D
davidv
Guest
Base on this definition found in the article on “Soul” in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It is rational to conclude that a human is ensouled at conception.
- Status
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Of course.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You gave the impression that a parasitic twin poses a difficulty for the belief that the soul comes into existence at conception… When else?
S
StAnastasia
Guest
No, I said nothing about a parasitic twin posing a difficulty in that regard. The challenge confronting a medical ethicist would be in deciding whether it was morally legitimate to kill the parasitic twin in surgery, when it had become a cancerous tumor. That is an interesting question.
R
rinnie
Guest
The moment that the baby begins to be formed it is the beginning of LIFE. The soul is formed at that second, because Tradition tells us that.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Amusingly (and sinisterly) enough, in a discussion on abortion a non-believer/member of this forum recently stated that an unborn child is a parasite when it poses a threat to the mother’s life!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
That is sinister!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Do you mean blastocyst, or zygote, or embryo?
E
Ender
Guest
The principle of double effect would surely apply here and the Church does recognize the legitimacy of performing necessary operations that result in the unavoidable death of the embryo (fetus?). I imagine the situation you describe would fall in that category.
Ender
S
StAnastasia
Guest
This then leads to an intriguing conundrum: are we deliberately killing the one twin to save the life of the other?
R
rinnie
Guest
I have no idea. But I guess whatever comes first. But as soon as A meets B the creation of C begins. But the creation of a baby begins at some level. Thats the answer.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Up to fifty percent of humans enter eternity without ever having had a moral life, since they were spontaneously aborted very early in the pregnancy.
J
JDaniel
Guest
SA:Ender, you call to mind my students who ask, “Doctor, if this is not going to be on the test, why do we have to learn about it?”
I raise the question because teratology is part of embryology, and because if we are interested in whether life begins at conception, the question of the moral status of a teratoma inevitably arises. Is a teratoma a human person? Does it have a soul, or did it once have a soul? Ought it to be protected? Does the principle of double effect apply in the case of surgical removal of a teratoma?
This is a good question. I am not sure what the Church’s position is. I would think that it is not permissible to kill one ensouled person to save another, in the womb. Although, it would seem emotionally that we should.
God bless,
jd
E
Ender
Guest
Medically I have no idea what condition you are describing or what procedure is being done. To take an action that has a double effect there are four conditions that must be met and since I don’t know exactly what is being done I can’t speak to this action. One of the conditions, however, is that the action must be either good or morally neutral and the deliberate killing of one twin would not meet that test. That is distinguishable from a situation where one twin dies as a result of an action that was not intended to cause his death. It’s a fine point but an important distinction.
Ender
J
JDaniel
Guest
A teratoma is an encapsulated tumor. Why would it be a human? A parasitic twin is somewhat different, and would more than likely be ensouled.
God bless,
jd
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Sometimes the parasitic twin must be removed to ensure the survival of the normal twin. The other option is to let both twins die.
If the twin is older, sometimes the extra arms and legs are removed, as the parasitic twin has no head and cannot function in any way. This allows the surviving twin to have a more normal life.
StAnastasia
R
rinnie
Guest
I can agree with this. About 4 years ago I had what was called an Eptooic pregnancy. I am in my late 40’s so for the first 3 months or so I just figured Change of life. I am not a Dr person.
Well I was having great pain, but was having such bad horrible periods for a year before just got used to it I guess.
Well when I found out I was pregnant they scheuled a sonagram (sorry can’t spell it) and I was seconds from the tube bursting. I lost the baby on my way to surgery and was actually bleeding to death and could have died.
The Dr said the baby had no chance and he had to same me. I think of that baby everyday. I asked Father if I sinned? He said No, that until modern medicine could fix that there was nothing that could have been done.
BUt I know in my heart when I die, God will show me that child. I believe it exists and is a person. It is a void in my heart.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Rinnie, my heart goes out to you. I too have experienced the emotional pain of miscarriage, twice (although not your physical pain of an ectopic pregnancy).
I have taught medical ethics, among other things, and there are few more thorny ethical questions than those surrounding life and death. I’m working on an article right now on personhood in relation to (among other things) parasitic twinning. You might be interested in reading up on the case of Lakshmi Tatama. There are some people who still question whether it was morally right to amputate the arms and legs of her parasitic twin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Tatma
St.Anastasia
M
Mealane8
Guest
The example you gave as to why you have difficulty believing that life begins at conception does not in actuality fit the situation of life beginning at conception.
“For example, let’s say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain temperature for a set period of time.
Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it is still a recipe on a piece of pater?”
You are ignoring the reality of the fact that life does indeed begin at conception–
Science already (and has long) recognized that life begins at conception.
The life of the human being begins when the egg and sperm meet.
At that point, the DNA of the mother and father are brought together, and a unique set of DNA (which is not entirely of either parent, and may not resemble either parent in all too obvious ways) is formed.
The life has begun.
You said:
“Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes our of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it is still a recipe on a piece of pater?”
Well, to better examine your question:
God created the living human being which dwells inside of the pregnant woman (as an example for use in the above discussion; I am merely stating the [obvious fact] that God is our Creator). Therefore, the man and the woman (although they may be seen as causing the physical realization of their pregnancy, the child was not created by their actions.
God planned and indeed I believe created the child before he/she was implanted into the womb of his/her carrier (biological mother).
Even as the cake (in your example) may be taken out of the oven either a little sooner or a little later and still be considered a cake: it is the same with the child both within and without of the womb.
The child’s life (this unique human being) began when the egg and the sperm united.
Therefore, life begins at conception.
Thanks for taking your time to read this comment!
God bless!
M
Mealane8
Guest
Even as life begins at conception (and we know that the unborn child does in actuality have a soul), it is very reasonable to assume that the soul is a somehow recognizable part of the child at the point of conception.
Thanks for your time!
God bless!
- Status