Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[LittleSoldier]

It is a fine line, and a difficult one. I’ve worked as a medical ethicist, and I know the difficulty people like me are under. However, it would be very difficult to remove the teratoma and say you are not willing it’s death. There is not way it could survive outside it’s twin, so it will die if removed. On the other hand, there was no potential for it to have any other “life” thank it did as a parasitic tumor.

I would like to respond to this again. If the parasitic tumor is a human being it has a soul and even if its entire life is spent as a parasitic tumor that life is valid and important; just as every human life is valid and important. Surely we do not judge human life on its length - if we did that, St. Maria Goretti’s life would have less importance and validity than Vlad the Impaler’s life. And surely we do not judge life on where a human being is located. If we did that, pro-abortionists might have a valid point if they claimed that a direct abortion is morally correct because “it’s not a human being until it’s born.” And surely we do not judge human life on the human being’s ability to live on its own, as infants and people undergoing surgery cannot survive on their own.

You stated “it will die.” If it will die it must currently be alive. If it is a human being and has a soul it is impossible for it to live as a non-human being without a soul.

I lost two children before they were born. I saw one of them. Her development was extremely abnormal, her life was very short (approximately eight weeks), she could never have survived on her own. Some might even have called her a teratoma. She certainly looked like one. Yet her life had merit and was sacred. She was loved by her parents and I refused to undergo an abortion (before she was spontaneously aborted) even though the physician told me there was very little chance of her living without serious abnormalities. It wouldn’t have mattered to me if he had said that my chances of surviving the pregnancy were close to nil. I would not have had the abortion and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that my decision would have been the correct one. I still have no doubt. Granted, it was not an ectopic pregnancy and I lost her anyway. But she still holds a piece of my heart.

I know the Church does not know what happens to children who die before birth. But it is my hope that God is providing for her and that I will see her in heaven, along with the other child I lost through spontaneous abortion. Their lives were just as important as mine.

If I misread your post I apologize.

 

[StAnastasia]

Thank you for this part of your post. I found much comfort from it.

You’re welcome, LittleSoldier!

Tonight when I was on the phone with her and crying over the probable loss of my cat (who really isn’t my cat as he belongs to God) we got to talking about heaven.

 

[StAnastasia]

I would like to respond to this again. If the parasitic tumor is a human being it has a soul and even if its entire life is spent as a parasitic tumor that life is valid and important; just as every human life is valid and important. Surely we do not judge human life on its length - if we did that, St. Maria Goretti’s life would have less importance and validity than Vlad the Impaler’s life. And surely we do not judge life on where a human being is located. If we did that, pro-abortionists might have a valid point if they claimed that a direct abortion is morally correct because “it’s not a human being until it’s born.” And surely we do not judge human life on the human being’s ability to live on its own, as infants and people undergoing surgery cannot survive on their own.

I agree on all counts.

You stated “it will die.” If it will die it must currently be alive. If it is a human being and has a soul it is impossible for it to live as a non-human being without a soul.

LittleSoldier, a fetus-in-fetu is “alive” in the sense that a terminally comatose person on life support is alive. This tumor has no head, no brain, nor anything other than the DNA and some human tissue.

I lost two children before they were born… But she still holds a piece of my heart.

Trust me, I know (twice) whereof you speak. I have an embryologist / obstetrician friend at the University of Washington Medical School who says that the rule of thumb they work with in the obstetrics profession is that between 25% and 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, often before the mother is even aware that she was pregnant. I have no reason to believe God does not hold all these embryos in Her divine heart.

I know the Church does not know what happens to children who die before birth. But it is my hope that God is providing for her and that I will see her in heaven, along with the other child I lost through spontaneous abortion. Their lives were just as important as mine.

I believe that God’s infinite providence provides for every created being in the universe – teratomas, Kanzi, your cat, our spontaneously aborted children.

 

[StAnastasia]

Since you have been posting on this issue or topic, would you kindly give me the “bottom line” as you would summarize it. Thank you.

Some teratomas are simply clumps of cells that spontaneously have genes turned on for the formation of body parts. Others are clearly cases of fetus-in-fetu, with the tumor being the parasitic twin of the host. It seems to me that a fetus-in-fetu tumor is ensouled if you count ensoulment as taking place at conception.

A woman I know discovered a tumor in her shoulder in her forties, and when they operated they discovered a fully formed human finger, complete with fingernail. Whether that tumor was a person I don’t know; in any case, it was surgically removed. Perhaps hospitals ought to have protocols for the reverent disposal of such tumors other than in common medical waste.

StAnastasia

 

[grannymh]

Some teratomas are simply clumps of cells that spontaneously have genes turned on for the formation of body parts. Others are clearly cases of fetus-in-fetu, with the tumor being the parasitic twin of the host. It seems to me that a fetus-in-fetu tumor is ensouled if you count ensoulment as taking place at conception.

A woman I know discovered a tumor in her shoulder in her forties, and when they operated they discovered a fully formed human finger, complete with fingernail. Whether that tumor was a person I don’t know; in any case, it was surgically removed. Perhaps hospitals ought to have protocols for the reverent disposal of such tumors other than in common medical waste.

StAnastasia

Here is some additional information. I agree that you certainly may choose either theory for fetus in fetu.

Regarding teratomas. “Cells differentiate along various germ lines, essentially recapitulating any tissue of the body. Examples include hair, teeth, fat, skin, muscle, and endocrine tissue. See images above.” emedicine.medscape.com/article/281850-overview#a0104

Fetus in fetu (or fœtus in fœtu) is a developmental abnormality in which a mass of tissue resembling a fetus forms inside the body. There are two theories of origin concerning “fetus in fetu”. One theory is that the mass begins as a normal fetus but becomes enveloped inside its twin.[1] The other theory is that the mass is a highly developed teratoma. “Fetus in fetu” is estimated to occur in 1 in 500,000 live births.[2]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

One is free to choose first theory, the “twin” .

However, there is an alternate theory which can be considered by readers. This theory goes back to teratoma which is a highly developed tumor grown from an anatomy. It is not a human being conceived (egg and sperm) by the anatomy source even though it resembles a real fetus. Another thought to consider is that in any case, a fetus in fetu is different than a real normal human fetus.

 

[inocente]

An argument should be judged on its merits not on its origin or by irrelevant speculation.

The idea that anyone can form an argument which dictates to Christ who is worthy of being redeemed is meritless before it gets out of the starting gate.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him and has worthy DNA shall not perish but have eternal life.

It has precisely the same pernicious morality as: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him and has a worthy color of skin shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[tonyrey]

An argument should be judged on its merits

It remains a fact that an argument should be judged on its merits not on its origin or by irrelevant speculation - or by irrelevant remarks…

 

[inocente]

That’s what I’m saying: a comatose or severely retarded person has Homo sapiens DNA and is therefore worthy of being ensouled.

Maybe it’s a Baptist thing but the whole idea of relating DNA to “soul worthiness” seems about as useful as arguing how many angels there are on a pinhead.

 

[inocente]

It remains a fact that an argument should be judged on its merits not on its origin or by irrelevant speculation - or by irrelevant remarks…

In the same sense that an argument that there is a master race whose role is to ethnically cleanse the rest of the world should be judged on its merits?

 

[tonyrey]

But no evil act can be done - even in an attempt to achieve a good end. That is Church teaching (and I am absolutely positive about it). That’s why the direct killing of an embryo is *always *wrong and why a certain nun in a certain hospital in Arizona was excommunicated and the hospital lost its Catholic affiliation.

Do you believe we are never justified in killing in self-defence - or in defence of an innocent person who will die if we don’t kill the attacker?

 

[tonyrey]

It remains a fact that an argument should be judged on its merits

Every argument should be judged on its merits taking its assumptions into consideration.

NB Every statement one makes is subject to an indefinite number of qualifications but that fact does not alter the truth of the statement…

 

[inocente]

Every argument should be judged on its merits taking its assumptions into consideration.

The argument that “soul worthiness” has anything to do with DNA is as merit-worthy as the argument that there’s a master race whose role is to ethnically cleanse the rest of the world.

Whatever technical point you are trying for, it’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether an argument, particularly an immoral argument, has ulterior motives, and so question its origin.

 

[tonyrey]

The argument that “soul worthiness” has anything to do with DNA is as merit-worthy as the argument that there’s a master race whose role is to ethnically cleanse the rest of the world.

 

[inocente]

inocente;8807534:

The upshot of the brief DNA interlude:
There is no simple and obvious connection between this statement and your objection.
The origin and ulterior motives of **any **

argument are unrelated to its logic and are an unnecessary distraction often used to confuse the issue…
It seems highly technical, enigmatic even, to say it’s not legitimate to state that an argument is immoral whatever its logic. If it made logical sense to kill off the mentally retarded for the good of the race then it couldn’t possibly be “an unnecessary distraction often used to confuse the issue” to point out it is immoral and question its origin whatever its logic.

As I made my point about the DNA argument and no one seems to be disagreeing, perhaps we could return to the thread topic … :compcoff:

 

[tonyrey]

It seems highly technical, enigmatic even, to say it’s not legitimate to state that an argument is immoral whatever its logic. If it made logical sense to kill off the mentally retarded for the good of the race then it couldn’t possibly be “an unnecessary distraction often used to confuse the issue” to point out it is immoral and question its origin whatever its logic.

As I made my point about the DNA argument and no one seems to be disagreeing, perhaps we could return to the thread topic …

I had already made my moral position clear by stating the principle of choosing the lesser evil with regard to the issue under consideration.

No worlds are deprived of God because wherever rational beings exist they are capable of reaching the same conclusions as we do about the nature of reality - and there is no reason to suppose they do not receive any form of divine inspiration or revelation.

 

[inocente]

No worlds are deprived of God because wherever rational beings exist they are capable of reaching the same conclusions as we do about the nature of reality - and there is no reason to suppose they do not receive any form of divine inspiration or revelation.

Then we are as one, which is unusual but not unprecedented.

 

[tonyrey]

Then we are as one, which is unusual but not unprecedented.

We believe in the same God and hope to reach the same destination but in the meantime intellectual variety is the spice of life - and sharpens our wits. :tiphat:

 

[grannymh]

The idea that anyone can form an argument which dictates to Christ who is worthy of being redeemed is meritless before it gets out of the starting gate.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him and has worthy DNA shall not perish but have eternal life.

It has precisely the same pernicious morality as: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him and has a worthy color of skin shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

It remains a fact that an argument should be judged on its merits not on its origin or by irrelevant speculation - or by irrelevant remarks…

An argument about how big was the fish which got away should be judged on its merits.

But John 3:16 involves God, Himself, and must be judged on its origin.

 

[grannymh]

Maybe it’s a Baptist thing but the whole idea of relating DNA to “soul worthiness” seems about as useful as arguing how many angels there are on a pinhead.