Now was I talking about a pregnancy or someone sculpting a statue? If you can’t tell then the analogy is valid.

But you are leaving out the fact under dispute: is the gradual change happening on its own or because of a conscious, outside force?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

… there is no bright line when you can say it has turned into ‘a person’ or a ‘human being’.

So, science tells you that they cannot know when the child is a human being. If true then logically, science can neither tell you when it is not a human being.

That’s a logically inept statement. Nobody can say when a boy becomes a man but we can all determine when that person is a boy.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Something that gradually changes from one form to another is viewed differently throughout that process. That originally it has less value than when it is complete. That it becomes more valuable as the process continues.

Now was I talking about a pregnancy or someone sculpting a statue? If you can’t tell then the analogy is valid.

But you are leaving out the fact under dispute: is the gradual change happening on its own or because of a conscious, outside force?

There is no dispute. It has me beat why you’d even suggest there might be one.

 

[Rau]

Nobody can say when a boy becomes a man but we can all determine when that person is a boy.

There is far less debate about when a human being comes into existence. And even if that is debated, we all admit that there are laws permitting abortion well after the status of “human being” is not in doubt. Or do you hold that abortion (legal) rights all cease once we have a human being?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Nobody can say when a boy becomes a man but we can all determine when that person is a boy.

There is far less debate about when a human being comes into existence. And even if that is debated, we all admit that there are laws permitting abortion well after the status of “human being” is not in doubt. Or do you hold that abortion (legal) rights all cease once we have a human being?

The term ‘far less debate’ allows for the fact that there is actual debate. So there is no ‘even if that is debated…’. It’s ‘even when that is debated…’. I’m glad that we have agreement that it is debatable.

Now we can actually move on to when it should be allowed and when it shouldn’t. And as I said, I have no hard and fast bright line. Although the law sometimes does allow for such a line. It says ‘up to this specific date and no further’. So this afternoon is OK but not tomorrow morning perhaps. Is that nonsensical? Well, yes it is. No less than saying that you can make love to this girl at 12:05am but ten minutes earlier and you’ll be charged with statutory rape.

This is by far the hardest aspect of the matter. But it being so difficult is not a reason to claim that not allowing abortion at all is preferrable. For example, when was my daughter old enough to decide herself if she could have sex? Well, her idea of when she was OK was a lot younger than my wife’s and her’s was younger than mine. So do we say ‘no sex at all’? (actually maybe not a great example as I can see a lot of people saying exactly that).

So having an abortion immediately after you know you are pregnant is no problem for me (and this is all my personal opinion). And having one a week before giving birth is wrong. And it’s a sliding scale between the two.

There are exceptions where the baby and the woman will die unless she has an abortion so that is acceptable in all cases. But other than that…it’s the woman’s choice. One I’d prefer she didn’t have to make.

 

[MamaJewel]

Carnegie Stage 1

https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.201809437

How is philosophy “rejecting science” here?

See the links above. Even philosophy must accept that a human being scientifically exists long before any applicable laws or philosophies might define a human being as a “person”. Or maybe law and philosophy don’t have to.

But other than that…it’s the woman’s choice.

I am on a Catholic forum and respect such.
I am also very opposed to unethical practices in medicine and science.

First, do no harm.
Do good.

@Freddy
I see you’re you support a woman’s choice.
In medicine, the products of (human) conception are considered human tissue, including a zygote/embryo/fetus.

So, in one scenario, we have a woman.
She is a mother.
She is poor.
She does not want to be pregnant.
Nor does she want another child.
She chooses elective abortion and the doctor terminates her pregnancy.

We have another woman.
She is also a mother.
The mother of a very sick child.
She wants to be pregnant, but she does not want another child.
She wants the pregnancy terminated at a very specific stage so that the products of conception can be taken to a lab for further study in hopes of finding a cure for her sick child.

A doctor who participates in the first scenario would be considered to act ethically and legally, while a doctor who intentionally participates in the second scenario would be considered very unethical and could be fired and lose practices privileges.

Remember, it’s a woman’s choice.
Or is choice limited to certain circumstances?
The second scenario could possibly give greater direct benefit to humanity, but it creeps people out big time.
Why? Especially if carrying and terminating a pregnancy is a woman’s choice and the products of conception are just deemed human tissue.

 

[Freddy]

Carnegie Stage 1

https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/emmm.201809437

Gorgias:

How is philosophy “rejecting science” here?

See the links above. Even philosophy must accept that a human being scientifically exists long before any applicable laws or philosophies might define a human being as a “person”. Or maybe law and philosophy don’t have to.

Thanks for the links. I’ll just note two quotes, one from each:

“…that has the potential to develop into all of the subsequent stages of a human being.”

“Some might argue that the embryo acquires moral standing after the 14th day, because the onset of gastrulation signifies that the embryo is a distinct individual and therefore has a greater potential for personhood”

Just note the term ‘potential’ in each. It reinforces what I’ve been saying.

As to the ethical dilemas, well…yes, they are dilemas. If you want a specific reply to each I can try later.

 

[MNathaniel]

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

Actual human beings exist.

‘Potential human being’ is an imaginary, abstract conceptual category pro-abortion advocates invented to excuse abortion.