Does life begins at conception?

[tonyrey]

I haven’t seen the book Human Embryology and Teratology. I’ve always wondered whether human teratomas, particularly cancerous tumors, have souls.

It seems very unlikely that malignant teratomas have souls because cannot be due to benevolent Design. Even benign teratomas are abnormalities…

 

[Ender]

I haven’t seen the book Human Embryology and Teratology. I’ve always wondered whether human teratomas, particularly cancerous tumors, have souls.

Why don’t you start a thread and raise that issue? In the mean time, for this thread, the question is about neither tumors nor souls but whether life begins at conception and the scientific response is unequivocal: yes, that is when life begins. Surely you don’t doubt this fact?

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

It seems very unlikely that malignant teratomas have souls because cannot be due to benevolent Design. Even benign teratomas are abnormalities…

Except that some teratomas are parasitic twins, so if souls are infused at conception these tumors have souls. The interesting question is whether surgery to remove such tumors counts as murder of a human being.

 

[StAnastasia]

That depends. If a sperm and an egg cell are alive, then life begins before conception.

 

[JDaniel]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

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 termperature 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 still a recipe on a piece of paper?

Sd:

Perhaps not a good analogy. In answer to your question: there is, actually, life before conception. The gametes are alive. Not a human being yet, but, alive. But, that was not your question.

The Church views conception as the precise elemental meeting of Primary Matter and Form, the Efficient Cause being God, producing a new human being. God does not work in vain. IMHO, all of these things are but the continuing parts of His ongoing Act of Creation.

God bless,
jd

 

[Ender]

That depends. If a sperm and an egg cell are alive, then life begins before conception.

All of the cells in our body are (or were) alive but, again, that’s not the issue and playing word games is not really a useful approach. The science is settled; I’m surprised you don’t just accept that point and move on. New life begins at the moment of conception; this is the what the science of embryology teaches. Do you accept or reject this position and how many more embryology textbooks do you need to hear it from?

*This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or *primordium, of a human being." (Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2)

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

All of the cells in our body are (or were) alive but, again, that’s not the issue and playing word games is not really a useful approach.

I’m not playing word games; I’m merely discussing the original poster’s question.

The science is settled; I’m surprised you don’t just accept that point and move on.

What is settled? That the gametes were alive before conception?

New life begins at the moment of conception; this is the what the science of embryology teaches. Do you accept or reject this position and how many more embryology textbooks do you need to hear it from?

I don’t need textbooks, but I am interested in the question of whether every episode of conception yields an ensouled human being. The question of whether or not a cancerous tumor is also an ensouled human being seems to lie outside the scope of embryology textbooks.

StAnastasia

 

[Ender]

What is settled? That the gametes were alive before conception?

Again, there is no question about whether the gametes were living cells; obviously they were or conception could not have occurred. There is also no question, however, about gametes being individual living entities; they are not, they are simply constituent parts of an existing life. New life is created at conception, not merely when new skin cells - or cancerous ones - are grown.

I don’t need textbooks, but I am interested in the question of whether every episode of conception yields an ensouled human being. The question of whether or not a cancerous tumor is also an ensouled human being seems to lie outside the scope of embryology textbooks.

The creation of life is a scientific question; the creation of a soul is a religious one. It is the former that is the topic of the thread - and I really have a hard time believing you seriously question whether tumors are ensouled humans.

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

The creation of life is a scientific question; the creation of a soul is a religious one. It is the former that is the topic of the thread - and I really have a hard time believing you seriously question whether tumors are ensouled humans.

You question whether tumors are ensouled humans – why?

I think there is good reason to doubt that tumors are ensouled humans, but if we argue that human life begins at the moment of conception, and if some ensouled twins don’t develop into embryos after conception but rather into encysted parasitic twins that become cancerous tumors, the question remains whether that tumor still has a soul, whether it should be regarded as a person, and possibly even whether it should be baptized immediately following surgical removal.

StAnastasia

 

[fhansen]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

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 termperature 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 still a recipe on a piece of paper?

The main problem is that there is logically no other point in time before which one could say, OK, now it’s not murder, and after which, now it is.

 

[Ender]

… if we argue that human life begins at the moment of conception…

I don’t argue this, I present it as scientific fact. It is a piece of information provided in probably every embryology textbook that I see no reason not to accept.

… if some ensouled twins don’t develop into embryos after conception but rather into encysted parasitic twins that become cancerous tumors, the question remains whether that tumor still has a soul, whether it should be regarded as a person

I know nothing about the medical condition you describe but I do wonder why you raise the issue. Whatever an encysted parasitic twin is it doesn’t change the nature of a normal embryo, which, from the moment of conception, is a new human life.

Ender

 

[StAnastasia]

I know nothing about the medical condition you describe but I do wonder why you raise the issue. Whatever an encysted parasitic twin is it doesn’t change the nature of a normal embryo, which, from the moment of conception, is a new human life.

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?

These are urgent questions to anyone with an interest in personhood, embryology, the soul, philosophy, theology or science.

StAnastasia

 

[Ender]

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 have never heard this concern expressed before and was simply trying to understand if you were raising a serious issue.

Is a teratoma a human person? Does it have a soul, or did it once have a soul?

I doubt whether the Church has taken a position one way or the other, nor are they likely to until the science is clear - and perhaps not even then. In the middle ages, an abortion after quickening was considered to be murder but an abortion before then was not. The Church still considered it a grave sin but, because she didn’t know what an embryo was, she couldn’t define it as a human being.

Ender

 

[tonyrey]

Except that some teratomas are parasitic twins, so if souls are infused at conception these tumors have souls. The interesting question is whether surgery to remove such tumors counts as murder of a human being.

There are bound to be abnormalities which do not fit into a neat and tidy scheme of things. If the result of conception is a grossly deformed creature unrecognisable as a human being we may well be tempted to deny has a soul. At one time I thought an anencephalic child is not a person and was reprimanded by a mother who had a loving relationship with her son. I have learnt my lesson. It takes all sorts to make a world. Who are we to make such decisions on behalf of others?

 

[StAnastasia]

There are bound to be abnormalities which do not fit into a neat and tidy scheme of things. If the result of conception is a grossly deformed creature unrecognisable as a human being we may well be tempted to deny has a soul. At one time I thought an anencephalic child is not a person and was reprimanded by a mother who had a loving relationship with her son. I have learnt my lesson. It takes all sorts to make a world. Who are we to make such decisions on behalf of others?

Who are we? Well, if twins are ensouled persons from the moment of conception, and if “we” are the surgeon tasked with surgically excising a parastic twin, thereby killing it, then “we” are making a decision about the life and death of a person.

 

[rinnie]

I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things.

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 termperature 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 still a recipe on a piece of paper?

The Blessed Mother was saved for Original Sin at the MOMENT of her conception. That means that life begins at that second. If a soul can be saved, a soul exists!!

 

[tonyrey]

Who are we? Well, if twins are ensouled persons from the moment of conception, and if “we” are the surgeon tasked with surgically excising a parastic twin, thereby killing it, then “we” are making a decision about the life and death of a person.

That type of decision is not unique. It sometimes has to be made with regard to the life of a mother or her child or in cases of multiple births.

 

[edwest2]

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?

These are urgent questions to anyone with an interest in personhood, embryology, the soul, philosophy, theology or science.

StAnastasia

This is not an urgent question. A teratoma is not a person. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StAnastasia]

This is not an urgent question. A teratoma is not a person. Everyone reading this began life as a human embryo.God bless,Ed

If it was ensouled at conception it was/is a person.

 

[StAnastasia]

That type of decision is not unique. It sometimes has to be made with regard to the life of a mother or her child or in cases of multiple births.

Of course it’s not unique.