HUMAN PERSONHOOD - THE CASE AGAINST ABORTION

[commonsense]

What's a "potential human being"?

A potential human being is a being with the potential to be human. Do you need further explanation of potential, human or being?

What's needed is the dividing line between potential and actual.

At what point do human cells become a human being? At some point during pregnancy? After birth?

Ah, there’s the rub. I just don’t know.

[Immanuel Can]

The rights of an actual human being trump the potential rights of a potential human being.

What's a "potential human being"?

A potential human being is a being with the potential to be human. Do you need further explanation of potential, human or being?

Oh "human being" is really, really clear. But "potential"? That's sheer nonsense.

A baby in utero isn't "potentially" a baby. It's a baby. You can say it's not, pretend it's not, claim nobody knows it is, and so on. It won't make a stitch of moral difference -- and you know darn well it would turn into a human being in every possible sense if you didn't kill it. Moreover, you know darn well it isn't a cat, a cheese or a brick. It's a human being.

All you're really arguing is method: shall I murder it before it's born, or murder it afterward? Shall I strangle it with a rope, or suck it apart and dump it into a sink? That's all you're debating. The moral status of the human being you murdered is not changed by the method you used, or the timing either. It's the same act.

[henry quirk]

A potential human being is a being with the potential to be human. Do you need further explanation of potential, human or being?

What's needed is the dividing line between potential and actual.

At what point do human cells become a human being? At some point during pregnancy? After birth?

Ah, there’s the rub. I just don’t know.

No one does. That's why I argue for settin' the line at 12 weeks (the point when all essential organs and organ systems that seem necessary for personhood are in place). Personally, I think the line ought be earlier than that, but I concede the biology that seems associated with personhood is incomplete (grossly underdeveloped) before week 12.

Other folks go the opposite way: Sculptor, for example, sez the status of person is only assigned (is not intrinsic), so, even after birth, a human being conceivably might not be a person (if the assigners had some reason to deny person status).

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, there’s the rub. I just don’t know.

The answer is, "always." Very simple.

You can't do wrong by not killing a person. But you can do a great evil by doing it. That's obvious.

[commonsense]

Ah, there’s the rub. I just don’t know.

The answer is, "always." Very simple.

You can't do wrong by not killing a person. But you can do a great evil by doing it. That's obvious.

Yes, of course. I was referring to the difficulty of coming to agreement on the point when there is a human as opposed to a potential human.

Now recalling the concept of personage, I must say that I should have used person & potential person instead of human being & potential human being. I apologize for that.

As for killing a person, I’d say it’s always wrong to kill a person and always wrong to kill a potential person.

However, even more wrong than that would be for me to tell a woman what she should do about her pregnancy.

I want to live a good life. It’s not my good life to be dictating to others how they should live their good life.

[henry quirk]

"It’s not my good life to be dictating to others how they should live their good life."

I agree. As I reckon things, I can't go wrong mindin' my own business and keepin' my hands to myself.

For example: I run across two men of apparent equal physical capability whallopin' on each other. I'm inclined to leave 'em be.

But there are limits: a man whallopin' on a boy, beatin' the hell of him, will probably move me to poke my nose in.

I'm sure you see where I'm goin' here.

[Nick_A]

Henry

At what point do human cells become a human being? At some point during pregnancy? After birth?

We cannot know but IMO we have a better way of considering the question of abortion. Unfortunately it is too controversial to be contemplated other than by a few especially when considered from religious perspective but let me ask you: at one places during the human life cycle should the human life cycle be respected and supported? Here is a typical description of the human life cycle. Of course the point of least value is pregnancy when it is only supported if a woman demands it. Without it abortion is the norm as is ignorance of what pregnancy actually is so respecting it is seen as absurd.

According to the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the human life span, or the maximum length of time possible for human life, is 130 years.Ordovas, J. M. “Living Well to 100: Nutrition, Genetics, Inflammation.” Am J Clin Nutr 83 (2006): 401S490S. Human bodies change significantly over time, and food is the fuel for those changes. People of all ages need the same basic nutrients—essential amino acids, carbohydrates, essential fatty acids, and twenty-eight vitamins and minerals—to sustain life and health. However, the amounts of nutrients needed differ. Throughout the human life cycle, the body constantly changes and goes through different periods known as stages. The major stages of the human life cycle are defined as follows:
• Pregnancy. The development of a zygote into an embryo and then into a fetus in preparation for childbirth.
• Infancy. The earliest part of childhood. It is the period from birth through age one.
• Toddler years. Occur during ages two and three and are the end of early childhood.
• Childhood. Takes place from ages four to eight.
• Puberty. The period from ages nine to thirteen, which is the beginning of adolescence.
• Older adolescence. The stage that takes place between ages fourteen and eighteen.
• Adulthood. The period from adolescence to the end of life and begins at age nineteen.
• Middle age. The period of adulthood that stretches from age thirty-one to fifty.
• Senior years, or old age. Extend from age fifty-one until the end of life.

Are the mid years worth anything other than as a means to serve society? Should the senior years be restricted to 65 when the state decides if your life is any longer worthy of support or respect so you should be aborted. Why not? Until a person understands the objective value of the cycles of life so respects and supports them, there is simply no reason to deny abortion or the destruction of the elderly when the state designates that their lives lack value. Without a conscience capable of objective respect for life cycles, there is no reason not to accept abortion as an ethical norm since the fetus isn’t serving society. The same can be true with the elderly so the argument can be made to abort them as well. Social Security costs too much. Why not?

[henry quirk]

"Are the mid years worth anything other than as a means to serve society?"

You already know my answer...

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, of course. I was referring to the difficulty of coming to agreement on the point when there is a human as opposed to a potential human.

But it's not a matter of "agreement." You don't vote for the law of gravity. Consensus won't make the Earth revolve around the Moon. There are facts here: either we're talking about a child, or we're not. But there's no middle ground, and people's opinions are irrelevant. A baby is a baby, and will be, whether I, or you, or anyone else thinks otherwise.

Now recalling the concept of personage, I must say that I should have used person & potential person instead of human being & potential human being. I apologize for that.

I'm aware of the difference. But the same problem pertains. "Person" is not an honorary bestowment by a vote. If you're a person, you're a person, even if every other person in the world says you're not and lynches you. That just makes them evil; it does not make you a non-person.

As for killing a person, I’d say it’s always wrong to kill a person and always wrong to kill a potential person.

Yep.

However, even more wrong than that would be for me to tell a woman what she should do about her pregnancy.

Wrong.

It's not "her" pregnancy. She's had plenty of "choices" before that point: the choice to have sex or not, with whom, when, where, with or without contraception, and so on. When she created another human being, another person, she gave up any claim that this is her private decision. She involved other people...society, the man whose DNA is half of that baby, and more importantly, the baby herself. She does not have any right to decide to murder a child. And no person can give her that right, no matter how much she cries and whines.

I want to live a good life. It’s not my good life to be dictating to others how they should live their good life.

My version of "the good life" does not involve willfully creating then murdering other human beings. Nor should anyone's. That's not "good." That's evil.

And you're not "dictating" anything. Your "dictations" or anyone's don't change facts. Nor do the woman's opinions. The truth is the truth. Abortion is murder. That's its nature, and that's its value to the people who practice it: that it kills a human being.

[Nick_A]

"Are the mid years worth anything other than as a means to serve society?"

You already know my answer...

I was giving you a chance to elaborate. If humanity within Plato's cave had respect for the cycles of life as whole, would our species be capable of war which when taking place, dominates our mid years.?

[henry quirk]

"Are the mid years worth anything other than as a means to serve society?"

You already know my answer...

I was giving you a chance to elaborate. If humanity within Plato's cave had respect for the cycles of life as whole, would our species be capable of war which when taking place, dominates our mid years.?

And, me, I was givin' you a chance write more essay.

Elaboration: the mid years belong to the person, not the society, so: society can and should go pound sand.

And: it ain't Plato's cave that grinds my gears but the abattoir everyone and his sister seems so eager to get to (to get bled then turned into sausage).

[Sculptor]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

[Nick_A]

There is no valid objective case against abortion.

If life is sacred then the life of the woman takes precedence over a mere potential life and it is wholly her decision if she allows this parasitic foetus to grow inside her, taking her sustenance.
It's no business of anyone else but her.

When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder.
Simone Weil

You have proclaimed that this parasitic foetus lacks value so the desire to murder is justified. Seems clear enough. The only question is whose lives have value.

[henry quirk]

Obviously, if the individual has no intrinsic value, if the value of the individual is assigned, then lives, any lives, are only valuable if those empowered to assess such things say they are valuable. So: the answer to the question is it depends.

[Walker]

Obviously, if the individual has no intrinsic value, if the value of the individual is assigned, then lives, any lives, are only valuable if those empowered to assess such things say they are valuable. So: the answer to the question is it depends.

It will depend on your social credit score. Your betters are working on that with an adaptation of the Social Credit Score that was developed for the Chinese government. Westerners have been incrementally prepped and conditioned to passively accept the Social Credit System with for instance, the Financial Credit Score and with mandatory volunteerism for college applications. Facial recognition software will link your history to the central database so that you can be automatically and properly classified as an Untouchable*, a Brahman*, or something in between.

This is inevitable on the current path, and no other paths are on the horizon, which is why Bernie Sanders is suggesting a Ma Bell and Standard Oil type breakup of the big information controllers, for they were industry in league with China. Could such a think happen in the DC Swamp that Trump is fighting? Does a swamp clean up faster than it took to be made?

* Likely different labels with the same meaning.