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

[fhansen]

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?”

Well, that’s the whole point-and should be the end of the abortion question really. We cannot logically come up with that answer so to abort means to play God with human life. Now if we don’t care, if we don’t believe human life to be sacred in some way or at any rate worthy of protection by the law at least, then it doesn’t matter. And then the question of eliminating any life, inside or outside of the womb that may be inconvenient to us is likewise answered: kill em.

 

[Abrosz]

Now if we don’t care, if we don’t believe human life to be sacred in some way or at any rate worthy of protection by the law at least, then it doesn’t matter.

That is the point. The life a sociopath is not “sacred”, and if we have no other way to protect the rest of us, then to execute (kill) him is the right thing to do.

 

[o_mlly]

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

Those who claim the child is not a human being before birth, ought to identify what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism if not human.

Remember that DNA, cell, stem cell, zygote, blastocyst, tissue, organ, embryo, fetus and even newborn are states of development that apply to all living species.

 

[fhansen]

Old people can be inconvenient too, just like The unborn. I never said anything about The unborn be sociopaths by the way

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

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?

There are already people who cannot interbreed with other members, some because of genetics, others because of choice, and they are still human. If their parents are human, then they are human.

jochoa:

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”?

A “per”-“son” means “of” the "Son,” aka a child of God.
Though a person and an actual human being can be used interchangeably, I should have used actual human being for discussion consistency.

 

[Servant31]

Colloquial expressions are vague and not important.

Language us often used to assign meaning and value moralistically. When in war people opposition can be referred to as “targets”. They are still a person, but if they are a “combatant” this signifies that they are actively hostile against you, willing to use force. It’s different than saying, “I see three people over there”.

Servant31:

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.

——- -Your entitled to an opinion, however you stated that the Catholic Church doesn’t ascribe to ensoulment at conception. That isn’t entirely correct. Our opinion is very different.——-

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?

What scientific endeavors claim to be able to assign dignity to human beings? We aren’t addressing science as a qualitative measure of the value of a human life in terms of inherent dignity. Science is a tool not a theology, although there are those who proclaim to be such. An important tool in the argument, but this is a moralistic ground, not purely scientific. Scientists don’t get the final say.

 

[Abrosz]

Old people can be inconvenient too, just like The unborn. I never said anything about The unborn be sociopaths by the way

I simply said that not all lives are “protected” by default.

There are already people who cannot interbreed with other members, some because of genetics, others because of choice, and they are still human. If their parents are human, then they are human.

Obviously it means that they cannot produce a viable offspring. Horses and donkeys can only produce mules, which are neither horses nor mules.

A “per”-“son” means “of” the "Son,” aka a child of God.

Oh, please!

Though a person and an actual human being can be used interchangeably, I should have used actual human being for discussion consistency.

No, these are not synonyms.

 

[Abrosz]

Your entitled to an opinion, however you stated that the Catholic Church doesn’t ascribe to ensoulment at conception. That isn’t entirely correct. Our opinion is very different.

So quote me the “chapter and verse”, where the church officially declares the moment of ensoulment. It USED to be the birth, or the quickening, or the conception. Now it is undefined. As a matter of fact in some languages the “soul” and “breath” come from the same root.

What scientific endeavors claim to be able to assign dignity to human beings?

None. And there is no such thing as “blanket dignity”. Some people might be considered to be worthy, some are not. But the zygote, etc… are not considered to be human beings. This “label” is assigned at birth.

 

[fhansen]

Isimply said that not all lives are “protected” by default.

So what’s the point? We may or may not decide that some people have given up their right, by their choices and actions, to continue to live among the rest of us. Some would say that even then we don’t have the right to end their lives.

 

[Annie]

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

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

Well, if you just want to play semantics, goodbye.

 

[Carmel]

The words that pro abortion protagonists use is but another weapon to attack the ’ sanctity of life ’ For example when a socially insignificant person presents at her surgery
pregnant the doctor or nurse will begin to talk about the foetus.
Yet, when a member of the royal family becomes pregnant the announcement will be-
Princess … expecting a BABY !

 

[Servant31]

So quote me the “chapter and verse”, where the church officially declares the moment of ensoulment. It USED to be the birth, or the quickening, or the conception. Now it is undefined. As a matter of fact in some languages the “soul” and “breath” come from the same root.

Quote me where it says it isn’t assigned. I already linked the article by Jimmy Akin regarding this topic, but I’ll link it again below. He describes it much better than I could.

Library : When Babies Get Their Souls | Catholic Culture

None. And there is no such thing as “blanket dignity”. Some people might be considered to be worthy, some are not. But the zygote, etc… are not considered to be human beings. This “label” is assigned at birth.

Who says there isn’t such a thing as blanket dignity? Who decides some are worthy and some aren’t? Who decided zygotes aren’t human beings?

 

[Ender]

What scientific endeavors claim to be able to assign dignity to human beings?

The only thing science says on the subject is that human life begins at conception. Distinguishing between this or that form of human life is a political choice, not a scientific fact. Science can identify differences in developmental stages, but it cannot ascribe values to them. Politicians have in the past declared this or that group as not entitled to human rights, and it has never worked out well, especially for these in the disfavored categories.

 

[Niblo]

Old people can be inconvenient too,

Moi???

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

There are already people who cannot interbreed with other members, some because of genetics, others because of choice, and they are still human. If their parents are human, then they are human.

Obviously it means that they cannot produce a viable offspring. Horses and donkeys can only produce mules, which are neither horses nor mules.

An inability to reproduce doesn’t make one not human, rather being produced by humans makes one human. I also hope no human is so lost s/he attempts to breed with any non-human being.

jochoa:

A “per”-“son” means “of” the "Son,” aka a child of God.

Oh, please!

I really appreciate you asking that question for I have waited years to be able to share that wisdom!

jochoa:

Though a person and an actual human being can be used interchangeably, I should have used actual human being for discussion consistency.

No, these are not synonyms.

At this point, the only other idea I have to find common ground is to discuss your definitions. Would you please share your definitions of human being, both actual and potential, and person?

 

[Adamek]

An actual human being - is one that shows respect and compassion for other beings. An actual human being would support life.

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

jochoa:

Though a person and an actual human being can be used interchangeably, I should have used actual human being for discussion consistency.

No, these are not synonyms.

At this point, the only other idea I have to find common ground is to discuss your definitions. Would you please share your definitions of human being, both actual and potential, and person?

There is a difference between human and human being. The male sperm is human. The woman’s egg is human. The blatocyst is human. The cells within the blastocyst are human. The walls of those cells are human.

None of these things are a human being. None of them are ‘a person’.

 

[hope]

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

What does potential mean?
According to Webster it mean existing in possibility.
Possibility means something that is possible
What then is a potential human. That would be sperm and egg. Those are the components that make up possibility. Once those come together it is no longer a potential but a reality.

 

[jochoa]

There is a difference between human and human being. The male sperm is human. The woman’s egg is human. The blatocyst is human. The cells within the blastocyst are human. The walls of those cells are human.

None of these things are a human being. None of them are ‘a person’.

Hmm…alright, would you please share your definitions of human, human being, being human, both actual human being and potential human being, and person?

 

[Thorolfr]

A new and unique individual of the human species begins when a male sperm cell and a female ovum unite to form a genetically distinct new individual. It is how each of us began. From conception forward it’s just a matter of development, and the development is directed by the new human being.

It’s been estimated that between 40 and 60% of embryos die between fertilization and birth under natural conditions. So, assuming that all those fertilized embryos are human beings, that means that about half of human beings naturally die before they’re born.