Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post - (Warning: Indirect electoral issue) Bill criminalizes violent harm to fetus

mercury_rev · 03-26-2004, 06:13 PM

U2, sorry if I was unclear. My point is that it's fallacious to equate a potential being with an actual being. They are two different entities. An acorn is a potential oak tree, not an actual oak. Bronze is a potential sculpture, not an actual sculpture. A fetus is a potential person, not an actual one. This distinction between potentiality and actuality goes back to Aristotle.

Most (all?) arguments attributing personhood to a first-trimester fetus involve religious (usu. Christian) premises. If one doesn't share those premises, why should one be moved by religiously based anti-abortion arguments?

03-26-2004, 06:13 PM	#53
mercury_rev Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 672	RE:(Warning: Indirect electoral issue) Bill criminalizes violent harm to fetus U2, sorry if I was unclear. My point is that it's fallacious to equate a potential being with an actual being. They are two different entities. An acorn is a potential oak tree, not an actual oak. Bronze is a potential sculpture, not an actual sculpture. A fetus is a potential person, not an actual one. This distinction between potentiality and actuality goes back to Aristotle. Most (all?) arguments attributing personhood to a first-trimester fetus involve religious (usu. Christian) premises. If one doesn't share those premises, why should one be moved by religiously based anti-abortion arguments?