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

[Rau]

Now we can actually move on to when it should be allowed and when it shouldn’t.

When do we have a ‘human being‘? You seem to be saying you don’t know.

You’re also silent on whether we have a human being prior to the latest date permitted by law - for abortions, though I note you said abortion 1 week shy of 9 months is immoral so I assume you assert that at that point we have a human being?

 

[Rau]

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

Yes, that’s right - one stage of human being progresses to subsequent stages of human being!

The second quote addresses the notion of personhood - a term not of biological meaning. Perhaps when we get commonality on what it means to be a human being we can then consider that term.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Now we can actually move on to when it should be allowed and when it shouldn’t.

When do we have a ‘human being‘? You seem to be saying you don’t know.

Let me get one thing straight to save you a lot of time. If you ask me for a specific time when that which a woman is carrying becomes a person/human being then you’re not going to get it. There is no specific time because we then get to a nonsensical position of saying that it’s ok an hour before but not an hour later. And I have posted that more than a couple of times. If you don’t understand that position now then asking the same question again and again isn’t going to change your comprehension of that position. I won’t be addressing it futher. You have my answer. If you don’t accept it or agree with it then that is up to you.

As to the difference between person and human being, in this context I am using the terms interchangeably. A baby at the point of being born is a human being/person. A blastocyst isn’t. When does one change to the other? See above.

 

[Rau]

There is no specific time because we then get to a nonsensical position of saying that it’s ok an hour before but not an hour later.

Well, some laws (or would-be laws) are already there - after birth killing is murder and before birth killing is not. Yes - it’s nonsensical.

Note you have offered one time point at which we have a human being - 1 week shy of 9 months. So I think you are saying we have a human being somewhere between conception and that time point. Now if that’s as close as you come - that’s fine.

Conception is a unique event which does not suffer the problem you highlight. Just prior, and just after, the distinction is not in dispute. One leads to folks like you and me, whereas just prior there are only cells (sperm, egg) which individually go nowhere.

I appreciate that no pro-choice advocate can ever concede anything too special about that time-point

 

[knightfall]

If you ask me for a specific time when that which a woman is carrying becomes a person/human being then you’re not going to get it. There is no specific time …

I accept that you don’t know when “that which a woman is carrying” becomes a human being. But shouldn’t that be a reason for NOT killing “it”?

As Dr Peter Kreeft describes it, that rustle in the bushes ahead could be a deer or your fellow hunter. You don’t know but you shoot at it anyway. That man-shaped overcoat lying on the road as you drive could be a drunk laying on the road or just an overcoat. You don’t know but you deliberately drive over it anyway.

Your analogies of no line for the transition from boy to man is irrelevant. No one is advocating for the killing of boys. The stakes are higher in knowing the transition from “potential” to actual human being. So NOT knowing is a reason to not kill.

God bless.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you ask me for a specific time when that which a woman is carrying becomes a person/human being then you’re not going to get it. There is no specific time …

I accept that you don’t know when…

Anything I say will be simply repeating myself.

 

[o_mlly]

Anything I say will be simply repeating myself.

Everything you say in your 100+ posts on this thread reveals that your feeling when examined rationally is incoherent. If the issue was not so serious one could play a laugh-track while reading your non-answers. And your feigned indignation is, well, just hilarious.

 

[knightfall]

Anything I say will be simply repeating myself.

I’ve looked through the thread and I couldn’t see any place where you answered the question: “Isn’t NOT knowing if it was an actual human being a good reason not to kill?”

So no, you wouldn’t be repeating yourself.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Anything I say will be simply repeating myself.

I’ve looked through the thread…

Not very well, I’m afraid. This statement on which your question was based is incorrect.

I accept that you don’t know when “that which a woman is carrying” becomes a human being.

To correct that I would have to repeat myself for the third or fourth time.

 

[knightfall]

To correct that I would have to repeat myself for the third or fourth time.

To ensure you don’t go through the tedium of repeating yourself on such a crucial issue, let’s ignore the preamble statement I made above which you say I got wrong.

Could you instead answer the actual question I asked? “Isn’t NOT knowing if it was an actual human being a good reason not to kill?”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

To correct that I would have to repeat myself for the third or fourth time.

To ensure you don’t go through the tedium of repeating yourself on such a crucial issue, let’s ignore the preamble statement I made above which you say I got wrong.

Could you instead answer the actual question I asked? “Isn’t NOT knowing if it was an actual human being a good reason not to kill?”

But I have said on multiple ocassions that I do have an opinion on knowing when. Your question is based on your preamble statement. Which was wrong.

You’re obviously not reading the thread or you would have known this. Do I have to answer all the questions that have already been answered because you didn’t read them the last few times they were posted?

 

[Elf01]

Elf01:

Freddy:

I don’t think there’d be as great a problem for woman to prevent the pregnancy happening a day after coitus than by ending it a few weeks later.

Yet you would have a problem with somebody else ending the pregnancy agsinst her will, but not giving her garlic against her will. Why is that?

If you can’t differentiate between pregnancy and a spagetti bolognaise then I’m not sure our discussion will go anywhere from this point onwards.

Lets make it medicine that would treat a condition, but she doesn’t want to take. Would forcing her to take that against her will be morally wrong?

If you don’t see terminating a pregnancy as murder, then I don’t see the difference. And I don’t think answering my question would be a problem if you did see a difference.

 

[o_mlly]

As such, before a working brain develops, there cannot be a “human being”.

Why not?

These are medical and biological facts, not to be disputed.

Not so in this forum. Let’s have an authoritative citation to examine in support of your claim.

 

[o_mlly]

Learn biology.

As suspected, nothing here to take seriously.

The church is not an authority in scientific questions.

Didn’t ask for a church citation, but a scientific one. Looks like you don’t have any backup on your opinion, so we’ll dismiss you as just another feeler without a reason.

 

[EmmaSowl]

There is no dispute

There’s no dispute? Are you saying that everyone agrees that a thing which can do nothing is the same as a thing which grows?

 

[Hume]

Since the attempt to a conduct a respectful discussion about abortion was unsuccessful, let’s try it again. It was unsuccessful since this question was left unanswered.

What is the definition of a human being? At which point of the development would qualify the entity to be called a new human being? Or when does the potential human being become an actual human being?

The stages are: DNA, cell, stem cell, zygote, blastocyst, tissue, organ, embryo, fetus, newborn.

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?”

In the discussion about abortion, you’re already off to a bad start because you’re focusing on the creation alone - the statue or the fetus.

Abortion isn’t legal solely because fetuses aren’t people. It’s legal because adult women most definitely are people and pregnancy requires the use of their most sacred possession - their body.

The ultimate answer to your slightly single-sided question (no offense intended) is “newborn” because it’s at that stage the fetus transitions from relying upon and using its mother’s body to being unambiguously separate from her body. After birth, anyone can shake up a bottle. Mom can walk away.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There is no dispute

There’s no dispute? Are you saying that everyone agrees that a thing which can do nothing is the same as a thing which grows?

No, there is no dispute. You really have to study what an analogy actually means. It compares two things and notes aspects of one that are comparable to the other in certain respects. It doesn’t say ‘Hey, these things are exactly the same’.

R: ‘It is the east, and Juliet is the sun’.
E: ‘Wait, are you saying that Juliet is a giant ball of hot plasma?’

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

Since the attempt to a conduct a respectful discussion about abortion was unsuccessful, let’s try it again. It was unsuccessful since this question was left unanswered.

What is the definition of a human being? At which point of the development would qualify the entity to be called a new human being? Or when does the potential human being become an actual human being?

The stages are: DNA, cell, stem cell, zygote, blastocyst, tissue, organ, embryo, fetus, newborn.

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?”

In the discussion about abortion, you’re already off to a bad start because you’re focusing on the creation alone - the statue or the fetus.

Abortion isn’t legal solely because fetuses aren’t people. It’s legal because adult women most definitely are people and pregnancy requires the use of their most sacred possession - their body.

The ultimate answer to your slightly single-sided question (no offense intended) is “newborn” because it’s at that stage the fetus transitions from relying upon and using its mother’s body to being unambiguously separate from her body. After birth, anyone can shake up a bottle. Mom can walk away.

I think your view is the primary one. Yes, it’s the woman’s body and she will make the decisions about it (hence pro-choice and not pro-abortion). I think you made a long argument in one thread recently along those lines. A lot of the argument against that view was that the decision involved two people. Her and her baby.

Hence this argument, which takes your point as a given, that it’s her decision, and then tries to describe why in most cases she has no problem with it.

 

[Rau]

I think your view is the primary one. Yes, it’s the woman’s body and she will make the decisions about it

It’s my house and I will make decisions about it. Yet I am subject to constraints. How confusing is that!

Your position above suggests the status of her offspring as human being is irrelevant. That’s Hume’s position.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think your view is the primary one. Yes, it’s the woman’s body and she will make the decisions about it

It’s my house and I will make decisions about it. Yet I am subject to constraints. How confusing is that!

Your position above suggests the status of her offspring as human being is irrelevant. That’s Hume’s position.

From memory, his argument didn’t necessarily consider that aspect. He focussed purely on the woman as the prime consideration. My argument doesn’t suggest the offspring as being relevant at some point or even concede it but states quite unequivocably that we reach a stage (a week before birth to give us a point of discussion) when the baby is certainly relevant.

Again from memory, Hume didn’t consider that to concentrate on the primacy of the woman’s choice. I’m sure he’ll chip in to clarify.