True or False? "A mere 'potential' being can not actually physically exist."

If we're talking about the abortion issue, a fetus isn't a "potential" anything. It is already a being. A human being, albeit at a very early stage of development...

 

I agree with you on that^.

But, believe it or not.... there are some who demand that it's only a "potential" human being.

This poll and thread was to see how common that belief is and to explore the arguments on both sides.

 

The fetus is obviously both a potential human being, AND a human being. Symantics should not be the determining factor is this discussion.

Though this entity does not have the characteristics many use to define a fully functional Human being, it will eventually have them under most circumstances and thus has the potential, to some this meets the criteria of a Human Being.

As this is clearly a matter of opinion...it seems to me one must evaluate what the resulting impact of these opinions will be upon society as a whole.

 

There is potential life when the sperm and ovum are seperate. When they meet and fertilization occurs, the potential life then becomes actual life.

 

Because the pro death (abortionists) progressives say that an unborn infant is a potential life while in gestation, it is not life until its born. There are some who think it is potential life upto 48 hrs after birth.

 

Progressive leftist thinking is an example of befuddlement in action.

 

The concept potential appears not to be directed as something that doesn't exist into something that is existing. The word potential seems to be used properly when an existing being or phenomenon is capable to cause or become something else.

Having this uderstanding, then the answer is no, because things won't come from nothing according to the real physical world.

 

I'm saying the muck, at a point in time, has the potential to develop into something other than muck. Obviously if there is a drought and the muck dries then at that point in time it is questionable about the potential to develop into much. However, if the building blocks of life and the muck environment are favorably aligned at a point in time, there is a potential for something to develop.

Your 'living muck' has a physical existence in it's elements but it is not a 'being'

Nothing is 'real' until we have the tangible end-product we're expecting. Prior to the end-product you might have some potential...

 

Semantics?

I would like for you (or any of them) to explain how something can be a 'potential' human being AND an actual human being at the same time.

If you can do that without playing any word games (semantics) I would really like to see it.

If a human being in the first days of their development is not a "human being" even at the most basic level.... what then kind of 'being' is it?

This is basic biology.

It's not a matter of opinion at all.

 

Maybe I should have posted the definitions at the start of the thread.

But as another poster (Never Left) said it so clearly... a "sperm and an egg" un-united would be a "potential being."

Post conception, once that being has already been realized it is no longer just a "potential."

It is at that time an actual being.

 

Potential is the ability to become more....thus though many consider (thus the pro life stance) this entity to be a human being, others see it as potentially being such. It is a matter of opinion even when one goes by the science. The DNA of a human fetus is obviously human, and we then must decide what constitutes a being. One side considers this a being when the minimal chance of thought might be present, the other when sperm meets egg....and others somewhere in between.
The real question in this ongoing debate becomes one of what we decide individual freedom entails.

Do we allow the personal opinions of some to remove the personal freedoms of others?

Seems a bit fascist to me, and certainly not an example of what this country was founded upon.

 

Forget human beings and think of any other mammal.

A horse is an organism.
A horses life (as the organism that it is) begins with the union of a sperm and an egg.
It is at that point when the sperm and eggs potential to create a new horse organism (being) is first realized.
It is therefor already a horse organism 'being' even though it is very under-developed - in the first days of it's life.

Agree?

 

Yes...agreed. Same for a cow.....enjoy your burger.

 

I will.

Thank you.

 

False if you are using the word ‘potential’ as I do, the being could exist. Please precisely define the word before we go on?

WAIT I just saw your post # 36. Still I am not clear. Do you mean could the being exist now or in the future? Some reasearchers say the past present and future all exist. So just using that theory I would be 'correct-Oh-mundeo' ~ lol...yep God DOES exist, no wiggle room via this OT~!

reva

 

1po·ten·tial adjective \pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\

Definition of POTENTIAL

1: existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>

 

There are many reputable relief agencies that you could contribute to, where you know your money would be saving childrens' lives. So the question remains. Why is it OK to ignore all those children around the world. But it is not OK to ignore the children you are passing by in the desert. Is it a matter of distance? Is it OK to ignore dying children if they are dying far away from you, but if a child is dying right next to you, then it's not OK to ignore that? Seems somewhat arbitrary.

 

sperm and egg are potential people, if they are born into this world or not depends on other factors

every cell in your body has the potential to be a human being, yet, odds are most will not

when someone recessives a donated organ... are they then two people?

.

 

The question is - "Is an existing organism a 'potential' being or is it an actual being?"

 

when someone recessives a donated organ... are they then two people?

 

That's a good question.... but it has nothing to do with this thread.

If you are going to keep trying to derail my thread, I'm going to have to report your efforts.

 

it's on topic, go ahead and report it if that is what you want to do

 

This is less a thread and more another tired episode of the serial torture of the English language in the aid of nothing very much.

 

You are talking about taking part of one (existing) being and putting it into another....

How does that have anything at all to do with whether or not a "potential being" can actually exist?

If it actually exists.... it's no longer just a "potential" being.

Is it.

 

you left a open ended "because...", I am answering your question in my own way, you can't decide how I do that... that is my "choice" to make

I believe we have a soul\life force\whatever you want to call it, I believe the "you" is separate from the body, the body is just a vessel or combination of vessels, the body can exist before and after the soul leaves, but it's only a person when it's there, else if is just cells on autopilot

do you not believe we have a soul?

.

.