Abortion

[Des]

I’m chatting with someone and he says that a zygote is possible of recombining back into one before gastrulation. He says that many times 2 or more zygotes can be produced out of the original one and like wise those can recombine back into one. Since the Church recognizes these zygotes as human beings, does this mean that zygotes than recombine back into the original one, are humans that die?
Also, are there not zygotes that pass through a woman naturally? Every zygote which passes out of a woman’s uterus is an individual that should be retrieved out of the presumably water below and implanted artificially by mandate because not to do so would be considered murder? Is this not correct what I’m saying? If so why isn’t there more to save these zygotes that pass naturally?

I’m confused on this issue and any help in my understanding would be appreciated.

 

[aridite]

It is a sad fact of nature that women have miscarriages and that apparently vialable foetuses die. Same goes for zygotes. As zygotes and embryos are microscopically small, this is probably unnoticed when it happens. In neither case would it be murder, as no one is deliberately trying to kill said persons. But, mysteriously, persons die in utero.

As to the recombination question, the basic principle is that whenever you have an human individual (something human that can be distinguished from other human beings) then that individual is a person. As a zygote is undisputably human (human tissue if you like), then the obvious question is whose tissue? It is not the mother’s, since it has different DNA. So it must be its own individual, its own person. If one zygote becomes two, at least one new person comes into being. If one of them is assimilated by another, such that there are no longer two individuals, then at least one person was destroyed. The personhood of zygotes lasts as long as their individuality.

This all happens when the zygotes are microscopically small within a week or so of conception, certainly before implantation, and probably before a woman knows she is pregnant. Is there realistically anything that can be done to facilitate the birth of these children?

 

[Mike_Rainville]

First, you should ask for specific published, peer reviewed scientific evidence. These statements are very vague and need proof.

A zygote is a human being. The term is unquestionably referring to a human being after the sperm and ovum have joined.

The destiny of each human being is known to God in minute detail, at every instant of time. Everything in our space is changing from moment to moment, but is immediately present to God as unchanging four dimensional spacetime.

We know there was at least one human being to start with (a zygote). We grant that the final number of human beings is also known, however many that may be. There is always at least one living soul, and all human beings, including zygotes, have a soul.

For intermediate states of separation and recombination:

There could be “near-death” experiences" as have been experienced by many grown human beings, where the soul leaves and is reinfused into the same material body.

We accept that there are Siamese twins, which clearly implies that many souls can share the same body. When they are separated, each has a soul. I hope we never see Siamese triplets except in a microscope.

Clearly, their line of argument is leading us into the “musical chairs” trap: What happens if there are fewer zygotes than souls in the end? It would seem that one or more souls would have died.

The exact case of each undividual human being can only be known for certainty by God Himself; we must give life the benefit of the doubt, and do all in our power to protect and preserve it at every stage of development.

If nothing artificial is done to interfere, the death of zygotes and other early embryonic forms is a natural, unavoidable death. They are so small, that it’s difficult to imagine any rescue attempt doing anything but destroying them. However, perhaps in the near future, when the world is depopulated enough that mankind begins to worry for its very survival, scientists will stop wasting time on lethal human experimentation, and seek ways to preserve, transplant, and bring every human being to term.

Since the Holy Father has declared that aborted children are “living in the Lord,” we might happily assume the same destiny for all the lost children from every miscarriage, even the hidden and silent ones, whether naturally or artificially caused.

Evangelium Vitae by John Paul II

1. … You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. …

However we could also assume that the blood of those murdered, by abortifacient pills (Is it enough motive to intend that they not be born, and take measures to render their only possible safe home uninhabitable?), cries out to heaven for vengeance, just as the the blood of their more developed brothers and sisters does.

( See Evangelium Vitae No. 9-10 and following sections)

 

[BLB_Oregon]

It is possible for two fertilized eggs to fuse, although it is obviously rare. The cells are all mixed up in the single body that results, but the DNA within the cells does not become mixed. If, for instance, one had DNA coding for white skin and the other for black, the effect on the skin would be this kind of a pinto look, or like a black and white dairy cow, and not something with impossibly small speckles.

I have no idea what the practical consequences are in terms of souls. If this was the intention of Providence from the conception events, I feel certain it is taken care of somehow. But then, I’m comfortable with God keeping me on a “need to know” basis on a lot of things!

 

[rfk]

Des:

Also, are there not zygotes that pass through a woman naturally?

Yes. However, if a specific person is trying to confuse you on this topic, don’t let them confuse you on the issue of intent.

If a zygote naturally fails to implant in the uterus and is passed out as part of the women’s menstrual flow, then that is God’s will and there is certainly no sin involved.

However, if a woman is using an abortifacient means of birth control, such as birth control pills, “the patch”, an IUD, Deprovera, etc., then the couple is guilty of the sin of abortion. In this case, the zygote fails to implant because the person took affirmative action to prevent implantation. That is not natural, it is not God’s will, and it is not morally acceptable.

 

[Des]

If one zygote becomes two, at least one new person comes into being. If one of them is assimilated by another, such that there are no longer two individuals, then at least one person was destroyed. The personhood of zygotes lasts as long as their individuality.

This is how I also understand it.

If a zygote naturally fails to implant in the uterus and is passed out as part of the women’s menstrual flow, then that is God’s will and there is certainly no sin involved.

But you see, if measures can be done to protect and preserve these zygotes, then they die out of willfull neglect. That to me sound like murder.

These are the very words this guy who I am chatting with gave me.

" In that case, you’d single-handedly be accusing the vast majority of women in the entire world to being murderers…because any woman who has had sexual intercourse would statistically have had over a dozen unsuccessful zygotes pass out of their bodies already. You would essentially be saying that every woman on the planet who has sexual intercourse must have the unsuccessful zygotes captured, preserved, and implanted by mandate back into the womb. Which would make the average woman on the planet required to bare on the order of 35 children in her lifetime."

He then goes on to say this about how possible it is to preserve these unsuccessfull zygotes.

**“Oh it’s definitely medically “possible” to capture every unsuccessful zygote… expensive, and impractical though it may be.” **

Does anyone know where I can find some good information on the statistics of unsuccessful zygotes and the possibilities of retrieving them to save their lifes?

 

[Sarah_louise]

I would suggest that these zygotes are more likely then not already dead by the time they are expelled by the body.

Considering the Catholic Church forbids surrogate motherhood saving these zygotes could not be done, morally.

 

[Des]

Sarah_louise:

I would suggest that these zygotes are more likely then not already dead by the time they are expelled by the body.

Considering the Catholic Church forbids surrogate motherhood saving these zygotes could not be done, morally.

I don’t think the Catholic Church would forbid surrogate motherhood in order to save a life. Only when the zygote is intentially planted in the mother. I’m speaking of unsuccessful zygotes. Besides, you can always re-implant it in the original mother.

 

[rfk]

" In that case, you’d single-handedly be accusing the vast majority of women in the entire world to being murderers…because any woman who has had sexual intercourse would statistically have had over a dozen unsuccessful zygotes pass out of their bodies already. You would essentially be saying that every woman on the planet who has sexual intercourse must have the unsuccessful zygotes captured, preserved, and implanted by mandate back into the womb.

He is giving you a specious argument that fails even the most basic level of moral reasoning.

First, some relevant paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69

Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71

Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

First, it is immediately obvious that unintentional killing is not morally imputable. “Not morally imputable” means you are not morally responsible for the death.

Second, if it is true that the typical woman will have over a dozen zygotes fail to implant itself in the uterus and thus will fail to develop into a fully grown human, that is obviously part of God’s plan for the world. There is no moral judgment against the woman.

Third, it is obviously impossible to screen the menstrual flow of every woman, every month, looking for a microscopic zygote that is already dead. If it failed to implant, there is really nothing we can do about it.

What the heck is his agenda? Is he trying to imply that because some humans die it is OK to murder other humans? OK, some zygotes fail to grow to term. That is certainly never a justification for any overt act to kill them.

, for crying out loud.

f

of

 

[The_Barrister]

Des:

Every zygote which passes out of a woman’s uterus is an individual that should be retrieved out of the presumably water below and implanted artificially by mandate because not to do so would be considered murder? Is this not correct what I’m saying? If so why isn’t there more to save these zygotes that pass naturally?

That’s a rather ridiculous statement.

The reason we are discussing this is because abortion - the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child - is murder. If a zygote passes in a menstrual flow or otherwise leaves the body prior to attachment, due to no conscious fault of the woman, there’s probably a reason for it, consistently with God’s will. AND the woman certainly did not intend, in those situations, to end the child’s life.

Your “friend” is twisting reality to create an impossible situation in order to establish a foothold that would lead to a conclusion that abortion is theologically acceptable since, in the vast majority of cases, it is unpreventable - according to his/her twisted logic.

 

[Des]

rfk:

What the heck is his agenda? Is he trying to imply that because some humans die it is OK to murder other humans? OK, some zygotes fail to grow to term. That is certainly never a justification for any overt act to kill them.

Actually, he and I are always the ones to defend against abortions when the topic comes up on another thread. He’s a pretty good ally for the most part. He defends abortion after gastrulation takes place(14 days), whereas I defend it at conception. The majority of pro abortionist we encounter on the other thread accept abortion after 14 days so that’s a plus having him on my side then. Anyways, I knew it was inevitable that we would both have a go with each other at one time or another, especially when I kept defending life at conception.

He just threw the remark at me that it was always possible to capture unsuccessful zygotes and keep them alive and if I, or a woman for that matter believed a zygote to be a human being, then she would be wrong if she failed to at least try to use every possible method availabe to save this human.
I guess I started this thread in hopes of finding out if anybody ever heard of the reality of saving these lost zygots.

Personally, I think he’s reaching when it comes to his claim.