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

[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?

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.”

Nobody has mentioned intrinsic value. Because it isn’t relevant to the point that was being made. Which was personal value generated by empathy.

And yes, in the case of abortion, it is easier to make the decision to have one in the early stages than it is in the later stages. Gee, I wonder why. If only someone could give the reasons for that…

And examples have been given of relationships between people we don’t know and people we do to illustrate how empathy changes the value we place on each of them (personal value, not intrinsic).

And I’m the same as everyone else. My daughter gets saved before the stranger. And yes, I would reluctantly kill a stranger to save the life of my daughter or my wife in certain circumstances.

 

[Rau]

And yes, in the case of abortion, it is easier to make the decision to have one in the early stages than it is in the later stages. Gee, I wonder why. If only someone could give the reasons for that…

Still going on about “feelings”. Perhaps the discussion should move on to why feelings ought not to be the determining factor in the decision to take a life?

 

[Rau]

And yes, I would reluctantly kill a stranger to save the life of my daughter or my wife in certain circumstances.

In some circumstances, that would be a good act. As would killing your daughter to save the stranger be good in some circumstances. Let’s not debate how we might feel about those acts - I think we know.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And yes, in the case of abortion, it is easier to make the decision to have one in the early stages than it is in the later stages. Gee, I wonder why. If only someone could give the reasons for that…

Still going on about “feelings”. Perhaps the discussion should move on to why feelings ought not to be the determining factor in the decision to take a life?

How we feel about others informs the decisions we make about them. I’m afraid that’s a given and cannot be excluded from the discussion.

 

[goout]

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

A “potential human being” is a philosophical construct.
An actual human being is…an actual human being.

Similiarly:
What’s the difference between human slave property
and a human being with all the rights appropriate to a human being?

One is a lie at best, the other recognizes the humanity of a real human being.

 

[Rau]

How we feel about others informs the decisions we make about them.

I’m certain it influences them, particularly when choosing from among good act alternatives. Shall I buy my wife flowers or the cranky neighbour? Or, “whom shall I save”? But in life and death decisions, when a moral decision presents, should feelings be the guide to what is “right”

I’m afraid that’s a given and cannot be excluded from the discussion.

Far from being excluded, it (the role of feelings) seems to be presented by a few as the key issue. They would argue the rights and dignity due other human beings is adequately judged based on how we “feel” about them. And they don’t want to look too far beyond feelings.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

How we feel about others informs the decisions we make about them.

I’m certain it influences them, particularly when choosing from among good act alternatives. Shall I buy my wife flowers or the cranky neighbour? But in life and death decisions, when a moral decision presents, should feelings be the guide to what is “right”

I’m afraid that’s a given and cannot be excluded from the discussion.

Far from being excluded, it (the role of feelings) seems to be presented by a few as the key issue. They would argue the rights and dignity due other human beings is adequately judged based on how we “feel” about them. And they don’t want to look too far beyond feelings.

You can override your feelings certainly. If someone insults you then you will feel angry and probably feel the guy deserves a smack in the mouth. But you think it through, do a quick mental calculation of the various outcomes and decide on the best one. Which actually might mean taking a swing. Who knows…

It’s the same with deciding to have an abortion. The woman feels that it’s not a problem because it’s just a few cells but thinks it through anyway. At least, I assume she would. And even though she feels that it wouldn’t be a problem she continues with the pregnancy. Or not. But what she feels will allow her to do it if she so chooses. It informs her decision.

 

[Rau]

But what she feels will allow her to do it if she so chooses. It informs her decision.

You appear to describe a person whose feelings (as opposed to judgement) rules their decisions. Or maybe you are confusing those notions

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But what she feels will allow her to do it if she so chooses. It informs her decision.

You appear to describe a person whose feelings (as opposed to judgement) rules their decisions. Or maybe you are confusing those notions

Not rules but informs.

 

[Rau]

Not rules but informs.

If by that you mean influences, is a factor - then I doubt anyone disagrees. Feelings are part of what we deal with in making decisions. Are they a determining factor? Should they be?

 

[Servant31]

My friend,
You said “show me where it is declared, chapter and verse”
I responded “show me where is isn’t”

And now your stating it’s bad conversation? You can’t make an argument then get upset when someone does the same back. You stated above in the thread categorically that the church doesn’t state where a child is ensouled

Not according to the church, which does not declare the moment of ensoulment. This applies to all respondents who mention the “soul”.

Even if it isn’t explicitly stated (which I’m not sure about) that doesn’t necessarily mean the negative. I linked Jimmy Akins article exploring the subject, have you read this? The church doesn’t state “Abroze is a human being with dignity” and yet it is assumed by your personhood. Likewise the church has stated that life is life from the moment of conception, and therefore must be protected.

 

[Rau]

Even if it isn’t explicitly stated (which I’m not sure about) that doesn’t necessarily mean the negative.

The church does not declare the moment of ensoulment nor does It make that a relevant consideration in determining whether abortion is acceptable or not in any particular case.

 

[goout]

There are many things Scripture doesn’t seem to comment on in rigid and explicit (journalistic) fashion.
And yet the revelation that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and that God knows each human being before coming out of the womb, are unavoidable.

You have to do gymnastics to avoid God’s appreciation for human beings, and human beings derive our worth from God’s gazing upon us with appreciation.

Minimalist avoidance based on perceived holes in revelation…that’s not the Christian call.
“what’s the least I have to do…” always leads to less.

 

[Servant31]

And yet the revelation that human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and that God knows each human being before coming out of the womb, are unavoidable.

You have to do gymnastics to avoid God’s appreciation for human beings, and human beings derive our worth from God’s gazing upon us with appreciation.

Complete agree

The church does not declare the moment of ensoulment nor does It make that a relevant consideration in determining whether abortion is acceptable or not in any particular case.

Ty for the info, appreciate the clarification.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not rules but informs.

If by that you mean influences, is a factor - then I doubt anyone disagrees. Feelings are part of what we deal with in making decisions. Are they a determining factor? Should they be?

If you see someone fall, do you not help them up? Of course you do. But do you think it through and make a decision as to whether it’s the right thing to do? Of course you don’t. So why help? Because you feel it’s the right thing to do.

So in many cases our feelings actually determine our actions. We can justify them with reasons post hoc (and you can delve as deep as you like into evolutionary psychology to determine why we sometimes act as we do) but in the first instance it’s feelings that we act on.

 

[MamaJewel]

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?

Since this is a question posed on a philosophy thread on a Catholic forum, Catholics will respond that a human being is the part of the human conceptus organism comprising a genetically-identifiable human individual (ie. one that has the DNA code with accompanying HARs forming a unique individual at the earliest stages of human development).

Catholic’s say at conception because in a viable conceptus, the process of being human proceeds on a continuum until decomposition/ death occurs.

Scientists know that not only do mom and dad’s gametes need to hook up (conception of an early zygote), but their pronuclei need to combine to create the unique DNA code of the new human being (later zygote).

Plus there’s a whole range of being human that occurs until implantation, during implantation, a throughout pregnancy.

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

Again, biologically, the church will say that an actual human being is made at conception. I believe the teaching on the Immaculate Conception of Mother Mary solidified this.

As for a human being, once you have an organism, there isn’t a difference in kind between a blastocyst and a fifty year old man.

I beg to differ. A healthy human blastocyst (days 5 to 9 following conception) contains specialized cells that will eventually become the placenta, amniotic sac, and embryo proper. The human blastocyst has a very short period of time to implant or it dies.
That is very different from a 50 year old man whose body systems must maintain homeostasis on their own.

Since the process of human development never actually stops from conception until death, then the logical conclusion is that there is no such thing as a “potential” human being.

I disagree.
Not every conception has the ability to produce a new human being because there are defects in the factors that must combine to create a viable pregnancy and human being in the next or future stages of development.

Some (rare) pregnancies are literally cancerous. Others might be missing the DNA/HAR material to produce a new, unique individual. So, a pregnancy could be considered a potential human being depending on the context.

The offspring of human parents.

or human parents and a piggy? or puppy? or cow? moo-moo or mouse? M-I-C-K-E-Y… no, not that mouse!

Yep.
Some mad scientists are chompin at the bit to go there.
Poor pope.
In the future he’ll have to try to determine what DNA mix amount makes a human chimera a human being.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/11/the-five-chimeras-human-monkey-hybrid-genetic

 

[Thorolfr]

Rau:

Freddy:

Not rules but informs.

If by that you mean influences, is a factor - then I doubt anyone disagrees. Feelings are part of what we deal with in making decisions. Are they a determining factor? Should they be?

If you see someone fall, do you not help them up? Of course you do. But do you think it through and make a decision as to whether it’s the right thing to do? Of course you don’t. So why help? Because you feel it’s the right thing to do.

So in many cases our feelings actually determine our actions. We can justify them with reasons post hoc (and you can delve as deep as you like into evolutionary psychology to determine why we sometimes act as we do) but in the first instance it’s feelings that we act on.

I agree. I don’t think that the actions or beliefs of most people are informed by a lengthy investigation or by a deep philosophical analysis of the situation. In many cases, people just adopt the same views and the arguments used to defend them as most other people in their “tribe” without really thinking these things through on their own.

Just to give an example, most conservatives in the US seem automatically skeptical about global warming and refuse to admit that it is largely caused by human activity. And on many other issues, people just automatically adopt the talking points used by most other people on their “side.” And this is true of people on both the left and the right. Most people don’t actually think these things through on their own, doing a careful analysis of the arguments used on all sides so that they can reach their own independent and carefully reasoned conclusions.

 

[fredystairs]

@Rau
@Servant31

The Church does say that a new human being exists at the moment of conception. See my post 118, above.

Since a human being consists of a body and soul, ensoulment must occur at conception.

Pax

 

[MamaJewel]

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

Scientists can test tissue to determine it’s origin. They can test the genetic material of a zygote and tell it’s parentage. If it is determined to be of human origin, then it is considered human tissue and standards and protections are applied accordingly.

Why?

Because scientists got together and applied ethics to create standards for researchers to follow and for protections of the common human good and of the human individual.

That’s why we have bioethics in medicine and research.

But the zygote, etc… are not considered to be human beings.

True in research.
It’s considered “human tissue”.
Yet, even then there are ethical principles in place that limit what scientists can “do to” or “with” that tissue because it is very much living human tissue. Scientists know this and recognize it. And at what point does science cross the line and interfere with a living human being in that petri dish.

14 days

That’s the standard.
Go beyond that and you’re considered an unethical researcher.

I’ve heard that mentioned several times in various threads, but I’ve not seen a clinical study that would confirm it.

https://www.tommys.org/our-organisation/charity-research/pregnancy-statistics/miscarriage

An estimated 1 in 4 pregnancies ends in miscarriage (1 in 5 if we only count women who realised/reported the miscarriage)

These are UK numbers.

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.

Wrong.
The human fetus is a human being before that.
In some cases, a fetus might even legally be considered a person, at least for organ donation purposes.

https://medium.com/@royceyoung/we-s...ng-for-the-death-of-our-daughter-79f357dd254d

https://www.koco.com/article/rose-bowl-parade-honors-organ-donor-baby-her-parents/30142550

There is now an infant organ donation procedural plan, called Eva’s Protocol, named after a little human being who donated her eyes even though she never did get to take her first breath.

First, do no harm.
Do good.

 

[Rau]

If you see someone fall, do you not help them up? Of course you do. But do you think it through and make a decision as to whether it’s the right thing to do? Of course you don’t. So why help? Because you feel it’s the right thing to do.

I help because I “know” it is the right thing to do. Feelings of sympathy are present too. This is a fairly impulsive act, rather distinct from the decision to take a life (for example).