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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
None of these things are a human being.
Click to expand...
The OP hasn’t responded. Do you have an answer?
o_mlly said:
… what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism if not human.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think you’re mixing up adjectives and nouns.
 
Servant31 said:
Quote me where it says it isn’t assigned.
Click to expand...
You remind me of the trial of Clevinger in Catch-22, where the colonel says:

“I did not ask when you said it. I ask when you DIDN’T say it! When DIDN’T you say that we cannot punish you. And poor Clevinger answered: I always DIDN’T say…” Hilarious in the novel, and ridiculous in an actual conversation.

Here is the actual quote from the book:

 
At the moment of conception there is no difference between that baby and a person right before their death. Anything before then is potential and anything after that is former.
 
i think your asking the wrong question. Take a log of wood and ask at one point does it become a table? same thing. Life starts at conception.
 
Abrosz said:
40.png
Servant31:
Quote me where it says it isn’t assigned.
Click to expand...
You remind me of the trial of Clevinger in Catch-22, where the colonel says:

“I did not ask when you said it. I ask when you DIDN’T say it! When DIDN’T you say that we cannot punish you. And poor Clevinger answered: I always DIDN’T say…” Hilarious in the novel, and ridiculous in an actual conversation.
Click to expand...
Except that you’re the one who’s making the claim “the Church doesn’t teach it”. Moreover, you’ve been shown that the Church does teach what you claim she doesn’t. So, if you can substantiate your claim, be our guest. If not, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you’ve been shown that you were mistaken. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Abrosz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is it your contention that it is at the moment of cutting the umbilical cord that an actual human being is created? And prior to the moment of birth / cutting the umbilical cord, that is not an actual human being, just a potential human being? Is that your position?
 
knightfall said:
Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is it your contention that
Click to expand...
… personally, I think he’s just sealioning.

But, his argument seemed to be about transitions from one state to another. And, unbelievably, he posited that the act of cutting the cord was one such transition.

It smells of bluster and snark, from here.
 
Abrosz said:
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.

I wish that y’all would not sweep the act of birth “under the rug”.
Click to expand...
You said it was sapience that determined when a person became human. You can’t have it both ways.
 
Humans are all the species Homo sapiens. Species can be identified by their DNA, there are differences between individuals DNA, but the species can still be identified. Once a human egg cell is fertilized and the DNA has combined to form a new individual set of DNA, you have a new human.

Same with any other species of animal. With a clone, things get trickier because you can get a new individual without a new set of DNA, so that part is more like a hunk of marble vs a statue. At what point do you declare the clone an individual?

There are many animals that produce natural clones in a variety of ways. I would say once they are free of the “parent” they are their own individual selves.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
None of these things are a human being.
Click to expand...
The OP hasn’t responded. Do you have an answer?
o_mlly said:
40.png
o_mlly:
… what species is that growing, irritating, moving, metabolizing, living organism if not human.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think you’re mixing up adjectives and nouns.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think you don’t have an answer. That’s strike two. Anybody? Probably not. Case closed.
Click to expand...
 
Gorgias said:
But, his argument seemed to be about transitions from one state to another.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I missed it, but I did not see an argument, just an opinion, and an incoherent opinion at that. Once he identifies the species of the living unborn organism in the womb as non-human, he make birthing a species changing event which is, of course, a biological impossibility.
 
Gorgias said:
Why do non-believers think that they’re making valid arguments when they ask for physical evidence of non-physical entities?
Click to expand...
Because we only have sensory organs to perceive physical evidence. If you cannot provide physical evidence, all you have is empty speculation.
Gorgias said:
Aren’t you the one who rails against believers for talking about things that don’t exist? And yet, when it suits you, you do precisely the same thing?
Click to expand...
If you will ever learn the difference between “thought experiments” and “unfounded speculations”, you can return.
Gorgias said:
The Church teaches that “every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not ‘produced’ by the parents” (CCC, 366).
Click to expand...
Created and infused are not the same.
 
knightfall said:
Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is it your contention that it is at the moment of cutting the umbilical cord that an actual human being is created?
Click to expand...
Not “created”. It is the moment when the new denomination is warranted. It signifies the transition from potential to actual. Just like a pile of uranium atoms will produce an explosion if one extra atom is added and the pile reaches the critical mass.
 
phil3 said:
At the moment of conception. It ends at time of death
Click to expand...
I will agree that a human being begins at conception. However, I would disagree that it ends at death. A human being will exist from conception for all eternity.

Pax
 
No

We are human from conception for eternity. At the last judgement, we will regain our human bodies and will be made whole again.

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top