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

[Gorgias]

Because we only have sensory organs to perceive physical evidence.

Exactly. And if we’re talking about something that is by definition non-physical, then why keep bringing it up?

If you cannot provide physical evidence, all you have is empty speculation.

You say ‘to-may-to’, I say ‘to-mah-to’.

If you will ever learn the difference between “thought experiments” and “unfounded speculations”, you can return.

Umm… since you’re talking about a non-reality (in fact, a supposed physical entity for which there is no evidence), it’s you who are trucking in ‘unfounded speculations’, brother!

Created and infused are not the same.

We do not believe that there are created but non-infused souls. They’re not the same, but they are not distinct and separate steps.

Not “created”. It is the moment when the new denomination is warranted. It signifies the transition from potential to actual.

So… wait! Wait! You’re seriously trying to assert that what makes you human is a pair of shears wielded by a doctor?!?!?

Oh, stop, please… I can’t breathe for all the laughter!

phil3:

No, all I have is faith.

You can’t make arguements with that.

I agree. I would say that we have the self-revelation of God and the authoritative teaching of the Church. That – along with faith – is what we have.

 

[Rau]

That’s an excellent analogy. There is no single point. And the statue has more ‘value’ to the sculptor as the work progresses.

The statue is a poor analogy. A statue’s only value is in the eyes of those who behold it. Is that how you see persons? Worth nothing unless others see value?

 

[hope]

What you are recounting is the stages of human life. Not potential human life but human life. Do we say that a 12 year old is a potential teenager? We don’t talk that way. It would be strange to say that just like it is strange to say a zygote is a potential blastocyst etc. The potential baby is the sperm and egg once they unite that is when there is an actual human being.

 

[IWantGod]

At which point of the development would qualify the entity to be called a new human being?

When it has a soul. The problem is the legal system doesn’t recognise the existence of a personal soul at the moment of conception and therefore doesn’t recognise it as necessarily being murder. However there is space for debate about determining the point in development where an entity can legally be considered a person, in the legal sense of the word.

I think either way the act of abortion is the act of destroying the development of a human baby and that it is nihilistic to think that any mother should have the right to end that development.

The idea that my mother had the right to determine the value of my birth and decide whether or not i should be born makes no moral sense to me.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s an excellent analogy. There is no single point. And the statue has more ‘value’ to the sculptor as the work progresses.

The statue is a poor analogy. A statue’s only value is in the eyes of those who behold it. Is that how you see persons? Worth nothing unless others see value?

A see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

Whenever I have a reasonable discussion with anyone on this subject, either online or in person, the conversation generally continues amicably following the above statement if the other person replies in a manner such as: ‘I understand what you’re saying, but…’.

We go on to discuss whatever comes after the ‘but…’

If the other person doesn’t accept what I’ve said then I try to turn the conversation around to the weather or politics because a discussion on abortion is going to go nowhere. One needs a point of agreement somewhere or it’s a waste of everyone’s time.

 

[phil3]

Youre correct, I didnt think about that.

 

[Gorgias]

A see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

What does “value” mean, here? This sounds like it’s a half-step away from a crass utilitarianism…

 

[Abrosz]

Umm… since you’re talking about a non-reality (in fact, a supposed physical entity for which there is no evidence), it’s you who are trucking in ‘unfounded speculations’, brother!

Except that the thought experiment is only a food for thought. A good old “what if” type of scenario. Not something to provide evidence for. And one more time. Our sensory organs can only perceive the physical reality, therefore the only evidence is the physical evidence. You cannot provide it, so there is no evidence. Of course the alleged non-physical entities are in constant interaction with the physical reality, so it is reasonable to demand physical evidence.

Get some “evocation” methods and use them to “nudge” a “demon” for physical appearance. After all there are witches and sorcerers. And, of course get some exorcist to get rid of that demon. You assert that demons exist and they can interact with the physical reality. You also assert that exorcists can interact with these demons. So, go ahead. Here is the perfect method to provide physical evidence for some “spiritual” beings.

Just don’t say that it is “dangerous”. Who cares? I am willing to accept the “danger”.

So… wait! Wait! You’re seriously trying to assert that what makes you human is a pair of shears wielded by a doctor?!?!?

Just like the presentation of the diploma will create a “new Medical Doctor” from a medical student.

I agree. I would say that we have the self-revelation of God and the authoritative teaching of the Church. That – along with faith – is what we have.

So, how did you get that alleged “self-revelation” if not through physical means - for which there is no evidence? Just think about it. Any information we receive MUST be physical in nature. By the way, the so-called evidence presented by the church - the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus are supposed to be physical. Walking on water, feeding a multitude of people with one piece of fish… these would ALL be physical in nature, so it is perfectly reasonable to demand physical evidence for them.

OK, you have faith. So what? What is that to the unbelievers? A faith without evidence is called a BLIND faith. I would not be proud to have a blind faith.

 

[Abrosz]

When it has a soul.

Show me a soul-o-meter, and then we can talk.

What does “value” mean, here? This sounds like it’s a half-step away from a crass utilitarianism…

What is wrong with that? I value my kid, and do not value a psychopath.

 

[Gorgias]

And one more time. Our sensory organs can only perceive the physical reality, therefore the only evidence is the physical evidence.

No. There’s eyewitness evidence. Keep up.

Of course the alleged non-physical entities are in constant interaction with the physical reality, so it is reasonable to demand physical evidence.

Only if you’re able to predict when and where the “interactions” will take place. (I’m thinking you’re referring to miracles; maybe you have something else in mind?)

Moreover, if you’re only measuring the physical side of things, how would you hope to find something that would make you say “ahh… that’s the spiritual there!”…?

Get some “evocation” methods and use them to “nudge” a “demon” for physical appearance.

Not guaranteed to work. If it fails, you’ve proven nothing.

You assert that demons exist and they can interact with the physical reality.

Ahh, but that’s a world of difference from “…and I can force them to take an action at my beck and call.”

Just like the presentation of the diploma will create a “new Medical Doctor” from a medical student.

Apples and oranges. The creation of a human is not the same thing as an official act of an authorized sanctioning body.

So, how did you get that alleged “self-revelation” if not through physical means - for which there is no evidence?

We’ve been around this one before.

By the way, the so-called evidence presented by the church - the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus are supposed to be physical. Walking on water, feeding a multitude of people with one piece of fish… these would ALL be physical in nature, so it is perfectly reasonable to demand physical evidence for them.

Except that they happened in antiquity, which means there’s no physical evidence to be had. Pretty convenient for you, since you can shrug and say “see? no evidence”…

A faith without evidence is called a BLIND faith. I would not be proud to have a blind faith.

I don’t have “blind faith.” My belief is based on faith and reason.

What is wrong with that? I value my kid, and do not value a psychopath.

Many problems. Someone else may not “value” your child (or consider him a “psychopath”). Does that give him license to treat him as “without value” or “not human”? Highly subjective. Moreover, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to assess the relative value of a person? Lots of problems with this notion…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

What does “value” mean, here? This sounds like it’s a half-step away from a crass utilitarianism…

The usual meaning of the word when it is used in this context.

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

What is wrong with that? I value my kid, and do not value a psychopath.

Many problems. Someone else may not “value” your child (or consider him a “psychopath”). Does that give him license to treat him as “without value” or “not human”? Highly subjective. Moreover, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to assess the relative value of a person? Lots of problems with this notion…

I think you’ve got it. Yes, there are problems associated with it. Precisely because it is highly subjective.

 

[Rau]

A see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

I can see more “appeal” in the more developed form. But “value” - what does that mean in this context? Is there more “value” in a 15 year old than a newborn? If so, what does that greater “value” imply? It does seem a utilitarian concept - perhaps not appropriate to assign to our offspring?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

A see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

I can see more “appeal” in the more developed form. But “value” - what does that mean in this context? Is there more “value” in a 15 year old than a newborn? If so, what does that greater “value” imply? It does seem a utilitarian concept - perhaps not appropriate to assign to our offspring?

I don’t think it’s an inappropriate term. I feel quite comfortable saying that I value my children’s lives more than I do of other people’s children. That’s a given. It’s entirely natural. No father would feel any different. And I guess you could also say it’s about as utilitarian as it could possibly be.

I don’t think ‘appeal’ is applicable.

 

[Abrosz]

There’s eyewitness evidence.

And how would that eye-witness get the evidence? Through her EYES? At the beginning point of any eye-witness chain there MUST be a physical evidence. You cannot avoid the need for physical evidence.

Moreover, if you’re only measuring the physical side of things, how would you hope to find something that would make you say “ahh… that’s the spiritual there!”…?

This a perfect summary of YOUR problem! Not mine. Keep thinking about it.

Not guaranteed to work. If it fails, you’ve proven nothing.

Why would it fail? The demons are assumed to be eager to destroy us, so they would be more than happy to participate. And your belief system includes “witches” and “sorcerers”, who allegedly are proficient in evocation of the “dark side”. You are left without an excuse.

You cannot evoke God, or the guardian angels. But you can - allegedly evoke demons. Do it! Show me!

Except that they happened in antiquity, which means there’s no physical evidence to be had. Pretty convenient for you, since you can shrug and say “see? no evidence”…

Yes, and as such they are irrelevant. No sane person would base their whole life on the outcome of the battle between Attila the Hun and Flavius Aetius at the Catalaunian Fields - which has been documented quite extensively. You basic problem is simple. There are some events in antiquity, which have been documented quite finely. The story of Jesus and his miracles are NOT. And you try to peddle the idea that if one event is the antiquity has been amply documented, the ALL the events need to be taken seriously.

We’ve been around this one before.

And you still have no answer. We are STILL physical beings, who have no sensory organ to perceive the non-physical. The sooner you understand this, the better the chances to become rational.

My belief is based on faith and reason .

Says you. Do you have evidence for it? Besides, if you have reason, you don’t need faith. If you need faith, you have no reason. As for faith, just read Hebrews 11:1.

Many problems. Someone else may not “value” your child (or consider him a “psychopath”). Does that give him license to treat him as “without value” or “not human”? Highly subjective. Moreover, what gives you (or anyone else) the right to assess the relative value of a person? Lots of problems with this notion…

Guess what? EVERY value judgment is subjective. Others sharing it does not make it objective.

 

[Abrosz]

It does seem a utilitarian concept - perhaps not appropriate to assign to our offspring?

Of course it is utilitarian. And it is applicable to every human being. If my kid (or someone I hold in high regard) would die, I would be sad, or devastated. If a sociopath would die, I would not care. Why is that not obvious? Don’t you feel the same way?

 

[GodIsPerfection]

The human soul resides in every 46 chromosome (diploid) cell.

Here is a bit of evidence from Revelation 17:8

8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The beast, here, refers to the a clone (or multiple clones) of a dead, evil, human being. Clones are “photocopied” beasts, without mother or father. Sometimes they are called “abominations.” The soul was consigned to the bottomless pit for acts of evil in the first incarnation. But that soul “ascends” to reanimate the clones, created in the laboratory. The soul which animates the clones is still pre-condemned to perdition (the lake of fire).

This digresses a bit from the conception / definition of a human being OP topic. But it demonstrates that the soul is present in every diploid cell (or pre-condemnation of clones from an evil individual would not be cited in Revelation 17:8).

Also, cloned humans are beasts or abominations.

From the moment sperm fertilizes egg, a new 46 chromosome cell is created, and a new human being, inhabited by a soul is created. The new human being is destined to a lifespan on earth (shorter or longer). The soul is eternal. It originates from before the foundation of the world. Eventually, the soul will be judged according to free will acts during the lifespan of the body. Then the soul will be consigned to eternity in heaven or hell. This is simplified (perhaps over-simplified), thumbnail, Catholic theology.

 

[fredystairs]

I would offer the following excerpt from Donum Vitae, published in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Library : Donum Vitae (Respect for Human Life) | Catholic Culture (it can also be found on the Vatican website.) The excerpt is taken from Section I.1. (I have added emphasis by bolding some sections.) The Church teaches that at the moment of conception, a new human life has formed.

This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion : From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence. . . modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual—man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time…to find its place and to be in a position to act.25 This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote (The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused.) resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.26

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

Pax

 

[Rau]

I feel quite comfortable saying that I value my children’s lives more than I do of other people’s children.

This is “value to you” - in the eyes of a particular beholder (you). But what you said earlier was:

I see a fully formed baby an hour prior to birth as having more value than the few cells created an hour after conception.

I asked how you gauge the value of a newborn (say, yours) vs that of a 15 year old (say, yours). And further, there is value to you - but is that what we mean by “value” (of a human being)? Are they not different ideas?

 

[Rau]

Of course it is utilitarian. And it is applicable to every human being. If my kid (or someone I hold in high regard) would die, I would be sad, or devastated. If a sociopath would die, I would not care. Why is that not obvious? Don’t you feel the same way?

I distinguish the “value” of a human being from “value to me”. A man should not be ill-treated because of his value to another, but because of his value.