Chimera Genetic Anomaly and infusion of Souls

[Ghosty]

Well, according to Thomistic theology and philosophy (which isn’t dogma, incidently, but which is generally considered the most complete in the Catholic Church) the body never contains the soul, but rather the soul contains the body. The body is anchored to the soul by definition of it being a human body, and therefore there would have to be a human soul if there was a human body. This is why when a person dies we refer to the body as a corpse and not as them, as the body has become “disconnected” from the still-existing soul. You are correct, though, that there’s no “rule” that God must creat a soul with every body, though it seems unnecessarily confusing to not do so, IMO.

Also, technically (philosophically) speaking, this isn’t supernatural, but completely natural. Supernatural refers to God in theological terms, because only God is “above” created nature. It’s a bit confusing because modern English uses the term supernatural for everything that can’t be measured by physical sciences, but to understand Catholic theological writings it’s best to understand how supernatural was originally used lest it lead to some serious confusion

God’s blessings to you!

 

[ribozyme]

What the Church (and honest science) does teach is that human life begins at conception. Ensoulment is a question about which the Church has never formally proposed an answer, to the best of my knowledge. The closest to a formal answer seems to be St. Thomas Aquinas’ proposition that ensoulment happens at 40 days for a male child and 80 days for a female (based largely on Aristotelian metaphysics, which seems flawed under more advanced scientific knowledge). That said, I believe the precise point of ensoulment remains an open question. (It should be noted, however, that I favor the ensoulment-at-fertilization hypothesis.)

Hmm… 40 days after birth or conception?

If it is after birth, then I don’t understand why people would disagree with Singer.

To me I see a human embryo not as a “person” using the Singer definition of person, but rather as an undifferentiated mass of cells. But let’s say that ensoulment happens 40 days after conception. Of course, if it is just a mass of cells, what makes it special if it does not have a soul? Why can’t we harvest embryos for stem cells if that is true.

I’m not a Catholic, or any sort of Christian, but if the embryo does have an immortal soul, I think it is wrong it kill it. But by that logic, I wonder if you still think embryonic stem cell research is wrong; you are not killing a being with an immortal soul after you harvest a recently fertilized embryo that did not get ensouled as it takes 40 days for it to happen.

So, I think the pro-life theists should believe that ensoulment begins at conception. If not, then there is nothing special about a human embryo as it has not been ensouled.

Also, another important question is where does ensoulment begin. If ensoulment does not happen at fertilization, but later on, such as 40 days. Would a frozen zygote in an in vitro fertilization clinic, which is not in the womb, would be ensouled?

But if ensoulment happens for each discrete fertilized egg, and only a discrete soul can exist in a human, then either the soul fuses, or one of the souls disappear. That’s the dilemma.

How is this dilemma avoided?

 

[corvidae]

I think this is one of the things that the Church believes Thomas was wrong on. The Church position is to defend life from conception to natural death.

Also, for ribozyme (sp?) it is after conception

A lone Raven

 

[ribozyme]

The soul isn’t “implanted” in the zygote at the moment of conception, is it? The soul is created by God and exists extra-physically, that is, supernaturally. I never thought it was contained in a physical entity, although it is supernaturally “anchored” or attached; the human person is necessarily whole, body and soul.

So how could two souls be “anchored” to one body. Alternatively, if two humans fuse, each with a discrete soul “anchored” to it, does one of the souls release its hold on te human to allow one discrete soul to be anchored to the body?

 

[Alterum]

So how could two souls be “anchored” to one body. Alternatively, if two humans fuse, each with a discrete soul “anchored” to it, does one of the souls release its hold on te human to allow one discrete soul to be anchored to the body?

I’ve already enumerated the reasonable opinions, as they appear to me. Two souls are never anchored to one body. Either the two souls are not created or one person dies. I can’t see another alternative.

The question of when “ensoulment” occurs is academic to this discussion because we’ll simply never know while on this earth. All human life must be highly valued and we must treat every zygote as though it is a human person, body and soul.

 

[Alterum]

The body is anchored to the soul by definition of it being a human body, and therefore there would have to be a human soul if there was a human body.

I wonder, though, what would happen if we could molecularly reconstruct a mature human body without any sort of fusion of egg and sperm? Would that creation be a human body or an empty shell, devoid of life? (I vote empty shell, at first glance; I don’t think it would function because it would have no soul, no will, no consciousness; it would be a *highly *complex biological computer and no one would mistake it, except aesthetically, for a human person.)

 

[Giennensis]

One child dies, is miscarried, in the fusion. That’s the simplest and most obvious answer, I think.

Peace and God bless!

I agree this is a fair answer. I can accept it perfectly. I don´t disagree, but let me propose you other alternative. A soul is the inner essence of a human. it´s just what makes us to be what we are. Our body is just the expression or what we are in this phisical world. Is the way our soul manifestates in the world. But a soul is not a closed thing. A soul starts its existence as almost nothing, and it developes, grows and expresses itseld better (and the better it expresses itselfs as ir developes, the more complete becomes its phisical expression).

But imagine two little souls, who still express themselves as a little ball of cells, just join and start developing together, as if they were one single being. They can grow, learning and sharing everything. Eventually, they would become fully developed souls, but together in a way they cannot be distinguished. They grew together and they expressed themselves in this world as a single body. They think together as if they were one, so they no longer can be distinguished. They just became like one soul. That person will think like a single person, just like you and me do, because the two original souls fused before they had any conscience of being individual beings. Tho human natures fused in a way they work like they were a single one, not being able to be separated again without destroying the person they became. Now they can´t exist separated. They became one.

Ok, I agree your explanation is more simple, but… mine is also possible. Anyway if you have anything to discuss about this, just tell me as soon as you find me in messenger

 

[Giennensis]

I wonder, though, what would happen if we could molecularly reconstruct a mature human body without any sort of fusion of egg and sperm? Would that creation be a human body or an empty shell, devoid of life? (I vote empty shell, at first glance; I don’t think it would function because it would have no soul, no will, no consciousness; it would be a *highly *complex biological computer and no one would mistake it, except aesthetically, for a human person.)

Well… Why wouldn´t it have a soul?

Yes, it would. Any living being has a soul, but that creature, though it would look like a human, wouldn´t be a full human. I´m not talking about a clone, that would be another story. But if you “build” a functioning mature human body (that would be a king of Frankenstein monster, wouldn´t it?) it woul have a soul as long as that body can live with autonomy (Scholastics defined soul as “automotion”), but it wouldn´t be a human soul. A human soul always express itself as a body with self conscience (though sometimes its phisical expression can be flawed and unable to express counciousness properly). Since you cannot build a soul, the result of that construct would be a non human living being, without a mind, because there´s no human soul present expressing itself.

Hum… well… I hope I could explain myself properly.

Ghosty, help here ^_^U