Finally, abortion

[Samuel_Monosov]

Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?

 

[cjmclark]

Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?

There are a couple of ways to approach this.

The religious aspect is that we believe that the soul enters the body (even as small as a single cell) at the moment of conception.

Scientifically speaking, that cell has DNA that is separate and distinct from the mother’s (as it is a combination of her DNA and the father’s)…so though it has to grow inside her body before it can survive on the outside, it is not a part of her body.

Metaphysics is not my strong suit, so I’ll let someone else field that.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

The religious aspect is that we believe that the soul enters the body (even as small as a single cell) at the moment of conception.

This makes sense. I see how, by this argument, a single cell could be a person.

Scientifically speaking, that cell has DNA that is separate and distinct from the mother’s (as it is a combination of her DNA and the father’s)…

This also makes sense. But why must this cell be a person? Mutated cells are not people, but they have DNA that is separate and distinct from the person.

 

[cjmclark]

This makes sense. I see how, by this argument, a single cell could be a person.

This also makes sense. But why must this cell be a person? Mutated cells are not people, but they have DNA that is separate and distinct from the person.

Because this cell is programmed with all the information it needs to become a functioning human. And if it’s not interrupted, it will become a functioning human.

Mutated cells’ DNA are separate and distinct inasmuch as something has put them from their original purpose, but they were still originally part of the body and remain so, just with a different function. Think of cancer…that’s a bunch of cells who are still whatever kind of cell they started out as, but they’re reproducing in an out-of-control fashion. And those cells will never become a different human.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Because this cell is programmed with all the information it needs to become a functioning human.

So are sperm and egg; it is just that the information is further apart. Aren’t many cells programed with information necessary to become a functioning human, say via cloning?

My conceptual hang-up is why original DNA and information necessary to become a human being makes the cell already a human person. Doesn’t it just make the cell a potential human person? Doesn’t the advent of cloning make our skin cells potential human people, too?

 

[cjmclark]

So are sperm and egg; it is just that the information is further apart. Aren’t many cells programed with information necessary to become a functioning human, say via cloning?

My conceptual hang-up is why original DNA and information necessary to become a human being makes the cell already a human person. Doesn’t it just make the cell a potential human person? Doesn’t the advent of cloning make our skin cells potential human people, too?

I think you may have responded before I edited my post to include the following - “And if it’s not interrupted, it will become a functioning human.” That’s why individual sperm and egg cells need not apply…neither of them can become a functioning human on their own.

As far as cloning, this is generally accomplished by altering the DNA of an ovum using DNA found in other cells. It is this altered ovum (now meeting the criteria of separate DNA and ultimate humanity) that is now a person, not the skin cell (or other cell) from which the DNA was extracted.

The point is that if the cell is allowed to follow the course of nature and develop, it will be a functioning human. Even absent the question of a soul, it seems wrong (to me at least) to deny it that chance of becoming.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?

Why do you think trillions of trillions of cells in your body are a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science? What are your arguments for it?

After all, if one cell cannot be a person, why joining trillions of them can be a person? And when does it start to be a person? For instance 555 526 687 cells are not a person but 555 526 688 cells then are a person. This is no joke: there must be a moment when a person is a person. Is it one more cell, one less cell? What is it?

Look: I am not answering up to now, just putting the question into perspective.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Why do you think trillions of trillions of cells in your body are a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science? What are your arguments for it?

My own opinion, though there is much ignorance and uncertainty about the details.

It’s the emerging properties from all of these cells. Empirically? Brian-waves is the big thing. I’ve never met a person without them.

But what is a person and what isn’t connects to metaphysics as well. It’s not very religious for me, since I’m not very religious.

If a single cell has brain-waves, then maybe that cell is a person… but then maybe cells are people without brain-waves, if there are examples of single cells writing music or contemplating metaphysics questions like this one.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

I think you may have responded before I edited my post to include the following - “And if it’s not interrupted, it will become a functioning human.” That’s why individual sperm and egg cells need not apply…neither of them can become a functioning human on their own.

So once it exits the body it is no longer a person?

As far as cloning, this is generally accomplished by altering the DNA of an ovum using DNA found in other cells. It is this altered ovum (now meeting the criteria of separate DNA and ultimate humanity) that is now a person, not the skin cell (or other cell) from which the DNA was extracted.

But the DNA for that ovum may not be unique anymore. If unique DNA determines whether there’s a person, and if I could make a perfect copy of me, which one of them is really a person? Or are both me and the other really one person?

 

[cjmclark]

So once it exits the body it is no longer a person?

Not sure what you’re getting at here.

But the DNA for that ovum may not be unique anymore. If unique DNA determines whether there’s a person, and if I could make a perfect copy of me, which one of them is really a person? Or are both me and the other really one person?

Identical twins share the same DNA. Are they both people?

What makes it a person (not just an extra appendage of the mother’s body) is the separate DNA and the fact that, if left to its own devices, it will naturally grow into a functioning human. I suppose you could raise the somewhat bizarre and ultimately narcissistic notion of a woman being implanted with her own clone, in which case the DNA would be identical, but it’s the part where it will become a functioning human if nature takes its course that is really important.

 

[Bezant]

Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?

I haven’t a clue about what the concept of “personhood” is supposed to mean, let alone what follows from that concept. What’s certain is that it’s a ‘people’ concept–maybe the concept is based on biology, chemistry., etc., but it’s people deciding what information and ideas are relevant to what makes a “person.”

As I see it, a cell (embryo) is human life, and yet, it’s not really human. Would exactly I consider deliberately destroying an embryo murder? No, but I would consider it very reprehensible.

 

[JRKH]

My own opinion, though there is much ignorance and uncertainty about the details.

It’s the emerging properties from all of these cells. Empirically? Brian-waves is the big thing. I’ve never met a person without them.

But what is a person and what isn’t connects to metaphysics as well. It’s not very religious for me, since I’m not very religious.

If a single cell has brain-waves, then maybe that cell is a person… but then maybe cells are people without brain-waves, if there are examples of single cells writing music or contemplating metaphysics questions like this one.

Brain waves is one way that medical science uses to determine whether someone is alive, this is true. However they do not use brainwaves to determine if the object they are looking at is a person.

From the standpoint of whether something is a human - a person - as opposed to some other species, science uses DNA which is unique to each species. The complete and uniquely human DNA is present at the point of conception.

Everything after conception constitutes the growth and development of that uniquely human person. Nothing is added, except nutrients necessary to keep it alive and growing, nothing subtracted except waste products and this process continues from conception until natural death. Yet from the point of conception to the point of natural death, it is the DNA that remains constant.

Regardless of the religious aspects of the argument (the soul), the simple, indisputable, scientific fact is that from the point of conception on - one cell or billions - what it is that is growing is a living and functioning (appropriate to it’s age) human being.
Abortion kills a living human being, and, I might add, this includes abortificant drugs or IUD’s that prevent the “single cell” person from taking hold in it’s home, the uterine wall.

On a side note, I appreciate the very charitable tone being engendered by all in this thread.

Peace
James

 

[NeedImprovement]

Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception
; by Randy Alcom - green highlights mine

Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception ; by Randy Alcom; Excerpt:

Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongiovanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception… I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life…

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive… It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception… Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.” …

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm, it becomes a separate organism…a human being. Sperm cells only contain partial DNA as do egg cells.

We can debate “personhood” all day. Any criteria of “personhood” tends to be arbitrary, looking at what the organism can “do” or what properties the organism “has”

It is a human. So what if it’s smaller, and less developed. It is still human.

 

[Alindawyl]

Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm, it becomes a separate organism…a human being. Sperm cells only contain partial DNA as do egg cells.

We can debate “personhood” all day. Any criteria of “personhood” tends to be arbitrary, looking at what the organism can “do” or what properties the organism “has”

It is a human. So what if it’s smaller, and less developed. It is still human.

Exactly. And if you notice how encyclicals such as Evangelium Vitae are worded, there is no definitive teaching on precisely when a human life is considered a person. We know that a human person is the unity of a human body and a rational soul, but exactly when that soul is created by God is a question mark. Does ensoulment take place immediately at conception? At some point between conception and implantation? At the beginning of heart or brain activity? Unknown.

But what is undeniable is that it’s a distinct human life, regardless of how long a delay there might be between conception of that life and ensoulment. Therefore, we must treat that life with respect and dignity even if it’s not a person yet because it’s still a distinct human life. If left to its own devices, without any interference (either directly by us or indirectly by something like a genetic error), it will eventually become a person if it is not already one at the moment of conception. To halt that development by any sort of action on our part, such as abortion or hormonal contraception, is unconscionable. We MUST err on the side of life. Even though we don’t know exactly when that human life becomes a person, what we do know is that from the moment of conception it’s undeniably human life.

Arguing over personhood is, as you say, rather arbitrary for many and completely beside the point. What’s important is respecting all human LIFE, from conception to natural death.

 

[Cristiano]

Why do you think a single cell can be a person? Do you think it’s a person? Is this a religious conclusion, something in metaphysics, or do you think this is based on science?

What are your arguments for it?

Science cannot define personhood, personhood is a metaphysical definition. Science can tell you if something is human (e.g. through DNA) and if it is a being, as in alive. Science does not and cannot cover the whole realm of reality.

 

[DexUK]

A sperm is a sperm.

And egg is an egg.

Both are products of two individual bodies and are not in and of themselves alive. They derive their capabilities from the body which manufactured them.

When you combine a sperm and an egg together in the appropriate way, the product is an entity that has its own independent capabilities which are dependent only on nourishment and shelter, in the same way that all of us are.

Those capabilities start off as simple cell division but look at an egg and a sperm individually. They can’t do cell division, which is a key identifier of what we call life. They are made and then they degrade and disintegrate. A zygote or a fertilised ovum does not degrade, it grows. It only needs food. And since it only needs food, it is therefore independently alive.

Some people may argue that a baby isn’t a baby until it implants. But that’s to miss the point that the baby ITSELF is contained within the fertilised egg which carries with it sufficient nutrient material for the baby to survive until implantation.

From the moment of fertilisation of the egg by a sperm, which is the moment when the two individual strands of DNA become merged in a unique way to create a biologically distinct entity, we have a brand new human. And if we disapprove of killing humans after birth then we should, by virtue of our own natural reason alone, disapprove of killing them beforehand. There is not and cannot be any two ways about this, unless that is if you wish to be the perfect hypocrite.

 

[jilly4ski]

A sperm is a sperm.

And egg is an egg.

Both are products of two individual bodies and are not in and of themselves alive. They derive their capabilities from the body which manufactured them.

When you combine a sperm and an egg together in the appropriate way, the product is an entity that has its own independent capabilities which are dependent only on nourishment and shelter, in the same way that all of us are.

Those capabilities start off as simple cell division but look at an egg and a sperm individually. They can’t do cell division, which is a key identifier of what we call life. They are made and then they degrade and disintegrate. A zygote or a fertilised ovum does not degrade, it grows. It only needs food. And since it only needs food, it is therefore independently alive.

Some people may argue that a baby isn’t a baby until it implants. But that’s to miss the point that the baby ITSELF is contained within the fertilised egg which carries with it sufficient nutrient material for the baby to survive until implantation.

From the moment of fertilisation of the egg by a sperm, which is the moment when the two individual strands of DNA become merged in a unique way to create a biologically distinct entity, we have a brand new human. And if we disapprove of killing humans after birth then we should, by virtue of our own natural reason alone, disapprove of killing them beforehand. There is not and cannot be any two ways about this, unless that is if you wish to be the perfect hypocrite.

I was going to say, the one cell argument is a strawman. The zygote only remains one cell for ~12hours after fertilization, it then divides and is 2 celled organism of the human species. It then doubles its cell count every 12 hours, by 5 days old it is 500 cells and doesn’t implant until 5 to7 days after fertilization.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

I was going to say, the one cell argument is a strawman. The zygote only remains one cell for ~12hours after fertilization, it then divides and is 2 celled organism of the human species. It then doubles its cell count every 12 hours, by 5 days old it is 500 cells and doesn’t implant until 5 to7 days after fertilization.

I agree. Definite straw-man.

I just think that, since this is really a straw-man, it’s best for Catholics to give it up, and only concentrate on the meat of the issue.

I think the single-cell thing distracts. Catholics should stop defending it.

Because it’s not a straw-man if you believe it and proclaim it. Then it’s just a very easy way to tear your position apart.

 

[nickybr38]

I will share my very simple view of this…

Any other cell, left alone, does not, with time, become a baby. A fertilized egg is a very special thing because if left alone it becomes a fully viable human being.

You cannot say this about any other cell in the human body. Sperm does not become a child if left alone. Eggs do not become babies on their own if left alone. Your eyeball does not spontaneously grow legs…

A fertilized egg is the only ‘cell’ in your body that will become something more then just a cell. Therefore, I believe life begins right at conception and we have no right to end that life just because it’s a cell…