Help Defining a Person

[Rosalinda]

Voco Pro Tatiano,
I have every respect and admiration for farmers: my grandfather was one. Now to address your concern about the twinning of embryos. Much has been written which is too speculative and erudite for my taste or understanding. This article, however, written by Patrick Lee, a professor at the Fransican University of Steubenville, and Robert P. George who is the McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton is very clear. The First Fourteen Days of Human Life appeared in the New Atlantis, a journal of technology and society.

[sign]Viewed biologically, the occurrence of monozygotic twinning and the possibility of fusion fail to show that in the first fourteen days the cells within the embryo constituted only an incidental mass. Just as the division of a single, whole flatworm into two whole flatworms does not show that prior to that division the flatworm was not a unitary individual, just so with the human embryo that twins. Parts of a flatworm have the potential to become a whole flatworm when isolated from the present whole of which they are part. Likewise, at the early stages of an embryo’s development, the degree of cellular specialization has not progressed very far (even if the process of orderly cellular activity is underway from the beginning), which means the embryo’s cells or groups of cells can become whole organisms if they are divided and have an appropriate environment after the division. But that does not show that prior to such an extrinsic division the embryo is a mere mass of cells rather than a single, complex, actively developing human organism.[/sign]
thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/leegeorge.htm

 

[Rosalinda]

More on ensoulment by bio-ethicist, Rev. Joseph Howard:

[sign]

**The Magisterium is very clear: from the moment the zygote is formed, there must be unconditional respect that is morally due the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. Rational logic and deduction verify to us the effects of the vegetative operations of the soul which are demonstrable in the human zygote: mitotic cleavage, protein synthesis, DNA synthesis, etc. **
**From a philosophical perspective, it is clear that the human zygote possesses potentiality and actuality. Potency is always in reference to that which is in act or a state of actuality. Potency does not exist without actuality which implies being. The effects which are observed lead us to the realization of the presence of the cause: a human soul. **By observance of the effects of the vegetative operations of the soul, it is known that the human zygote is “ensouled” which is the basis for the establishment for human personhood which is present. How can that which possesses a human soul be anything other than a human being, a human person, a human individual?[/sign]

I underlined “it is clear that the human zygote possesses potentiality and actuality” because it is a very serious error to state that the “embryo has the potential to become a human being.” The person is already in existence.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=518150&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2007&Author=&Keyword=ensoulment&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Rosalinda]

Originally stated by Voco Pro Tatiano in post 32:

I would define the beginning of the individual as when the central nervous system begins to take control of the developing body. It is believed that this is the beginning of conciousaness.

And just when would that be?

Medical sources state that as early as 8 weeks brain waves can be detected. Here is the photo of an embryonic child at this age.
priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig16baby8.jpg

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally stated by Voco Pro Tatiano in post 32:

And just when would that be?

Medical sources state that as early as 8 weeks brain waves can be detected. Here is the photo of an embryonic child at this age.
priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/fig16baby8.jpg

Hi Rosalinda,
I would consider that the individual be well formed by this time. BTW ‘individual’ shares its roots with ‘indivisible’.
Indivisibility starts some time after the 14th day, and clearly the CNS is well formed by the 56th day.
I do not think that there is an instant in time when you can say; ‘The individual is here just now.’
I think it is more like the formation of a star: When do you say its begiining is?
When first the interstellar gases become unstable and begin to move under gravity rather than molecular repulsion?
When a definite body of dense gas has formed?
When a critical mass is accreted?
When the nuclear fire is ignited?
When it is first seen?

I can agree to a six week window, maybe someone can get this a bit closer. You might find this a bit fuzzy compared with what you think is an instantaneous occurrence, i.e. conception, but actually, conception is not instantaneous. Yes it is accomplished in seconds rather than weeks, but still it too is a little fuzzy.

It has been suggested that indivisibility may occur some time after 14 days, and clearly, the CNS is well developed by 56.

 

[ribozyme]

“In liberal democracy’s personhood tradition rights are for persons, not humans, and not all humans are persons nor are all persons necessarily human.”

This could have been posted at the entrance to Auschwitz, as a justification for what was happening there.

If not all humans are persons, some person can be killed. The government will decide who qualifies.

You have to remember that Nazi Germany wasn’t a “liberal democracy.” Yes, I agree Adolf Hitler was elected through a democratic process and the majority accepted him as potentate of Nazi Germany.

However, you have to remember that “tyranny of the majority” was a problem of liberal democracy acknowledged long ago. For example, James Madison was concerned about the rule of faction in the landmark political essay, Federalist No. 10

constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

(Not done reading yet, but I entreat everyone who hasn’t read that to read it.)

Rosalinda, I do acknowledge that embryos and fetuses are humans. However, some, such as myself, do not rely on membership to a given species as a basis for rights or personhood. But by rejecting our membership into the species Homo sapiens as a basis for rights can lead to some ostensibly absurd conclusions.

Of course, this wasn’t discussed in a book call Practical Ethics. And I emphasize the word “practical,” but do you want me to give you two examples of what would qualify as a “person” under non-anthropocentric personhood theory?

 

[catharina]

It’s clear to all Catholics (or should be if they are faithful) that new life begins at the moment of conception. We accept the infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Conception is the instant when new life comes into being; be it that fission might occur - revealing twins or more - changes nothing.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

It’s clear to all Catholics (or should be if they are faithful) that new life begins at the moment of conception. We accept the infallible teaching of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Conception is the instant when new life comes into being; be it that fission might occur - revealing twins or more - changes nothing.

Dear Catharina,
I accept absolutely that new life begins at conception.
However, a new individual begins only when the possibility of fission is passed.
An individual is indivisible. Both words share the same root, ‘to divide’.
Prior to the horizon where division becomes impossible, the new life, being divisible, cannot be an individual.
Individual, being a simile for person, likewise, prior to that horizon, the new life cannot be a person, for it may become two, or more.

 

[catharina]

Dear Catharina,
I accept absolutely that new life begins at conception.
However, a new individual begins only when the possibility of fission is passed.
An individual is indivisible. Both words share the same root, ‘to divide’.
Prior to the horizon where division becomes impossible, the new life, being divisible, cannot be an individual.
Individual, being a simile for person, likewise, prior to that horizon, the new life cannot be a person, for it may become two, or more.

What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new individual has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new individual has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception).

No, because the human being can still fission, then it cannot be an individual, because it is still divisible.
This in no way devalues the human being, in effect, as it is potentially more than one person, it increases its value.

 

[catharina]

No, because the human being can still fission, then it cannot be an individual, because it is still divisible.
This in no way devalues the human being, in effect, as it is potentially more than one person, it increases its value.

I’m not certain if you’re indulging in semantics. Yes, I see the distinction in terms.
I’ve said "What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new individual has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception)."

Might you accept the statement more readily if I said:

**"What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new human being has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception)."**

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m not certain if you’re indulging in semantics. Yes, I see the distinction in terms.
I’ve said "What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new individual has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception)."

Might you accept the statement more readily if I said:

"What I’m saying is that at the moment of conception,
at least one new human being has come into existence.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception)."

I absolutely accept your responce as in full agreement with my position.
The problem, though that my position might make to some, is that as this human being, until the fission horizon, is still divisible, it cannot be considered to be an individual, as it might become two, or even more.
As ‘individual’ is a simile for ‘person’, then this human being cannot be considered to be a single person, as it may become. likewise, two or more.
Thus, though I am completely happy with the teaching that a new human life begins with conception, I do not consider it possible that a single person exists until the fission horizon has passed.
That is at 14 days at the earliest. Some sources state that, especially in the case of conjoined multiplets, this horizon might be even later.
It is in any case before 56 days.
That is the best I can do.
Thankyou for your patience.

 

[catharina]

I absolutely accept your responce as in full agreement with my position.
The problem, though that my position might make to some, is that as this human being, until the fission horizon, is still divisible, it cannot be considered to be an individual, as it might become two, or even more.
As ‘individual’ is a simile for ‘person’, then this human being cannot be considered to be a single person, as it may become. likewise, two or more.
Thus, though I am completely happy with the teaching that a new human life begins with conception, I do not consider it possible that a single person exists until the fission horizon has passed.
That is at 14 days at the earliest. Some sources state that, especially in the case of conjoined multiplets, this horizon might be even later.
It is in any case before 56 days.
That is the best I can do.
Thankyou for your patience.

You do understand that your quibbling without qualification can and does lead to many a misunderstanding - yes? Perhaps if you adopt the term “at least one human being” created at conception, you would not find yourself at odds who might believe as you do, while finding your insistence on other terms (“no individual”) baffling. While such hair-splitting might be welcomed by philosophers and scientists, it seems unnecessary in a forum on social justice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You do understand that your quibbling without qualification can and does lead to many a misunderstanding - yes? Perhaps if you adopt the term “at least one human being” created at conception, you would not find yourself at odds who might believe as you do, while finding your insistence on other terms (“no individual”) baffling. While such hair-splitting might be welcomed by philosophers and scientists, it seems unnecessary in a forum on social justice.

Dear catharina,
I absolutely agree that this is a precise philosophical point I am making, but the title of this thread is: ‘Help Defining a Person’.
Other posters, and some philosopers are convinced that at conception, a new person is formed.
I endeavour to prove that though a new human life begins with conception, and I accept that the zygote is a human being, however, and this is the very important part, even though it depends on a very rare occurrance, namely embryonic fission, I assert that this new human being cannot be considered to be an individual, because it is divisible.
Yes, it is a detail, but when you define absolute laws, the devil is in the detail.
A philosophical definition needs to be as accurate as it is possible to make it.

 

[catharina]

Dear catharina,
I absolutely agree that this is a precise philosophical point I am making, but the title of this thread is: ‘Help Defining a Person’.
Other posters, and some philosopers are convinced that at conception, a new person is formed.
I endeavour to prove that though a new human life begins with conception, and I accept that the zygote is a human being, however, and this is the very important part, even though it depends on a very rare occurrance, namely embryonic fission, I assert that this new human being cannot be considered to be an individual, because it is divisible.
Yes, it is a detail, but when you define absolute laws, the devil is in the detail.
A philosophical definition needs to be as accurate as it is possible to make it.

However, if you wish to understand others and to instruct them, you might (more beneficially) first conclude your agreement that human life begins with conception - not “a” human life, but human life, at least one human life. When you proceed from your obscure (though accurate) point, one can easily conclude that you’re in disagreement with the fact that “human life begins at conception.” I hope you grasp my point since I don’t think I can make it any more simple.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

However, if you wish to understand others and to instruct them, you might (more beneficially) first conclude your agreement that human life begins with conception - not “a” human life, but human life, at least one human life. When you proceed from your obscure (though accurate) point, one can easily conclude that you’re in disagreement with the fact that “human life begins at conception.” I hope you grasp my point since I don’t think I can make it any more simple.

Dear Catharina,
I am so sorry, This is the devil of semantics. A NEW human life begins with conception. ALL NEW human life begins with conception.
Human life though, is a continuous process, from the first Eve, until the Last Day.
When an embryo fissions, this is not a new human life, it is the same life now shared. It may be shared independantly, or jointly, as in the case of conjoined twins.
When a surgeon successfully separates a pair of conjoined twins, he does not make a new life, but makes a jointly shared life into an independantly shared life.
I do hope this makes good sense. I admit that it is complex. I hope I have not made it more complex that it needs to be.

 

[catharina]

Dear Catharina,
I am so sorry, This is the devil of semantics. A NEW human life begins with conception. ALL NEW human life begins with conception.
Human life though, is a continuous process, from the first Eve, until the Last Day.
When an embryo fissions, this is not a new human life, it is the same life now shared. It may be shared independantly, or jointly, as in the case of conjoined twins.
When a surgeon successfully separates a pair of conjoined twins, he does not make a new life, but makes a jointly shared life into an independantly shared life.
I do hope this makes good sense. I admit that it is complex. I hope I have not made it more complex that it needs to be.

I think your approach does make the issue far more complex than it needs to be. In fact, the way you have stated the issue for most of this thread makes it seem that you are rejecting the commonly held belief of others, due to a need for your semantic choices to fit your model to the finest point. That is not the goal of two-way communication and, in my opinion, until I restated your opinion in mutually acceptable but different terms there was no way that even I would have imagined agreement between us. That’s my point - and it leaves me wondering if you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing rather with an eye toward the goal of beneficial communication with others. Really - I do wonder.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think your approach does make the issue far more complex than it needs to be. In fact, the way you have stated the issue for most of this thread makes it seem that you are rejecting the commonly held belief of others, due to a need for your semantic choices to fit your model to the finest point. That is not the goal of two-way communication and, in my opinion, until I restated your opinion in mutually acceptable but different terms there was no way that even I would have imagined agreement between us. That’s my point - and it leaves me wondering if you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing rather with an eye toward the goal of beneficial communication with others. Really - I do wonder.

Accuracy does require particular care with tiny detail.
Conception is not intantaneous, but takes a few seconds.
The development of the individual requires a little more time, for the fission horizon to pass.
However, As early as two weeks, and no later than eight weeks, is well below the latest permissible date for abortion, which I believe is now twenty weeks.
Eight weeks amounts to only one missed period, and definitely the foetus is a person at this time.
Thus ALL clinical surgical abortions are in the sense of the killing of an individual, definitely murder.
Chemical abortions, in the form of the ‘morning after pill’ are a different matter.
Since there is as yet no defined person, it is not murder, but it is still the denial of a G_d given life, and thus, still a grave sin.

 

[catharina]

Accuracy does require particular care with tiny detail.
Conception is not intantaneous, but takes a few seconds.
The development of the individual requires a little more time, for the fission horizon to pass.
However, As early as two weeks, and no later than eight weeks, is well below the latest permissible date for abortion, which I believe is now twenty weeks.
Eight weeks amounts to only one missed period, and definitely the foetus is a person at this time.
Thus ALL clinical surgical abortions are in the sense of the killing of an individual, definitely murder.
Chemical abortions, in the form of the ‘morning after pill’ are a different matter.
Since there is as yet no defined person, it is not murder, but it is still the denial of a G_d given life, and thus, still a grave sin.

So again I say: " … at the moment of conception,
at least one new human being has come into existence
since, indisputably, human life has begun.

For me, as a Roman Catholic, to deny that would be to imply
a denial of an article of my faith (Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception)."

For me, as a Catholic, early or late, abortion is the murder of innocent new life.

 

[Jennifer123]

The development of the individual requires a little more time, for the fission horizon to pass.

You are by your own admission separating personhood from human being and therefore undermining the essential human dignity that God has given us, we are made in His image. Do you think, really, that His most perfect creation was a non-entity, living but not a person, from the moment of conception to some arbitrary twinning window?

In any case, we can’t possibly know when personhood begins. Just because you state with certainty that when fission has or hasn’t occured is the threshold for personhood doesn’t make it true. How in the world can we know personhood? There are philosophers and ethicists that deny personhood to infants, to the mentally challenged, and don’t forget our recent past with slavery and the Holocaust. This is the result of separating individuality with the inherent dignity of the human being.

It is unreasonable to suggest there is anything other than conception itself to say when the human being, as an individual, exists. No other assumption can be known with certainty, so it would be wrong to harm the embryo at any point in development. Why do embryos twin? We don’t know. Science doesn’t know. Only God knows.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You are by your own admission separating personhood from human being and therefore undermining the essential human dignity that God has given us, we are made in His image. Do you think, really, that His most perfect creation was a non-entity, living but not a person, from the moment of conception to some arbitrary twinning window?

Dear Jennifer,
I actually said that before the twinning window, as you call it, the potential of the embryo is greater than after it, for the pre-window embryo can develop into two or more persons, this is of greater value than a post-window embryo, that can only become one.

In any case, we can’t possibly know when personhood begins. Just because you state with certainty that when fission has or hasn’t occured is the threshold for personhood doesn’t make it true. How in the world can we know personhood?

I use the common simile between ‘person’ and ‘individual’. Most dictionaries support this simile.
Prior to the twinning window, the foetus cannot be an individual, as it is divisible. These are exclusive properties. An individual is indivisible, as is the soul indivisible.

There are philosophers and ethicists that deny personhood to infants, to the mentally challenged, and don’t forget our recent past with slavery and the Holocaust. This is the result of separating individuality with the inherent dignity of the human being.

It is unreasonable to suggest there is anything other than conception itself to say when the human being, as an individual, exists. No other assumption can be known with certainty, so it would be wrong to harm the embryo at any point in development. Why do embryos twin? We don’t know. Science doesn’t know. Only God knows.

It is not unreasonable, it is carefully reasoned. I accept that it is uncomfortable.
I do not state, I offer a carefully reasoned proof.
If you find fault with my logic, please show me it so that I can be corrected.
ps, it is now believed that one of the causes of fission is the failure to correctly shut down duplicate genes in the second ‘X’ chromosome in females. Twinning in females is much more common than in males, as is mosaicism, consider the tabby cat, invariably female, so that tabby is often used for female.
In males, a similar mechanism may be involved, but since there is so much less commonality between the ‘X’ chromosome and the ‘Y’ chromosome, fission is much rarer.