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

[VanitasVanitatum]

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.

The context you are using it in distorts what would have otherwise been uncontroversial.

 

[Freddy]

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.

This is a false dichotomy. The sense of empathy that we all posses governs how we think about problems. It doesn’t (obviously, I would have thought) replace having to think about them. So we think differently about those with whom we empathise more strongly with than those we don’t. And again, we hardly need to give examples by pointing out that we value our children more than random strangers.

And this is not a feature that we have that we can turn on and off at will. We can certainly prompt empathy but we can’t consciously switch it on or off to suit what we might personally feel about someone (this is why charities will undoutedly feature a picture of an individual in need in promotional literature because you are likely to be generous to a particlar person rather than an amorphous group).

And this is why the ultra sound scans later in pregnancy mentioned in another thread were claimed to reduce the desire to have an abortion. We can’t empathise with a group of cells (by the very definition of the term it is impossible) but one would with a fully formed baby. And that sense of empathy is not going to switch on at one particular point during the pregnancy.

Hence it is literally impossible for any one person who supports the right to choose to say when it becomes unacceptable to have an abortion. There’s no bright line. There is no specific day. The person will empathise to a lesser or greater degree and then think about making a decision. So having an abortion is either more or less acceptable.

Hence a very early abortion (even using a day-after pill) is no problem for so many and why a very late term abortion is most definitely a problem for so many.

So those who oppose abortion can call a group of cells a human being or a person or a baby or a potential child or whatever term you’d like. But that doesn’t change the feeling of empathy that people would experience with it. Which is nil. As I say, by the very definition of the term.

Hence any argument that uses ‘person’ or ‘human being’ when talking about a blastocyst or a zygote is dead in the water. It’s a non starter. Because people know that whetever definition you use for ‘person’ they know that it’s possible to empathise with a person. And you can’t with a few cells.

 

[Thorolfr]

Abrosz:

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.

I think it’s much easier for any of us to feel empathy for someone else who is old or ill. And at least they probably have a head and a face and other parts of human anatomy that are familiar to us. I just have a difficult time imaging how I could feel empathy for a few cells which would be almost too small to see with the naked eye.

 

[Rau]

I think it’s much easier for any of us to feel empathy for someone else who is old or ill. And at least they probably have a head and a face and other parts of human anatomy that are familiar to us. I just have a difficult time imaging how I could feel empathy for a few cells which would be almost too small to see with the naked eye.

Again - the focus is on the “me” - not the life in question. These thoughts you express Thor reinforce the idea that “you” (the life in question) have only the value, deserve only the respect, that “I” feel.

 

[Rau]

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.

I don’t understand why you keep defending what is not in dispute. Feelings connected with empathy, personal association etc are not in dispute. They miss the matter in debate. Our acts are of the will and the intellect and their goodness or otherwise arise accordingly. A “feeling” never made an act right or wrong.

 

[EssentialBeing]

Being means now, kinetic energy, being alive, being here, being human

Human describes the species

Potential is not actual

As for the question of conception, the cells are in the kinetic state on the path to creating a human that comes into being at the time of conception. Potential would be husband & wife planning to conceive. At what point the soul is present is not proven by science & it is not proven by religion, it is only perceived & so far we are only guided by faith.

My limited knowledge on the subject would suggest that it is a human being from the time of conception, no matter what development, mutation it must go through to be born.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

I don’t understand why you keep defending what is not in dispute. Feelings connected with empathy, personal association etc are not in dispute. They miss the matter in debate. Our acts are of the will and the intellect and their goodness or otherwise arise accordingly. A “feeling” never made an act right or wrong.

It just was in dispute. It was suggested that if you consider one person to be more valuable than another then ‘the folks who have played that game are seen as monsters’.

There’s no doubt that those who dehumanise others can be guilty of atrocities but that does not mean that if you value your wife’s life over a stranger’s then you can be bracketed with those people. It’s a nonsensical position.

I have to admit I’m at a loss as to why some people argue against this very basic fact. In the context in which it has been brought up, it’s not an argument that therefore abortion is morally correct. It’s simply an explanation as to why people hold to certain positions.

 

[blackforest]

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

I need a definition before I proceed to answer. What is this “potential human being?” If I one day with to pursue a career in science, I am a potential scientist. Right now I’m an actual social worker. Potential X needs to be Actual Y. Therefore, potential human being = actual . . . what?

 

[Elf01]

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.

So if everybody was a psyopath you’d have no problem with murder?

 

[o_mlly]

The sense of empathy that we all posses governs how we think …

Precisely the problem. Empathy is your feeling and governs how you think. The less a being resembles you the less you care for that being. We all possess emotions but the objects that give rise to our feeling those emotions are different. Feelings are, therefore, subjective and cannot be trusted as objective standards that permit or deny our acts.

For those who are ruled by their feelings, the feeling is the beginning and end of the decision to act or not. For those ruled by reason, feelings begin the process that moves us to act but do not end the process. The feeling moves to the intellect for validation. Are the principles one holds in concert with the feeling one has? Only a “yes” allows the act/non-act. A “no” dismisses the feeling as disordered.

There’s no bright line. There is no specific day.

That’s right. Without certainty, no one may directly, intentionally kill an innocent human being. But that is a reasonable principle and does not matter to those who are governed only by feelings that are not validated by reasonable principles.

Hence a very early abortion (even using a day-after pill) is no problem for so many …

Proves my point. In your self-centered world, you exclude the child as if the child would have no problem with its own murder. You admit ignorance about that life but are still willing to chance that life for what, convenience?

Because people know that whetever definition you use for ‘person’ they know that it’s possible to empathise with a person. And you can’t with a few cells.

To sum it up, as you have nicely done, feeling for you is everything. For those ruled by feelings, if they feel nothing for the other then they have the license to do whatever they will to the other. The Nazis felt nothing for the Jews.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

So if everybody was a psyopath you’d have no problem with murder?

If everyone was a pschopath then I would be one as well. So yes.

 

[Freddy]

To sum it up, as you have nicely done, feeling for you is everything. For those ruled by feelings, if they feel nothing for the other then they have the license to do whatever they will to the other. The Nazis felt nothing for the Jews.

You are confusing an ability to understand how others feel - to empathise with them, with
morality. You believe that an objective morality dictates how we should react to others, with no reference to empathy. Whereas it’s the other way around.

 

[o_mlly]

You believe that an objective morality dictates how we should react to others, with no reference to empathy. Whereas it’s the other way around.

Suggest you re-read my post. I specifically referenced how emotions, e.g. empathy, move us to act. For feelers, that is all. For thinkers, only the initial step.

 

[Gorgias]

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?

Would you kill the stranger in order to save your daughter?

I get what you’re saying; however, “I want to save my daughter” isn’t equivalent to looking at two people and saying “more intrinsic human value” and “less intrinsic human value”, no?

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.

Except in the case of abortion, which is what we’re talking about here.

It just was in dispute. It was suggested that if you consider one person to be more valuable than another then ‘the folks who have played that game are seen as monsters’.

Except that the general question had already been twisted from “two persons” to “someone with whom I have a relationship and someone with whom I don’t.” That’s not ‘value’, per se, so much as it’s a reflection of what it means to be in relationship with someone.

that does not mean that if you value your wife’s life over a stranger’s then you can be bracketed with those people.

It does if you’d kill the others (or actively allow them to die) in order to “value your wife’s life.”

 

[Hodos]

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

LOL, well played, well played. Sorry if I overgeneralized to make my point.

 

[Hodos]

Which science?

Biology. Ten Characters.

 

[Niblo]

LOL, well played, well played. Sorry if I overgeneralized to make my point.

Only teasing, Hodos, no offence taken…er…as I recall

 

[Thorolfr]

Freddy:

You believe that an objective morality dictates how we should react to others, with no reference to empathy. Whereas it’s the other way around.

Suggest you re-read my post. I specifically referenced how emotions, e.g. empathy, move us to act. For feelers, that is all. For thinkers, only the initial step.

I’m sure that for those who don’t see an equivalence between a one year old baby and a zygote that it’s not all about feelings. There’s some thinking going on there, too. It’s not totally unreasonable to believe that there are fundamental differences between the two that make one a “person” and not the other. Some people might not agree with that view, but that doesn’t mean that it is not based on a reasoned analysis.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m sure that for those who don’t see an equivalence between a one year old baby and a zygote that it’s not all about feelings. There’s some thinking going on there, too. It’s not totally unreasonable to believe that there are fundamental differences between the two that make one a “person” and not the other. Some people might not agree with that view, but that doesn’t mean that it is not based on a reasoned analysis.

I can only take you at your word. In your posts, you cite feelings as the dominant mover that permits direct abortion. What is the principle in your rationale that validates the feeling and permits the direct abortion? It appears it is not a principle at all but rather ignorance of any principle.

I just have a difficult time imaging how I could feel empathy for a few cells which would be almost too small to see with the naked eye.

So you believe absent a feeling of empathy for the other because the other does not sufficiently resemble you is reason enough to validate the act of killing.

Whether a one day old fertilized egg and a two year old baby are both considered to be a “human being” or a “person” is totally a matter of how those words are defined. And it’s a matter of religious beliefs which cannot be proven one way or another …

And yet admitting to an ignorance as to the humanity of the other living organism you would permit another to kill it for convenience.

May the hunter shoot at the moving bush uncertain whether the movement was caused by a deer or another hunter? No.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You believe that an objective morality dictates how we should react to others, with no reference to empathy. Whereas it’s the other way around.

Suggest you re-read my post. I specifically referenced how emotions, e.g. empathy, move us to act. For feelers, that is all. For thinkers, only the initial step.

So you’re the deep thinker and anyone who takes the opposing view hasn’t thought about it. I think we all get that.