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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

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?

A newborn v a fifteen year old? A much, much more difficult question. I honestly don’t know in that case. I’m not sure anyone could answer it.

But if you asked about the value between a new born baby and the few cells that existed a day or so after conception? Then I have no problem is stating without any doubt whatsoever that the baby is more valuable to me.

And I’m not sure what other term I could use except value. I’m open to suggestions.

 

[Rau]

But if you asked about the value between a new born baby and the few cells that existed a day or so after conception? Then I have no problem is stating without any doubt whatsoever that the baby is more valuable to me.

This “value to me” is a measure of personal attachment I suspect. I think that’s the point I and others have been making. It implies nothing inherently valuable in human life - they have value only when someone else has an attachment - because the value is only in the eye of the beholder. Of course, that thinking is more or less necessary to allow abortion on demand. It’s interesting though that it has not yet spread to allow other kinds of homicide.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But if you asked about the value between a new born baby and the few cells that existed a day or so after conception? Then I have no problem is stating without any doubt whatsoever that the baby is more valuable to me.

This “value to me” is a measure of personal attachment I suspect. I think that’s the point I and others have been making. It implies nothing inherently valuable in human life - they have value only when someone else has an attachment - because the value is only in the eye of the beholder. Of course, that thinking is more or less necessary to allow abortion on demand. It’s interesting though that it has not yet spread to allow other kinds of homicide.

I think human life has value because we can empathise with others. We feel valuable in ourselves. We have this confirmed (generally) in our interactions with others. And we therefore understand that someone else’s life is valuable to them (and generally to others).

I would find it easy to empathise with a baby or a teenager - they would appear to me to have equal
value so I wouldn’t be able to choose between them. But a few cells?

There is another thread elsewhere on the forum which I believe suggests that ultrasound tests on women when that which she is carrying looks more like a small child results in more women deciding not to have an abortion.

This is the corollary to the point I am making. If it looks more like a child then it stimulates a feeling of empathy that simply isn’t there if it’s a few cells. The mother feels more of an attachment. She ascribes more value. There is not as much attachment and less ‘value’ early on in the pregnancy. And less of a problem in having the abortion.

 

[knightfall]

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

So to continue my understanding, the majority of people in history “transitioned” to becoming actual human beings after 40 weeks of gestation (on average). In more recent times, the age of viability has dropped to as low as 24 weeks. Today, in a first world country with state of the art medical facilities, a baby could be viable at 22 weeks. In other countries with poor neonatal facilities, the age of viability is much higher.

So your position is that the determining factor in what makes someone an “actual human being” is medical science?

 

[Abrosz]

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.

I need some explanation about this, because I don’t inderstand. “Value” is always connected to “value to someone under some circumstances”.

An analogy - which is just an illustration.

The value of a glass of water to someone, who is not thirsty is very little. To someone who is dying in the desert, it is immeasurably valuable. A diamond ring is worthless to this person in the desert. She would gladly exchange it for a glass of water. However the same glass of water is without value to someone at a mountain creek.

Probably even a sociopath is “valuable” his mother, especially if she refuses to realize what kind of a monster her offspring is.

I am not dismissing this abstract “value” out of hand. I simply have no idea what you talking about.

It implies nothing inherently valuable in human life - they have value only when someone else has an attachment - because the value is only in the eye of the beholder.

That is exactly the case.

It’s interesting though that it has not yet spread to allow other kinds of homicide.

Abortion is not a homicide in the early stages of the development (unless you subscribe to the concept of “soul”, which is an empty speculation). In the final stages it could be classified as such. But I am not aware of any later-term abortions for frivolous reasons. There needs to a very significant medical reason for it.

But I have a question, which I might put into a thread of its own. I don’t like abortions. The women don’t like abortions. You don’t like abortions. These are given. What kind of PRACTICAL solution can you offer to minimize / eliminate abortions? The word “PRACTICAL” is of utmost importance. We don’t have to discuss it here, but I would appreciate if you just pondered this problem.

So to continue my understanding, the majority of people in history “transitioned” to becoming actual human beings after 40 weeks of gestation (on average). In more recent times, the age of viability has dropped to as low as 24 weeks. Today, in a first world country with state of the art medical facilities, a baby could be viable at 22 weeks. In other countries with poor neonatal facilities, the age of viability is much higher.

So your position is that the determining factor in what makes someone an “actual human being” is medical science?

The viability is variable, as you pointed out. Eventually we shall reach a point when ectogenesis will become practical and even a zygote can come to term in an artificial womb. So the viability is not a good measuring point.

But there is an objective measurement. The development of the brain. Without a brain there is no mind. Without a mind there is no thinking, there is no memory, all there is a vegetative existence.

 

[knightfall]

But there is an objective measurement. The development of the brain. Without a brain there is no mind.

Ok. So now it isn’t the severing of the umbilical cord that signifies the transition from “potential” to “actual” human being … it is the development of the brain? So your transition point is no longer birth? And what constitutes sufficient brain development? The typical 5 year old had about 90% brain development. At birth, the typical baby’s lower brain and brain stem functions are well developed but their higher brain functions are quite primitive. What would you say constitutes sufficient development to qualify that “potential human” to an actual human? And how would we measure that, both now and historically?

I’ve seen studies which show that poverty and typical third world stresses have an effect on brain development. Does that mean that less developed countries have a less objective measure of when someone becomes an “actual human being”?

And what about before birth? What level of brain development would you say confers “actual” status to a human being?

Without a mind there is no thinking, there is no memory, all there is a vegetative existence.

A vegetative existence of … what? A potential human being? What about those who are born with brain abnormalities, whose brains never fully develop? Do they never become actual human beings?

I really am trying to understand your position and reconcile it with mine, or adjust mine. I’m just thinking of the logical conclusions of your position, and I can’t seem to make sense of them.

God bless.

 

[Thorolfr]

This is the corollary to the point I am making. If it looks more like a child then it stimulates a feeling of empathy that simply isn’t there if it’s a few cells.

I think that this applies to how we feel about ourselves. I’ve seen pictures of myself taken shortly after I was born and I feel some connection to what I was back then. I imagine that I can see some slight resemblance to myself now, the smile perhaps. And I’ve read a diary my mother wrote back then which captures the love my parents had for me when I was born and this brings up a lot of emotions in me, too. But when I think of what I must have been like when I was a few cells, I don’t really feel anything at all. At that point, my parents didn’t even know I existed yet.

 

[Elf01]

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?

If your kid died I wouldn’t care. If my unborn child died I would care.

I think human life has value because we can empathise with others. We feel valuable in ourselves. We have this confirmed (generally) in our interactions with others. And we therefore understand that someone else’s life is valuable to them (and generally to others).

Unborn humans have human lives. Thank you.

I would find it easy to empathise with a baby or a teenager - they would appear to me to have equal
value so I wouldn’t be able to choose between them. But a few cells?

Why should somebody who doesn’t have the ability to empathise not kill you?

In the final stages it could be classified as such. But I am not aware of any later-term abortions for frivolous reasons. There needs to a very significant medical reason for it.

With the mother or child?

 

[Abrosz]

If your kid died I wouldn’t care. If my unborn child died I would care.

So it is subjective.

With the mother or child?

For the mother, of course. No woman would wake up a day when being 7 months pregnant and realize: “Oops, I don’t want that child”. At least I don’t know such a woman.

 

[Elf01]

For the mother, of course. No woman would wake up a day when being 7 months pregnant and realize: “Oops, I don’t want that child”. At least I don’t know such a woman.

I was thinking you may be referring to a late diagnosis of a serious condition with the child. Why not just deliver the child alive if the mother is having complications?

 

[Abrosz]

I was thinking you may be referring to a late diagnosis of a serious condition with the child.

That would not be a frivolous reason.

 

[Elf01]

That would not be a frivolous reason.

I note you didn’t address my second point. Why not do a C Section and save both? I think a late term abortion requires delivery (although I may be wrong), if so it makes sense to deliver the child alive.

 

[Gorgias]

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

So, you’re in the business of looking at one human and saying “more valuable!” and another and saying “less valuable!”

Sorry, but throughout history, the folks who have played that game are seen as monsters.

At the beginning point of any eye-witness chain there MUST be a physical evidence. You cannot avoid the need for physical evidence.

Sure, but when the actions happened in antiquity – and therefore, there’s no possibility that physical evidence would remain – you cannot reasonably discount the event because of a claim of “no physical evidence.”

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

Take a step back, re-read that, and think hard. It’s not my problem; it’s yours. After all, you’re the one who keeps asking for physical evidence of non-physical entities.

Why would it fail?

Because they’re not required to participate. Therefore, their lack of participation is not proof of their lack of existence. Why is this not terribly obvious to you?

The demons are assumed to be eager to destroy us, so they would be more than happy to participate.

Says you.

And your belief system includes “witches” and “sorcerers”, who allegedly are proficient in evocation of the “dark side”.

It does? Umm… no.

But you can - allegedly evoke demons.

Actually, no.

Yes, and as such they are irrelevant.

In a few millennia, all physical evidence of you (and me!) will be gone. Wiped out. No longer present. I guess at that point, we’ll just shrug and say “meh… Abrosz is irrelevant”…?

There are some events in antiquity, which have been documented quite finely. The story of Jesus and his miracles are NOT.

Right. Four different evangelists, and easily thousands who experienced Jesus in the flesh. No documentation at all. Nope. Nada. Yeah… keep telling yourself that; you might even convince yourself (but not others)!

Says you. Do you have evidence for it?

Yep! Eyewitness testimony! (Why are you consistently tone deaf to that answer?)

Besides, if you have reason, you don’t need faith. If you need faith, you have no reason.

Not true. The Catholic Church is based on Fides et Ratio.

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

That’s the whole point: human life is sacred. Objectively. Without subjective valuation.

 

[o_mlly]

Search the thread for the word “feel” or “empathy”. See who originated the particular posts. The pattern is pretty clear. Those who favor direct abortion feel that it is OK. Those who oppose direct abortion think it intrinsically evil. The former are ruled by their emotions; the latter by their reason.

Notice also the use of the passive voice by direct abortion advocates. Rather than write, “I feel …” and admit the absence of any authority to support what follows, the passive voice masks that absence.

When arguing with another who is trapped in an emotional state, the use of reason is often fruitless. When arguing with someone whose happiness is measured in maximizing creature comforts and the only important creature is their self then an appeal to altruism or other-oriented dispositions will be fruitless.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I think that this applies to how we feel about ourselves. I’ve seen pictures of myself taken shortly after I was born and I feel some connection to what I was back then. I imagine that I can see some slight resemblance to myself now, the smile perhaps. And I’ve read a diary my mother wrote back then which captures the love my parents had for me when I was born and this brings up a lot of emotions in me, too. But when I think of what I must have been like when I was a few cells, I don’t really feel anything at all. At that point, my parents didn’t even know I existed yet.

But that’s not relevant pragamatically speaking. Personal empathy and whatever has nothing to do with laws otherwise the riots in the streets are just based on worthless opinions.

 

[phil3]

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

Again, at the moment of conception. After that it just about age. A human can be one second old or it is a couple of billions seconds old at the time of death. At the moment of conception it is Human. Anything before that is potential human.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

It implies nothing inherently valuable in human life - they have value only when someone else has an attachment - because the value is only in the eye of the beholder.

That is exactly the case.

We should fear becoming old, ill and alone. Without others who have an attachment to us, and by becoming a burden, we might be deemed to have nil value - perhaps negative value.

 

[Rau]

But when I think of what I must have been like when I was a few cells, I don’t really feel anything at all. At that point, my parents didn’t even know I existed yet.

The circumstances that lead to greater personal attachment to one’s offspring, to another or even to oneself are not in any debate. The question in debate is whether the level of this attachment can distinguish an acceptable act to end life from an unacceptable one.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I would find it easy to empathise with a baby or a teenager - they would appear to me to have equal
value so I wouldn’t be able to choose between them. But a few cells?

Why should somebody who doesn’t have the ability to empathise not kill you?

People who can’t empathise are classd as psychopaths. Which doesn’t mean that they will kill you. But they won’t feel any remorse if they do. So if you don’t feel any empathy towards something, you’ll have no remorse either.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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

So, you’re in the business of looking at one human and saying “more valuable!” and another and saying “less valuable!”

Sorry, but throughout history, the folks who have played that game are seen as monsters.

C’mon…if your daughter and a complete stranger are in a burning building and you can only save one, then which one would it be? That we care more for those closer to us is such an obvious fact that I’m astonished I have to give an example to show it.

Feeling that others have very little value (or even no value) can be a reason for killing them under certain conditions. But we rarely feel that. That’s why soldiers are trained as they are to override our natural connection with others. To restrict their feelings of empathy.