Abortion question

[barsapp]

mlchance:

It is unnecessary to discuss the soul with reference to the abortion question. In fact, it is detrimental to an effective condemnation of abortion to discuss the soul.

There is little to add to the very clear posts above. It is necessary to repeat again that abortion has nothing to do with religion. Abortion is an anthropological issue, not a religious one. In addition abortionists go to hell.

 

[vern_humphrey]

barsapp:

There is little to add to the very clear posts above. It is necessary to repeat again that abortion has nothing to do with religion. Abortion is an anthropological issue, not a religious one. In addition abortionists go to hell.

The most fundamental human right is the right to life. If you have no right to life, you have no rights, period.

Rights – especially one as fundamental as the right to life – are not “granted” by society or the government. What society or the government can grant, they can withhold.

Therefore if there is such a thing as human rights, then clearly every livnig human being has the right to life – not because society or the government grants it, but because that right is part of the human condition.

The embryo is a living human being.

1. It is living – if it were not, we would not be having this discussion.
2. It is a human – check the DNA.
3. It is a being – it has its own DNA.

 

[Dan_Goebel]

barsapp:

There is little to add to the very clear posts above. It is necessary to repeat again that abortion has nothing to do with religion. Abortion is an anthropological issue, not a religious one. In addition abortionists go to hell.

Be careful who you judge barsapp! I assume/hope (for your sake) you meant to say an **unrepentant **abortionist may go to hell.
“Judge not lest ye be judged”

P.S. My name just happens to ne Daniel (Dan) which in Hebrew means “God is my Judge”.

 

[Des]

FightingFat:

According to the Catholic church the soul enters the body at conception. This is why abortion is wrong, correct? It also teaches the soul is indivisible despite the fact a foetus can divide into two several days after conception. Is this true? How do we deal with this problem?

I heard this question before. A zygote can sometimes seperate and become 2. It could also remerge and become one again before a certain time frame. I look at it this way.

Just because a human being at a certain stage of his/her growth cycle(zygote) can create another life from itself at times without the normal way of creating life by a sperm cell and an egg cell, doesn’t negate the fact that the first zygote was a single human being to begin with. If this second life merges back, i would have to say that death has occured to the second life by natural means. From what i have heard, these occasions are very rare in the reproductive cycle to begin with. They are not the norm.

 

[amarischuk]

Since the posters here seem to lack the mental fortitude or ocular ability to actually read and address the problems raised in the original post, please allow the local heretic to help ellaborate on the issue in the hopes of generating some interesting discussion.

The problem is such:

No one is denying the individuality and uniqueness of the human being at conception and hence this has little to do with abortion per se.

The problem arises either naturally or through human manipulation in the case of twinning, stem cell extraction and cloning. When natural twinning occurs the undifferentiate (stem) cell(s) also implants into the uterin wall and develops just like the ‘original’. Two individuals with the same genetic code.

On the other extreme is stem cells being removed from a fully grown human (such as from bone marrow). Few people would argue that that constitutes an identical twin but with cloning becomnig a viable possibility, just WHEN does the new human life begin (and by human life we cannot avoid the concept of a soul) is problematic.

But what about in the case where a few cells are removed from an undifferentiated embryo (without destroying the embryo) and stored for later (such as to make a skin graft)?

The same act (of seperating undifferentiated cells) in one case results in a twin (a seperate individual), the other merely in the removal of a few cells from a body.

When then does the collection of cells (or even the cell) become a distinct human being is thus a problem because DNA is not an indication (twins), and the fact of the cells being seperate is not an indicator given that stem cells can be removed from adults without anyone making the claim that that is manipulative twinning.

One idea I have been toying with is that somehow, when the cell(s) is induced to begin reproducing as if it were an embryo (as opposed to the cell reproducing and specializing as blood or skin cells) would be when the new human life has begun. But that is a difficult line to draw because it relies on external factors in order to determine humanity while human individuality seems to be something more intrinsic.

Just some thoughts.

Adam

PS. Excellent post Des.

 

[Catholic2003]

In the (non-heretical) theory that ensoulment occurs, say, two or three weeks after the zygote is formed, the possible occurrence of twinning does not present a problem.

 

[amarischuk]

Catholic2003:

In the (non-heretical) theory that ensoulment occurs, say, two or three weeks after the zygote is formed, the possible occurrence of twinning does not present a problem.

Then, in the ‘non-heretical’ theory, prior to ensoulment the zygote is not a human being and early abortion is not murder. And it leaves the definition of human being open to many new interpretations. Furthermore, it doesn’t explain the problem of the zygote actually being alive prior to ensoulment…is the soul not the life-force of the body?

That still doesn’t answer the question about cloning.

 

[barsapp]

Dan Goebel:

I assume/hope (for your sake) you meant to say an **unrepentant **abortionist may go to hell. “Judge not lest ye be judged”

Thank you for your post. And I apologize if someone misunderstood me. But I’m not judging, as a matter of fact, abortionists condemned themselves to hell. Canon 1398 provides that, “a person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” I assume that a **repentant **abortionist is no more an abortionist.

The main point here is that we, as Catholics, could have an extra couple of reasons to condemn abortion (it is a murdered and also a sin). But the basis to oppose abortion are merely anthropological (what, when, from when human life must be protected). Identify opposition to abortion with Catholicism is a work of the devil. Of course, we are the first ones in defending the ones without voice. And this is certainly one of the most important tasks of the Church. But it has to be absolute clear that opposition to abortion is not a religious belief. We defend life from the very beginning to the very end. The contrary, no matter the disguise, is pure totalitarianism.

 

[Philthy]

amarischuk:

When then does the collection of cells (or even the cell) become a distinct human being is thus a problem because DNA is not an indication (twins), and the fact of the cells being seperate is not an indicator given that stem cells can be removed from adults without anyone making the claim that that is manipulative twinning.

Good points. The answer is “we don’t know” and therefore perhaps we should respect the possibility of life in either situation. In addition, and I know this is hard to swallow, it is possible that in God’s omniscience he appropriately bestows a soul or chooses not to bestow a soul in a manner completely undetectable to us in each and every situation where the potential for human life exists.

amarischuk:

One idea I have been toying with is that somehow, when the cell(s) is induced to begin reproducing as if it were an embryo (as opposed to the cell reproducing and specializing as blood or skin cells) would be when the new human life has begun. But that is a difficult line to draw because it relies on external factors in order to determine humanity while human individuality seems to be something more intrinsic.

I like your ideas. The inherent problem, however, is that we are looking for NATURAL means of identifying a SUPERNATURAL event. Scientific observation is limited to the natural world. Certain supernatural events cannot be observed naturally although they have affected nature. This belief requires faith, which is why it is so difficult to accept.

amarischuk:

Just some thoughts.

Adam

PS. Excellent post Des.

Great post Adam - thanks for taking the time to articulate your thoughts in a clear and coherent fashion - it makes things so much easier…

Phil

 

[Des]

Any cell that does not have the capabiltiy of a zygote to continue forth and grow into an adult human being, should never even be seriously taken as a possiblity. A skin cell is just that. A cell with dna yet a very different cell from that of a zygote cell as it cannot grow.

My question is with cloning, when they re-use a usable zygote and extract the dna from it, murder has taken place. When they replace it, i often wonder when this new being is created. Would it be before or after it has been chemically stimulated to begin the growth cycle since the zygote cell contains the dna code at both times?

 

[Catholic2003]

amarischuk:

Then, in the ‘non-heretical’ theory, prior to ensoulment the zygote is not a human being and early abortion is not murder.

Abortion is worse than murder. Abortion carries with it the penalty of automatic excommunication, while murder (of anyone but the Pope) does not.

amarischuk:

And it leaves the definition of human being open to many new interpretations.

Not by faithful Catholics. Evangelium Vitae did settle this question:
the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life”.

amarischuk:

Furthermore, it doesn’t explain the problem of the zygote actually being alive prior to ensoulment…is the soul not the life-force of the body?

But the soul continues on after the body is dead, so the duration of the soul is clearly not the same as the duration of human life.

amarischuk:

That still doesn’t answer the question about cloning.

I don’t see why, since clones also start out as zygotes.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is an excellent paper by John Conley, S.J., that discusses the Church’s teaching on ensoulment as it relates to both the immediate animation theory and the delayed animation theory.

 

[JimG]

Catholic2003:

Quote:
*Originally Posted by amarischuk
That still doesn’t answer the question about cloning. *

I don’t see why, since clones also start out as zygotes.

Yes, I think that even with somatic cell transfer, one is talking about creating a new zygote by implanting somatic cell nuclear material into an egg cell. So you’re still starting out with a new (artificially created) zygote, which is a new individual of the human species.

 

[Des]

JimG:

Yes, I think that even with somatic cell transfer, one is talking about creating a new zygote by implanting somatic cell nuclear material into an egg cell. So you’re still starting out with a new (artificially created) zygote, which is a new individual of the human species.

But like i said previously, with zygote clones, are they actually living individuals before the chemical stimulation to promote the growth cycle? In the natural way, the growth cycle has already begun after fusion but this is not the case with the artificial way.

 

[JimG]

Des:

But like i said previously, with zygote clones, are they actually living individuals before the chemical stimulation to promote the growth cycle? In the natural way, the growth cycle has already begun after fusion but this is not the case with the artificial way.

Perhaps it’s a debatable question philosophically. Biologically, it seems to me that it is a new human individual. Otherwise, we would put ourselves in the position of clinically determining humanity at any time we choose simply by stimulating a new genetic individual to grow.

 

[JP2Admirer]

Des:

Any cell that does not have the capabiltiy of a zygote to continue forth and grow into an adult human being, should never even be seriously taken as a possiblity. A skin cell is just that. A cell with dna yet a very different cell from that of a zygote cell as it cannot grow.

My question is with cloning, when they re-use a usable zygote and extract the dna from it, murder has taken place. When they replace it, i often wonder when this new being is created. Would it be before or after it has been chemically stimulated to begin the growth cycle since the zygote cell contains the dna code at both times?

I would say the new life would be considered life after stimulation. The reason I say that is because “soul” is the animating principle (I think that is what Aristotle held, and it seems plausible).

However, I am not completely familiar with the science. Could an inanimate, genetically altered zygote be used for scientific study? In other words, does it have to be stimulated in order to be used?

The reason I ask is I have trouble with my own definition of the animating principle being the “soul” if someone would construe that as meaning I would accept the scientific study of an “inanimate” zygote.

Either way, I guess I would call it unethical because the original zygote was destroyed for means of scientific study, which is always wrong.

 

[amarischuk]

JimG:

Perhaps it’s a debatable question philosophically. Biologically, it seems to me that it is a new human individual. Otherwise, we would put ourselves in the position of clinically determining humanity at any time we choose simply by stimulating a new genetic individual to grow.

Then everytime you have a nose-bleed there are millions of ‘new individuals’ created…if you measure the commencement of the individual beginning at physical seperation of a cell.

Catholic2003, that is a great article. It raises many good questions and seems to pretty much follow the line of the more moderate conversation here…that no easy solution has been found to the problem.

one is talking about creating a new zygote by implanting somatic cell nuclear material into an egg cell.

The method of cloning I was refering to was not the implantation of genetic material into an egg, but the hormonal stimulation of a stem cell to begin reproducing as if it were a zygote.

Thank you.

Adam

 

[JimG]

amarischuk:

Then everytime you have a nose-bleed there are millions of ‘new individuals’ created…if you measure the commencement of the individual beginning at physical seperation of a cell.

No, I was speaking only of the creation of a new zygote by implanting genetic material into an egg cell nucleus. --The equivalent of fertilization, to make a genetically distinct individual.

The method of cloning I was refering to was not the implantation of genetic material into an egg, but the hormonal stimulation of a stem cell to begin reproducing *as if * it were a zygote.

I am not familiar with this method at all.