The potential argument's premise--that we should judge by appearances--is wrong. But I think the argument can be used because the fetus without intervention is growing towards a human person.
Not proven beyond doubt. If you're assuming this view, then your're clearly adopting a religious stance. Certainly a stance that rejects materialist, certain fatalistic religions, and deistic religions where God knows the complete future. You're really constraining yourself to a narrow segment of the population here.But then there are a near infinite number of potential human beings
There are two differences between a fetus and a plausible fetus: a fetus is a human being, and without extraordinary outside intervention will be a human person. Why that matters, I think, is that the potentional argument measures capability along a timescale, presumably only several months. So, while a fetus doesn't appear to have what we would call a person, he or she does have the qualities in the form of potential. Now we simply don't know what this potential is measured by, some will believe genes, others will believe fate. On the other hand, a nonexistent fetus, without existing, doesn't exist at the time the argument is applied, and doesn't have potential. You can't argue using a nonexistent entity.is it really wrong not to make them real? Should couples have as many children as physically possible?