S
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
True. In the case of “vanishing twin syndrome,” one twin is absorbed by the mother or by the surviving twin. Theologically this should not threaten the status of the vanished twin any more than is threatened the status of the 20-50% of pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion.
True.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. Otherwise we fall into the trap of abortion…
T
tonyrey
Guest
It seems arbitary to postulate **viability **as an essential condition of being a person. It implies that chance is the determining factor rather than the love of the father and mother. A similar argument has been used to justify abortion…
T
tonyrey
Guest
It would be more accurate to state:
“Whether the twin disappears or not he or she has been procreated and exists”.
He or she is and always will be a person regardless of physical anomalies.
The Catholic Church has always upheld the sanctity of human life… and reverence for all life.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Tony, indeed, viability is a problematic issue, because what precisely the term means is a very difficult question. If we want to say that ensoulment does not take place at the moment of conception, but rather at the moment of implantation, that may leave out a lot of embryos from moral consideration. And whatever one thinks about the morality of in vitro fertilization, if conception takes place artificially in a dish it could be argued that ensouled embryos might be there for a number of days before they are implanted. If they are not ensouled at the moment that the sperm is injected into the egg, what exactly is their status?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Nil! All these problems arise because people are searching for reasons to restrict **spirituality **to individuals who satisfy certain **physical **factors. Yet God’s children are not determined by scientific criteria!
I learnt my lesson with the case of the mother and her anencephalic son who had a loving relationship… Mea culpa.
G
grannymh
Guest
May I respectfully ask –
What is this “vanishing twin syndrome” you are talking about? Please describe this twin’s anatomy.
Are you aware that one of the scientific descriptions for a cell mass (sometimes called a twin syndrome) is parasitism?
Do you understand the difference between a parasite and its host when it exists in the womb?
Do you realize that non-human parasites (sometimes called a vanishing twin) are **not **ensouled?
Why have you ignored post 397?
For those interested in this topic, may I suggest the information found in posts 338, 343, 367, 389, and 391. Pregnant women should read post 391.
G
grannymh
Guest
Please.
Is a lump (tumor) in a woman an individual human person?
A tumor is a tumor is a tumor. A tumor has a number of different names. May I respectfully refer you to correct information (including links) regarding tumors in the following posts 338, 343, 367, 389, and 391.
I sincerely suggest that you read post 391 in case anyone in your family is pregnant.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I have not ignored it and taken it into account but the issue is not as clearcut as you imply. There are least two main theories about the development of fetus in fetu. The significant one:
“Very early in a monozygotic twin pregnancy, in which both fetuses share a common placenta, one fetus wraps around and envelops the other. The enveloped twin becomes a parasite, in that its survival depends on the survival of its host twin, by drawing on the host twin’s blood supply.”
NB The enveloped twin was not a parasite at the outset and has been forced into that situation by the other twin. Who is the aggressor?
In cases of doubt we are never justified in denying the existence of a soul…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Granny, is it even remotely possible for you not to be so condescending in your replies to Tonyrey and others?
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are **assuming **the fetus in fetu is a tumour…
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Correct.
Correct, but I’m not sure that “aggressor” language is helpful, as neither fetus can reasonably be said to have volition or to be an aggressor against the other. I assume the death and reasbsorption of the “vanished” twin is simply an accident of gestatation.
True.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Obviously it is an unwitting aggressor but to label its twin as a parasite is unfair and gives a distorted impression when it has been literally deprived of its livelihood and eventually its life by its own kin. It did not start out as a parasite and that is not its real function. I used the term “aggressor” to rectify the balance!
(I’ve always wanted to support the underdog.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Tonyrey, I agree with your caution about employing terminology such as “parasite” and parasitic, as it seems to carry unavoidably negative connotations. However, the word seems often to used be merely descriptively:Obviously it is an unwitting aggressor but to label its twin as a parasite is unfair and gives a distorted impression when it has been literally deprived of its livelihood and eventually its life by its own kin. It did not start out as a parasite and that is not its real function. I used the term “aggressor” to rectify the balance!
(I’ve always wanted to support the underdog.
"Parasitic twins occur when a twin embryo begins developing in utero, but the pair does not fully separate, and one embryo maintains dominant development at the expense of the other. Unlike conjoined twins, one ceases development during gestation and is vestigial to a mostly fully formed, otherwise healthy individual twin. The undeveloped twin is defined as parasitic, rather than conjoined, because it is incompletely formed or wholly dependent on the body functions of the complete fetus. The independent twin is called the autosite.’ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin
Still, I think I would avoid the term “parasite” when discussing the twinning continuum, for the reason of not wishing to cast judgment.
StAnastasia
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m delighted we agree. It seems quite a rare event for me these days but that’s understandable.
My perverted sense of humour tells me that the parasite needs a parachute to escape but the autosite is in the driving seat…
G
grannymh
Guest
First of all, this thread is not addressing the issue of a monozygotic twin pregnancy.
If you will kindly check the research for “fetus in fetu” (linked in my previous posts)which is the proper term for when there is a parasite in a normal fetus, you will immediately see that it is not a monozygotic twin pregnancy.
What you may not find at the outset is what conceived the parasite. Obviously, the genetics of the parasite have to come from somewhere. This is common sense.
Catholic teaching regarding the spiritual soul assumes that the parents are human.
Of course, God’s children are not determined by scientific criteria. But God’s children are not conceived from parasites or from abnormal tissue growths which are separate from the procreators. Are they?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I so appreciate your sense of humor!My perverted sense of humour tells me that the parasite needs a parachute to escape but the autosite is in the driving seat…
Use of the term “parasite” is to distinguish between degrees of twin conjoining. There is a whole spectrum of this, ranging from very minor conjoining, to dicephalic parapagism (one body, two heads), to tetragametism. Lakshmi Tatama was said to have a parastiic twin, whose vesitigial legs and arms were surgically removed in 2007. I would prefer another term to “parasite,” but I think physicians used that term to distinguish her from more moderately conjoined twins.
StAnastasia
S
StAnastasia
Guest
For example, here is a devilishly difficult moral question about the potential sacrifice of one conjoined twin for another;
thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3878973/Twin-sacrifice-could-save-sis.html
I think it would be inaccurate to call either of them a parasite upon the other, even if one is slightly less robust than her sister.
StAnastasia
- Status