Does the human embryo have a soul?

[Marc_Anthony]

Continuing the discussion of whether ‘human’ embryos have a soul. I thought this discussion from the same Catholic website would be helpful in determining whether a cloned ‘human’ embryo would have an soul. (It also speaks of stem-cell research in the same manner):

**Some, while respecting this teaching of the Church, make further ethical observations about the early embryo. First, fertilization is a process that takes about 24 hours to complete and therefore is not a specific moment one can point to. As a side note, should a human be cloned, there would be no fertilization at all because the nucleus of one cell is placed into another cell that has its nucleus removed and is stimulated to begin cell division. The life of that individual would not begin at fertilization. **

Second, the whole development of an embryo into a fetus and eventually into a child is a process, not a series of sharply defined steps. This is important because it is really difficult to tell precisely where a fetus is in the process of development. One knows where the fetus is after the stage has been entered into. It is not easy to make precise developmental statements and then moral judgments made in relation to them.

But more specifically, many ethicists focus on the fact that up until about a week or so into the pregnancy, the fertilized egg has the capacity to divide and become identical twins. In some cases it has been observed that such divided eggs blend back together into one blastocyst (what the fertilized egg is called at around 4-5 days of development).

And if the egg is fertilized in vitro, one cell can be removed (to have its genetic structure analyzed) and the developmental process is not harmed. In fact, all the cells of the blastocyst can be separated and each has the capacity to become a whole human being. This point is clearly important biologically: These cells can become either a whole organism or be coaxed into becoming any specialized cell in the body.

But this is important philosophically also. Because the cells of the blastocyst can be divided so that each part can become a whole, the blastocyst lacks true individuality—the capacity not to be able to be divided.

If one were to divide me, you would wind up with two halves. If one divides the cells of the blastocyst, one obtains several cells all capable of becoming individuals. The reason why this is philosophically important is that if the organism is not first an individual, it is difficult to understand how it could be a person. Being an individual organism is a first necessary, though certainly not sufficient, stage for being a person.

On the basis of the argument that the blastocyst is not yet an individual, some would argue that while the blastocyst is a living organism, possessing the human genetic code, such an organism is indeed valuable, but its value is not yet that accorded to a person.

Therefore some would conclude that killing the human blastocyst is not murder because there is as yet no personal subject to experience that wrong. Such a killing is a disvalue, to be sure, but a disvalue that might be offset by other positive values, such as health. The conclusion that some would draw, then, is that at least a case can be made for the use of human embryos in stem-cell research.

americancatholic.org/newsletters/CU/ac0102.asp

So, frankly it is my opinion, that artificial creation of ‘human embryos’ would not be granted human souls by our Creator. **“Thou shall not tempt the LORD thy God”. **Essentially, science would be doing that. Science could take the human DNA from corpses, skin, or where ever, or they could combine human DNA with animals, or they could essentially create a Frankenstein, and thereby tempt our holy God into giving their distorted creations a soul.

God’s peace

micah

In fact that article is arguing that we can use embryonic stem cells for treatment. This is objectively, 100% against Church teaching. That article is heterodox.

 

[mercytruth]

Okay, I’m going to put this so bluntly it’s going to seem rude, so I want to make it clear now that I’m not intending to be, but:

Philosophically, that cloned humans have human souls is not an opinion. It is a fact.

If we accept the same metaphysics that the Church uses for literally every other discussion about human life then coming to the conclusion that a clone has a human soul is inescapable.

The Catholic church does not even teach when ensoulment of a naturally conceived human being occurs, let alone a cloned or genetically modified human:

**These claims are reflective of the traditional teaching recently restated, for example, in the Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, that the “human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized” (I, 1).

The Instruction is careful to note that the Church has not taken a philosophical position on the time of ensoulment. However, “From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way—” (Donum Vitae, Introduction).

While the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has left open the resolution of the actual time of ensoulment, it has in fact insisted that the prudent response would be to recognize that as a practical matter ensoulment is coincident with fertilization. This position, combined with the traditional respect-for-life position of the Church, is what propels its opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.**

americancatholic.org/news…/CU/ac0102.asp

More importantly, it would be imprudent to assume that a cloned or genetically modified human being is biologically feasible, or would come to full term. It is not an established fact that if such a human being was to come to full term whether God would grant such a being a human soul. These are conjectures and not established truths.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Catholic church does not even teach when ensoulment of a naturally conceived human being occurs, let alone a cloned or genetically modified human:

**These claims are reflective of the traditional teaching recently restated, for example, in the Instruction from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae, that the “human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized” (I, 1).

The Instruction is careful to note that the Church has not taken a philosophical position on the time of ensoulment.** However, “From the moment of conception, the life of every human being is to be respected in an absolute way—” (Donum Vitae, Introduction).

While the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has left open the resolution of the actual time of ensoulment, it has in fact insisted that the prudent response would be to recognize that as a practical matter ensoulment is coincident with fertilization. This position, combined with the traditional respect-for-life position of the Church, is what propels its opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

americancatholic.org/news…/CU/ac0102.asp

God’s peace

micah

The Church has not officially ruled. But logic has.

 

[levinas12]

… all the cells of the blastocyst can be separated and each has the capacity to become a whole human being …

Can you give me an authoritative cite for this - either from a biology textbook or a professional scientific journal?

 

[greylorn]

Does God give every human being a soul, and if so, when?

“Soul” cannot connect to a brain-body system until the brain has grown enough to provide an interface to it. The moment will vary according to the brain’s capabilities. It is not so much a specific “moment” as a gradual integration and acclimation.

I’d put the approximate time at about five to six months after conception, because that’s when my dance teacher’s mother noticed that her child was dancing in the womb.

We could get smart enough to recognize that the soul is not a mystical “spirit” that cannot be detected by scientific instrumentation, but a physical entity of a sort that we’ve not yet learned to identify by pointing an electronic meter at it, but genuinely physical nonetheless. This would be followed by more precise measurements of the “soul’s” state of connectivity.

 

[mercytruth]

Can you give me an authoritative cite for this - either from a biology textbook or a professional scientific journal?

I would like to, but I was quoting from a Catholic website, which seemed to understand something of the particulars of which you are interested. Maybe the website would be able to direct you to the biology or scientific source you are interested in.

These are important issues for myself, I would like to see a federal ban against all human cloning and genetic engineering of the human DNA. To allow science to insert human DNA into animals, such as goats, or visa versa is playing God and very sacreligious of the original life forms which He has created.

americancatholic.org/news…/CU/ac0102.asp

 

[mercytruth]

“Soul” cannot connect to a brain-body system until the brain has grown enough to provide an interface to it. The moment will vary according to the brain’s capabilities. It is not so much a specific “moment” as a gradual integration and acclimation.

I’d put the approximate time at about five to six months after conception, because that’s when my dance teacher’s mother noticed that her child was dancing in the womb.

We could get smart enough to recognize that the soul is not a mystical “spirit” that cannot be detected by scientific instrumentation, but a physical entity of a sort that we’ve not yet learned to identify by pointing an electronic meter at it, but genuinely physical nonetheless. This would be followed by more precise measurements of the “soul’s” state of connectivity.

Your comments are interesting. I think that the baby begins take breaths into its lungs at 5-6 months. There is one early church writer who says at the 6th month, the soul is imparted by God.

However, as you state, you do not think in that manner, rather you think of the soul as a physical entity that has not been identified. I think if we could understand the phenomena of heart transplant recipients often times receiving the ‘personality’ of the donor, we may understand something from that direction.

God’s peace to you anyway

micah

 

[kompaz]

The single-celled organisms that populated our planet billions of years ago did the same thing when they reproduced. None of them ever gave birth to species not of their own kind - because that’s physically impossible. Which means that inter-species evolution could not have happened.

No, it just means you do not understand how it works. Here is an oversimplified example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9702647#post9702647

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No, it just means you do not understand how it works. Here is an oversimplified example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9702647#post9702647

This is only slightly related, but that thread is nuts. All Bill Nye did was say, “Yeah, evolution is a fact”. I saw NOTHING that even remotely indicated either a belief or a lack of a belief in God, even Christianity. What on Earth was up with people’s reactions? Weird.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I think if we could understand the phenomena of heart transplant recipients often times receiving the ‘personality’ of the donor, we may understand something from that direction.

Oftentimes? I think the better phrase to use there is “on extremely rare occasions gain a few personality traits of the donor”, not “oftentimes”. (And now the grammatical structure of the sentence has thrown me all off! )

 

[mercytruth]

Oftentimes? I think the better phrase to use there is “on extremely rare occasions gain a few personality traits of the donor”, not “oftentimes”. (And now the grammatical structure of the sentence has thrown me all off! )

I do not know if we have any concrete data as to the number of heart translplants that take place in any given time period. Nevertheless, I **should not have **used the words often times. Sometimes, would have been more accurate, and I stand corrected.

Yes, my sentence structure can be hurried, and hence, confusing at times.

I think that when looking at the viability of the human embryo, or fetus one should possibly look at three factors, and not necessarily in this order. Brain activity, breathing and heart rate.

These are the three factors that are taken into account when determining the decease of an individual, and presumably, the departure of the soul from the body.

So too, maybe we should look at these three factors as possible developmental indicators for the time of ensoulment.

The human being is sacred, and the creation of our holy God, and frankly I am opposed to science infringing on the sacred and sovereign domain of God Almighty. I am opposed to science manipulating the DNA structures in order to duplicate, or change the original forms of life that are the creation of our holy God.

Once we allow science the freedom to infringe on the natural order of God’s creation there is no end to what may be justified in the future. Eventually, science will become god over life and death, and as a result, will be tempting the Lord our God to intervene one way or another.

God’s peace

micah

 

[Viki63]

Aristotle says that the soul is the form of the living body. The soul is the starting-point for living.

It is my opinion that the soul is the template for the body, which can be translated into another media besides a carbon-based one if God chooses. That is what the Bible means when it talks about being changed, and being able to live eternally. It has to do with string theory and other stuff which is way above my pay grade, but is very exciting.

 

[Bill_7154]

Yes, I believe that the embryo has a soul. I could be mistaken on this but it is my belief that God bestows a sould on each and every human life and assume that he does so the moment that said life is created. I could be wrong, as I often am, but that is my belief at this time.

 

[AdamP88]

I think that when looking at the viability of the human embryo, or fetus one should possibly look at three factors, and not necessarily in this order. Brain activity, breathing and heart rate.

These are the three factors that are taken into account when determining the decease of an individual, and presumably, the departure of the soul from the body.

So too, maybe we should look at these three factors as possible developmental indicators for the time of ensoulment.

This sounds similar to the reasoning used by pro-abortion advocates who say that the unborn child is not a person, therefore it’s ok to kill it.

The Church has always used what is observable by science as the reference for when a soul is imparted. St. Thomas Aquinas believed it was when the child could first be felt in it’s mother’s womb. This made sense as this was the only thing observable at the time.

The Church now states that the soul is imparted at conception.

Conception is the creation of a new human life. Circumstances of the conception are irrelevant and a cloned human would not be sub-human.

When we start calling people sub-human we create a new set of humans…ones who are the same as us but lower in status. Servants, slaves, organ donors, things to be harvested. Non-Humans.

That is where that reasoning leads.

 

[greylorn]

Your comments are interesting. I think that the baby begins take breaths into its lungs at 5-6 months. There is one early church writer who says at the 6th month, the soul is imparted by God.

However, as you state, you do not think in that manner, rather you think of the soul as a physical entity that has not been identified. I think if we could understand the phenomena of heart transplant recipients often times receiving the ‘personality’ of the donor, we may understand something from that direction.

God’s peace to you anyway

micah

To my best understanding, the fetus cannot draw breath until there is air for it to breathe, which happens after birth. I suspect that the physiology involved in handling a switchover from living in fluid to suddenly, and effectively living in a gaseous medium, is mind-boggling.

Curiously, decades ago I wrote an unpublished short story, “Have a Heart,” which explored the notion of a donor’s personality coming along with the transplant. I’d no idea that any evidence for this has been found, and would appreciate a reference.

My story’s theory proposed a specific connection between donor and recipient, so if there is evidence for a more generalized connection I’d like to know, so that I can improve my theories to match the fact.

Thank you!

 

[mercytruth]

This sounds similar to the reasoning used by pro-abortion advocates who say that the unborn child is not a person, therefore it’s ok to kill it.

The Church has always used what is observable by science as the reference for when a soul is imparted. St. Thomas Aquinas believed it was when the child could first be felt in it’s mother’s womb. This made sense as this was the only thing observable at the time.

The Church now states that the soul is imparted at conception.

Conception is the creation of a new human life. Circumstances of the conception are irrelevant and a cloned human would not be sub-human.

When we start calling people sub-human we create a new set of humans…ones who are the same as us but lower in status. Servants, slaves, organ donors, things to be harvested. Non-Humans.

That is where that reasoning leads.

We need to stand up for the sanctity of human life from conception, we need to stand up for the sanctitiy and holiness of our Creator. We need to stand up for the truth. We do not represent the truth by assuming that ensoulment begins at conception. We need to represent our faith, but not at the cost of being untruthful.

shalom

micah

 

[mercytruth]

To my best understanding, the fetus cannot draw breath until there is air for it to breathe, which happens after birth. I suspect that the physiology involved in handling a switchover from living in fluid to suddenly, and effectively living in a gaseous medium, is mind-boggling.

Curiously, decades ago I wrote an unpublished short story, “Have a Heart,” which explored the notion of a donor’s personality coming along with the transplant. I’d no idea that any evidence for this has been found, and would appreciate a reference.

My story’s theory proposed a specific connection between donor and recipient, so if there is evidence for a more generalized connection I’d like to know, so that I can improve my theories to match the fact.

Thank you!

There are many sites which speak of this, some with detailed accounts of dramatic personality changes to the recipient. Here is one site discussing the philosophic aspects of this phenomenon:

scienceray.com/philosophy-of-science/a-medical-mystery-transferred-organ-donor-consciousness/

As far as breathing is concerned, the not so grown baby begins to breathe into his/her developed lungs (amniotic fluid) at about 5 months or so.

Your interests in these matters is what makes you who you are, and hopefully there is a divine purpose in your pursuit of these theories.

God’s peace

micah

 

[catholicmamajoy]

To my best understanding, the fetus cannot draw breath until there is air for it to breathe, which happens after birth. I suspect that the physiology involved in handling a switchover from living in fluid to suddenly, and effectively living in a gaseous medium, is mind-boggling.

Curiously, decades ago I wrote an unpublished short story, “Have a Heart,” which explored the notion of a donor’s personality coming along with the transplant. I’d no idea that any evidence for this has been found, and would appreciate a reference.

My story’s theory proposed a specific connection between donor and recipient, so if there is evidence for a more generalized connection I’d like to know, so that I can improve my theories to match the fact.

Thank you!

As far as actual “breathing” as we know it, defined as the inhalation and exhalation of air, you are correct that this does not occur until the first breath drawn outside the womb. However, as shown by ultrasound and specifically measured in biophysical profiles ( BPP), the unborn baby does have rhythmic lung movement that is still referred to as “breathing”, although it’s not air, but amniotic fluid that is exchanged. (The BPP measure the baby’s heart rate, muscle tone, movement, breathing, and the amount of amniotic fluid around baby and is usually done with high risk pregnancies in the third trimester to assess fetal well-being).

 

[jmcrae]

“Soul” cannot connect to a brain-body system until the brain has grown enough to provide an interface to it. The moment will vary according to the brain’s capabilities. It is not so much a specific “moment” as a gradual integration and acclimation.

I’d put the approximate time at about five to six months after conception, because that’s when my dance teacher’s mother noticed that her child was dancing in the womb.

We could get smart enough to recognize that the soul is not a mystical “spirit” that cannot be detected by scientific instrumentation, but a physical entity of a sort that we’ve not yet learned to identify by pointing an electronic meter at it, but genuinely physical nonetheless. This would be followed by more precise measurements of the “soul’s” state of connectivity.

I think you might be confusing the soul with the mind. The soul is what causes us to be alive. The mind is what allows us to perceive that we are alive. They are two different things. A person can lose consciousness, but remain alive - most of us do this every night when we go to bed.

We notice that the person is alive from the moment of conception - but it’s also true that we don’t notice evidence of a thinking mind until about 4-5 months after conception.

 

[jmcrae]

No, it just means you do not understand how it works. Here is an oversimplified example:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9702647#post9702647

Okay. Now explain why this no longer happens today. If evolution happened in the past, wouldn’t it continue to be happening today?

And yet, we don’t see it happening - all we see is (8A) meeting (6A+2B), and generating more 8A offspring, or maybe a couple with one or two “B”, but certainly never getting up to (8*B) in however many generations - flies today are still flies, even though they’ve been “evolving” 7300 times faster than human beings since the time of Adam.