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

[MNathaniel]

Abrosz:

What is the definition of a human being?

The offspring of human parents.

The only nit I’ll pick with you there is that Adam and Eve were human, too. And technically Jesus is the offspring of human-parent-singular plus begotten of the Divine Father and conceived by the Holy Spirit. But apart from that your heuristic holds!

 

[fide]

a human egg cell either gets fertilized, at which point it’s a human, or it doesn’t. As soon as it’s fertilized it’s a human.

That doesn’t sound quite right to me. How about, “a human egg cell either comes into union with a human sperm, at which point it is immediately united with a human soul and becomes a human person, or those unions do not happen and no human person is created.”

Other alternates that occur to me, which are probably being attempted as we speak, include union of a human egg cell with any number of different animal sperm cells to see what happens. Other horrific unions on petri dishes are being experimented with, I understand, to “grow” humanly usable body parts. Welcome to science without a human soul or conscience.

 

[Niblo]

Does that mean you can kill someone in their 60’s because they are beginning to have declines in short term memory recall?

Was going to answer this, but - at the age of 74 - can’t remember what I wanted to say

 

[Aulef]

You are missing a couple concepts: accidents and form.

The form of the human is the soul. It exists SINCE CONCEPTION and will exist forever.

On the other hand, the different shapes of human body over time are accidents, that is, characteristics at certain points in time that may change without corrupting the form. Thus, a zygot, a baby in the womb, a child, and a senior of a same person are mere accidents.

 

[goout]

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?”

Here’s a more basic question:
Since you don’t seem to have a well defined moral position, are you willing to give a human being the benefit of your doubts, more than you would a piece of marble?

How do you answer that question?

 

[Abrosz]

It was quite interesting to see all these replies. Answering in reverse order.

But first: let me see. A rooster and a hen get together, and then the hen lays an “egg”? Nah, she produces a new chicken in the earliest stage of development. A cruel human performs an egg-abortion and prepares a breakfast, which contains 3 fried chickens - which are mistakenly considered to be fried eggs by the non-believers! After all the differences do not matter! Once it has a new DNA, it is a chicken! Why should we WASTE another useless word on an egg, when the chicken is already there?

Sure sounds like NewSpeak to me! Why come up with “bad”, when it is more precisely described as “ungood”… all the way to “doubleplusungood”?

Here’s a more basic question:
Since you don’t seem to have a well defined moral position, are you willing to give a human being the benefit of your doubts, more than you would a piece of marble?

How do you answer that question?

A human BEING, yes. The question is “what is a human BEING”?

A counter question: “Is there a difference between a fried chicken and some scrambled eggs?”

You are missing a couple concepts: accidents and form.

I am not a Thomist. What is the “essence” of a chicken?

The form of the human is the soul. It exists SINCE CONCEPTION and will exist forever.

Do you have a soul-o-meter, which produces the actual evidence for this immortal “soul”?

For Catholics this is at the moment of conception, we believe a soul is present at that point.

Not according to the church, which does not declare the moment of ensoulment. This applies to all respondents who mention the “soul”.

I would say:
A human being is an organism of the homo sapien species.
A new human being occurs the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg or when a zygote generates identical siblings.

But that does not account for “mutants”. And, of course it does not account for CLONES!

A hunk of marble could be made into any number of things, a human egg cell either gets fertilized, at which point it’s a human, or it doesn’t. As soon as it’s fertilized it’s a human.

Again: “what about mutants”?

The offspring of human parents.

Clones? And maternal twins?

This is why scientifically we define human beings as human beings at conception, and why ethically we should not define it any differently for the purpose of the convenience of a third party.

Which science?

As for a human being, once you have an organism, there isn’t a difference in kind between a blastocyst and a fifty year old man.

Difference in KIND? That needs to be defined.

 

[goout]

If you aren’t sure what a human being is, are you willing to give your benefit of the doubt in favor of humanity?
Fairly simple question…

 

[Abrosz]

If you aren’t sure what a human being is, are you willing to give your benefit of the doubt in favor of humanity?
Fairly simple question…

Oh, I AM sure. I am just interested what you guys think. And one (or one more) abortion (if that is what you had in mind) does not endanger the whole species.

 

[Elf01]

But first: let me see. A rooster and a hen get together, and then the hen lays an “egg”? Nah, she produces a new chicken in the earliest stage of development. A cruel human performs an egg-abortion and prepares a breakfast, which contains 3 fried chickens - which are mistakenly considered to be fried eggs by the non-believers! After all the differences do not matter! Once it has a new DNA, it is a chicken! Why should we WASTE another useless word on an egg, when the chicken is already there?

If I considered it immoral to eat chicken, I would apply that to eggs too. Bald and golden eagles are protected before hatching in the US. It’s a pity the same isn’t applied to human beings before birth.

 

[Abrosz]

If I considered it immoral to eat chicken, I would apply that to eggs too.

This is the “philosophy” section, NOT the “moral theology”. But most people do not consider abortion immoral. Not even most catholics.

Bald and golden eagles are protected before hatching in the US.

Those are endangered species. As soon as the humans will become endangered, similar laws will be introduced.

 

[Annie]

Why should we WASTE another useless word on an egg, when the chicken is already there?

Why infant, baby, toddler, child, pre-teen, tween, teen, adult? Why waste all those words?

A rooster and a hen get together, and then the hen lays an “egg”?

The hen lays an egg, whether fertilized or not. Some eggs contain chickens at the earliest stages of development, others do not.

(For those who are squeamish, eggs you buy are generally from hens who are unaccompanied by roosters, so you do not need to worry about eating a chicken along with your egg.)

Abrosz, you may have heard that we have made great strides in biology in the past couple hundred years. Our language evolved over the course of centuries before that and this does not always reflect our new knowledge. For example, we still talk about a quarter or half moon… we still say the sun rises and sets…

 

[Elf01]

Those are endangered species. As soon as the humans will become endangered, similar laws will be introduced.

If a bald eagle egg isn’t a bald eagle why does it need to be protected?

 

[goout]

goout:

If you aren’t sure what a human being is, are you willing to give your benefit of the doubt in favor of humanity?
Fairly simple question…

Oh, I AM sure. I am just interested what you guys think. And one (or one more) abortion (if that is what you had in mind) does not endanger the whole species.

What I think is irrelevant.
To me, it’s more important to be a sane observer of reality. Science can be a big helper there. Human beings shouldn’t be the subjects of vague philosophical ruminations.

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

I would say:
A human being is an organism of the homo sapien species.
A new human being occurs the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg or when a zygote generates identical siblings.

But that does not account for “mutants”. And, of course it does not account for CLONES!

Sure it does. If a zygote develops super human powers, they are still being human, and the naturally cloning of a zygote occurs in identical mono zygotic siblings.

Also, I forgot to answer your initial question:
Since the union of sperm and egg creates an actual person, every sperm and egg are potential human beings.

 

[goout]

Abrosz:

jochoa:

I would say:
A human being is an organism of the homo sapien species.
A new human being occurs the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg or when a zygote generates identical siblings.

But that does not account for “mutants”. And, of course it does not account for CLONES!

Sure it does. If a zygote develops super human powers, they are still being human, and the naturally cloning of a zygote occurs in identical mono zygotic siblings.

Also, I forgot to answer your initial question:
Since the union of sperm and egg creates an actual person, every sperm and egg are potential human beings.

Sane observation of reality, as it is.
Philosophy can benefit from sane observation.

 

[Aulef]

The essence (form) of a chicken in short: a bird that is relatively heavy bodied, with short legs and short wings, and is ground dwelling and feeding. They are known as galliformes. The chicken itself is an accident. A specific type/kind of such birds.

I’ll stop here, though. It is impossible to go on with this conversation in case you aren’t able to discuss in terms of phylosophy supported by the Church (such as Saint Thomas’). Even if, in the end, you want to point out some possible internal inconsistency, you would need to know it in the first place.

 

[o_mlly]

For example, we still talk about a quarter or half moon… we still say the sun rises and sets…

And we still call a pregnant person, “woman-with-child”; not “woman-with-blastocyst”.

 

[tuffsmurf]

There is a somewhat valid discussion to be had about when exactly the new individual is concieved; is it when the sperm latches to the egg or when the both halfsets of DNA merge? This is because fertilization is a process rather than a moment, but once the fertilization is complete and the zygote starts to divide itself (which first occurs about 12 hours after the latching of the sperm) there is not doubt what so ever that a new individual exist. Abortion always occurs long after this.

 

[Servant31]

Do you have a soul-o-meter, which produces the actual evidence for this immortal “soul”?

Do you have a soul o meter which shows that there isn’t evidence?

Servant31:

For Catholics this is at the moment of conception, we believe a soul is present at that point.

Not according to the church, which does not declare the moment of ensoulment. This applies to all respondents who mention the “soul”.

Where did you get this? It is to my understanding that life begins at conception, has inherent dignity which should be protected. I can’t “prove” you have a soul, and by scientific understanding alone you could be “just a clump of cells”. And yet who would argue you don’t have inherent dignity?

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ty/abortion/respect-for-unborn-human-life.cfm

For a more through exploration of how the soul relates to the body from a a Catholic perspective I reccommend Jimmy Akins‘ article on the subject. He goes through each argument in a theological way.
Regards friend.

Library : When Babies Get Their Souls | Catholic Culture

 

[Abrosz]

Why infant, baby, toddler, child, pre-teen, tween, teen, adult? Why waste all those words?

Because they describe qualitatively different stages of development. You left out the birth, which designates the biologically independent change between fetus and newborn.

The hen lays an egg, whether fertilized or not. Some eggs contain chickens at the earliest stages of development, others do not.

Ah, so even a fertilized egg is NOT a chicken.

What I think is irrelevant.

What you think is very important to me. Which branch of science are you talking about? Well, I am not a fan of empty philosophical “ruminations”, only the rational ones. And rational ones are the ones which are supported by epistemology.

Sure it does. If a zygote develops super human powers, they are still being human, and the naturally cloning of a zygote occurs in identical mono zygotic siblings.

Not so fast. Members of a biological species are separated from each other if they cannot interbreed with other members. If a mutation prevents that happening, we talk about a new species. And if a mutation creates new entities which have gills, instead of lungs, then what?

Since the union of sperm and egg creates an actual person, every sperm and egg are potential human beings.

What is your definition of a “person”?

The essence (form) of a chicken in short: a bird that is relatively heavy bodied, with short legs and short wings, and is ground dwelling and feeding.

How about ducks and geese? But we can stop here. I am not a Thomist, and do not accept it. And the church does not either. There are several philosophical systems, for example “molinist”. The church has NO monolithic philosophical system.

And we still call a pregnant person, “woman-with-child”; not “woman-with-blastocyst”.

Colloquial expressions are vague and not important.

Where did you get this? It is to my understanding that life begins at conception, has inherent dignity which should be protected.

That is an opinion, which I do not share.

I can’t “prove” you have a soul, and by scientific understanding alone you could be “just a clump of cells”.

What scientific endeavor is the one, which does not accept the qualitative differences in the different stages of development?