RE: Damned Christians
December 4, 2021 at 1:44 am
(This post was last modified: December 4, 2021 at 3:40 am by Belacqua.)
(December 4, 2021 at 1:15 am)Oldandeasilyconfused Wrote: ...It is based on religious belief and maudlin sentiment...
This is not true.
It is based on ancient arguments concerning what it means for one thing to change into another thing, vs. what it is for a single thing to change from one state to another.
If object A begins with the potentiality to grow and change into state X, state Y, and then state Z, it changes its state but continues to be the same object. That is, it changes from fetus to child to adult, but remains a human being.
If object B does not contain the potentiality to grow and change into state X, but then combines with another thing, and the new combination gains a new potentiality, then object B has changed from one thing to another. The egg alone does not contain the potentiality to change into an adult. Therefore it is not a human by itself. When fertilized, it gains that potentiality. Therefore the ontological change occurs at fertilization, not before and not after.
Not religious belief, not maudlin sentiment.
Quote:Here a foetus is not considered a human being until it is viable ex utero. That is usually seen as at the end 24 weeks, and that is a maybe.
What is the logical argument which demonstrates that the thing becomes a human being when it becomes viable? Is there such an argument, or is it more a matter of practical convenience?