A few cells in a Petri-dish

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Church says human life begins at conception. That is enough for me
 
A new individual of the human species begins at conception. That’s just a fact of embryology.
 
Last edited:
Abrosz said:
40.png
Freddy:
Honest question: Does the soul appear at the point when the egg is injected with sperm in vitro?
Click to expand...
And it is possible to do some gene-splicing and split the fertilized ovum into two. This also can happen naturally resulting fraternal twins. Does the scalpel “create” a new human being and a new soul?
Click to expand...
When twins occur from the splitting of one conceived entity into two, we simply don’t know “how the soul thing works”. Perhaps one twin gets the soul that was previously infused (assuming that has happened already) and the other twin gets a newly created soul. No way to know on this side of eternity. Even if it were a dogma that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception, that still wouldn’t answer the question. Maybe there are some things we’re just not meant ever to know.
 
Elizabeth3 said:
Not only is the necessary conclusion to all of this that the human being that comes into being at the moment of conception is a human person, but this is the teaching of the Church. The idea of a “pre-ensouled” human at the moment of conception “becoming” a human person at some later time is contrary to Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
And yet, as far as I know, the timing of ensoulment has been much debated in the church over centuries, but no clear statement made. The sanctity of human life from conception is not being questioned.
 
One reason that ensoulment was argued in prior centuries is that neither the Church nor the science of the time knew anything about human embryology. Now we do. We know when a new human being begins.
 
The Church teaches that in order to be human, there is both a body and soul. Never one without the other. At least that’s what I’m understanding the CCC to say,

II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE"

**[362] The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that "then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."229 Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God.

**[363] In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person .230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

**[364] The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:232

Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world. Through him they are thus brought to their highest perfection and can raise their voice in praise freely given to the Creator. For this reason man may not despise his bodily life. Rather he is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. 233

365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

**[366] The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235
 
Last edited:
JimG said:
One reason that ensoulment was argued in prior centuries is that neither the Church nor the science of the time knew anything about human embryology. Now we do. We know when a new human being begins.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is from the USCCB website-
  • From the 13th to 19th centuries, some theologians speculated about rare and difficult cases where they thought an abortion before “formation” or “ensoulment” might be morally justified. But these theories were discussed and then always rejected, as the Church refined and reaffirmed its understanding of abortion as an intrinsically evil act that can never be morally right.
  • In 1827, with the discovery of the human ovum, the mistaken biology of Aristotle was discredited. Scientists increasingly understood that the union of sperm and egg at conception produces a new living being that is distinct from both mother and father. Modern genetics demonstrated that this individual is, at the outset, distinctively human, with the inherent and active potential to mature into a human fetus, infant, child and adult. From 1869 onward the obsolete distinction between the “ensouled” and “unensouled” fetus was permanently removed from canon law on abortion.
 
Freddy said:
I don’t think it appears at all. I just wanted to know what others thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, that much was clear. And thus I asked a different question.

I asked what you think that “soul appearing” would be, how do you imagine it.

If you believe that “soul appearing” is not something that happens, that would simply mean that you think it is fictional.

But fictional processes or beings can still be imagined.

For example, even if no dragons exist, we can still imagine a dragon spitting fire.

So, how do you imagine or understand “soul appearing”?

For, of course, I think you do not understand it correctly. Even if it really was fictional, it would be a bit like imagining that a dragon spits fire from its tail, instead of mouth. 🙂
Abrosz said:
However, it is the decision of the experimenter to stop it when a new organ has developed, or let it continue until a whole organism comes into being. According to your interpretation it is the decision of the experimenter, which decides if the “final product” is human being or not.
Click to expand...
No.

If “something” would normally grow out to a “full” human under correct conditions, then it was a human all along.
 
Accept all of that. I remark again the church does not address ensoulment in a timing sense. Certainly it need not be addressed to form the moral position on abortion. I’ve no difficulty with the notion of the soul present from conception. To my knowledge however, it’s not been so declared.
 
Last edited:
MPat said:
40.png
Freddy:
I don’t think it appears at all. I just wanted to know what others thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, that much was clear. And thus I asked a different question.

I asked what you think that “soul appearing” would be, how do you imagine it.

If you believe that “soul appearing” is not something that happens, that would simply mean that you think it is fictional.

But fictional processes or beings can still be imagined.

For example, even if no dragons exist, we can still imagine a dragon spitting fire.

So, how do you imagine or understand “soul appearing”?

For, of course, I think you do not understand it correctly. Even if it really was fictional, it would be a bit like imagining that a dragon spits fire from its tail, instead of mouth. 🙂
Click to expand...
It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.
 
Rau said:
Accept all of that. I remark again the church does not address ensoulment in a timing sense. Certainly it need not be addressed to form the moral position on abortion. I’ve no difficulty with the notion of the soul present from conception. To my knowledge however, it’s not been so declared.
Click to expand...
What hasn’t been declared? That the soul is present from conception? I’m confused as to what you are asking. Are you asking if the Church has declared infallibly the teaching that the soul is present from conception?
 
Freddy said:
It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.
Click to expand...
Yes, that could be expected. For, as you probably suspected, your question already betrayed that.

So, it looks like you see numerous people talking about something that looks completely nonsensical to you. Something that is not merely fictional, but completely nonsensical.

Well, that is a fact that needs an explanation, isn’t it?

So, what is the explanation you consider to be most likely?

Let’s list some candidates:
  1. Those numerous people are completely insane (mere “delusion” does not seem to be adequate here).
  2. That “something” other people talk about is not nonsensical (it is either fictional or real), but you lack knowledge about it (perhaps having false knowledge instead, misunderstanding what that “something” is supposed to be).
  3. All those people are trying to play an elaborate practical joke on you.
In the other thread you talked about what one should assume about others, let’s see how that works with a concrete example.

So, to reiterate, how likely is each of those explanations? Which is the most likely? Or, perhaps, you have a different explanation?
 
Last edited:
MPat said:
So, to reiterate, how likely is each of those explanations? Which is the most likely? Or, perhaps, you have a different explanation?
Click to expand...
Is that the only three possible explanations you can come up with? Actually no. Because you said ‘some candidates’. Why didn’t you add an explanation that you thought might be acceptable to me? And please don’t tell me you can’t think of one…

Try adding to the list. Maybe throw in a few religious concepts.
 
Freddy said:
Is that the only three possible explanations you can come up with? Actually no. Because you said ‘ some candidates’. Why didn’t you add an explanation that you thought might be acceptable to me? And please don’t tell me you can’t think of one…

Try adding to the list. Maybe throw in a few religious concepts.
Click to expand...
Well, it is possible to invent more explanations, like “It was all a dream.”, but I do not see a point, and I think a demand from you is not a sufficient reason to make that effort.

Anyway, you have three candidates, and you can create more if you want to.

So, once again, what explanation do you consider to be most likely?

Feel free to explain why you think so.
 
MPat said:
40.png
Freddy:
Is that the only three possible explanations you can come up with? Actually no. Because you said ‘ some candidates’. Why didn’t you add an explanation that you thought might be acceptable to me? And please don’t tell me you can’t think of one…

Try adding to the list. Maybe throw in a few religious concepts.
Click to expand...
Well, it is possible to invent more explanations, like “It was all a dream.”, but I do not see a point, and I think a demand from you is not a sufficient reason to make that effort.

Anyway, you have three candidates, and you can create more if you want to.

So, once again, what explanation do you consider to be most likely?

Feel free to explain why you think so.
Click to expand...
It’s a religious concept. Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation. Before we knew that we were an accident of the evolutionary process. So we needed something to differentiate us from the rest of the animals so it was considered that that might be a soul. Something that endows us with ‘being human’. And because the corporeal body dies and decays it needed to be eternal.

I think some people consider it to be the essence of being human. And apparently this is bestowed upon us at the moment of conception.
 
MPat said:
No.

If “something” would normally grow out to a “full” human under correct conditions, then it was a human all along.
Click to expand...
The circumstances or “correct conditions” are decided by the experimenter.

And this thread went astray in just under 40 posts. The “soul” cannot be demonstrated, so its presence of absence is immaterial (pun intended). The question is the “status” of a few cells in a Petri dish. That is all.
 
What kinds of cells? Embryonic stem cells are very different than, say, cancer cells derived from Henrietta Lacks (HeLa cells). The original post fails to differentiate between the kinds of cells. Yes, everyone’s DNA is in our somatic cells as well as our gametes, but somatic cells given a happy environment do not ever develop into complete human beings.
 
heidi_storage said:
What kinds of cells?
Click to expand...
Any stem cells, embryonic or umbilical cord based, or extracted from an adult. Possibly the result of some gene splicing, or even fully artificially created in a laboratory. They can grow into a tissue/organ or full organism - depending upon the decision of the experimenter. What should their “status” be?
 
Abrosz said:
They can grow into a tissue/organ or full organism - depending upon the decision of the experimenter
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s established that individual human cells of any kind can develop into a “full organism”, i.e., human being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top