Help Defining a Person

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Quickening” is an outdated biological concept, indicating nothing more than the presence of felt movement in the womb. To the biologist “life” in the abstract may be a continuum. But equally, to the biologist, every new individual of the species has a beginning and an end. At what point, biologically, does a new individual of the human species begin its existence? There is no other answer that makes sense biologically except conception.

I understand your moral position, but it is not a position either supported by science, neither is it enshrined by the Church.
That a new life begins with conception is not questioned.
Whether this life will result in more than one person, or indeed none, remains open to question until long after the blastocyst has specialised into embrio and placenta.
Even then, the embrio may further divide, either partially, or completely.
Thus the soul, which cannot divide, must be allocated at some time AFTER conception.
In the days of primitive science, the quickening was judged to be that time.
As for today, it is accepted by science, that unless ther is a functioning brain, there can be no brain function, hence no personsality, hence no person.
As for soul: if you define this as the animalistic life-force, then, it has no beginning, neither has it an end. But if you consider it to be some higher essence of personal being, then this is a matter of faith, and not subject to argument.

If “personality” is to be taken as the basis for “personhood,” then I have some family members who may be non-persons.

The Church teaches that every human being has a soul which is its life principle. And since a new human individual begins at conception, I think it must have a soul–which is after all, its life principle. If it were other than human, it could not become human. And at conception, it is a new genetically distinct individual.

Your reasoning above is heavily faulted, see above.

The Church also teaches that the intellect and will are faculties of the soul, which is for human beings a non-material principle–spiritual in nature. So I don’t think we can say that the mind and will reside in the brain. They reside in the non-material soul.

Mind, personality, and person are FUNCTIONS of the brain.
they are not physical entities, but interactions of physical entities.
The soul seems to be also not a physical entity, but is also a function rather than an entity.
Soul, mind, and personality are not substantially different in essence.

 

[viennaprelude]

Whether the conceptus has reached the blastocyst stage or still initially a zygote, it is a unique human individual. All the necessary information to determine whether it is male or female, race, hair color, eye color etc. is already present - basic embryology.

Secondly, personality is not personhood. Personalities are very different in different people, but personhood is a subsistent category and does not change.

 

[JimG]

That a new life begins with conception is not questioned.

Since a new life begins at conception, it is undeniably human life, distinct from the mother. We should not make decisions to kill or not kill human beings based on stage of development.

Thus the soul, which cannot divide, must be allocated at some time AFTER conception.

Because a new human life must have a soul–no human being is soulless–a new human individual must have a soul from its inception.

Every human soul has a beginning: it begins when the new human being does.

Mind, personality, and person are FUNCTIONS of the brain. they are not physical entities, but interactions of physical entities. The soul seems to be also not a physical entity, but is also a function rather than an entity.

Any interaction between physical entities must also be physical. But Caholic philosophy has never considered the human soul to be a physical entity, but rather a spiritual entity.

Further, are human beings reducible to their brains? That idea comes from a materialist worldview. The Church has obviously never been strictly materialist. Neither was Aristotle, for that matter.

If we are only matter, and if mind is a function of brain, then we have no free will: if we could know the physical conditions of our bodies–and brains–at any given time, we could predict absolutely what thoughts and decisions we will make. Materialism leads to determinism.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Since a new life begins at conception, it is undeniably human life,

No! It is a potential human life. there is no guarantee that the blastocyst resulting from conception will form into a single human being, or a multiple birth, or into a miscarriage, or simple be reabsorbed.
The beginning of the new human being is somewhat downstream of conception, even somewhat downstream of specialisation into placenta and embrio.

distinct from the mother. We should not make decisions to kill or not kill human beings based on stage of development.Because a new human life must have a soul–no human being is soulless–a new human individual must have a soul from its inception.

Every human soul has a beginning: it begins when the new human being does. Any interaction between physical entities must also be physical. But Caholic philosophy has never considered the human soul to be a physical entity, but rather a spiritual entity.

Further, are human beings reducible to their brains? That idea comes from a materialist worldview. The Church has obviously never been strictly materialist. Neither was Aristotle, for that matter.

If we are only matter, and if mind is a function of brain, then we have no free will: if we could know the physical conditions of our bodies–and brains–at any given time, we could predict absolutely what thoughts and decisions we will make. Materialism leads to determinism.

Most of your aguments are in themselves fine, but they are built upon a false premise.
I have corrected that premise, so your house of cards crumbles.

 

[JimG]

The blastocyst is already differentiated into an inner cell mass and an outer cell mass. The outer cell mass will develop into parts of the placenta. The inner cell mass is further differentiated into the epiblast, which will form the cells of the embryo, and the hypoblast, which will form extraembryonic tissue.

But the point is, this all started at fertilization, and *we all began this way! * Every single one of us was once at the blastocyst stage.

At what point of development do you think a new human being should be endowed with legal and moral personhood? Implantation? Neural cord formation? Birth? Age 18? After all, the brain is not fully developed even into the teen years.

And at what stage of mental decline shall we remove legal and moral personhood?

Personhood is a legal, moral, and philosophical concept, not a biological one. What the law gives, the law can take away. If something other than simple humanity determines our personhood, then we are all subject to someone else’s whim as to when to put in the plug (ok, now he’s a person) or when to pull the plug (ok, now he’s no longer a person.)

And what is a “potential human life”? It’s not Mom, but it’s not me yet either? An embryo is a baby in formation, and an infant is an adult in formation, but ‘potential human life’ seems to have no meaning except to the deny the personhood of a distinct human being.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The blastocyst is already differentiated into an inner cell mass and an outer cell mass. The outer cell mass will develop into parts of the placenta. The inner cell mass is further differentiated into the epiblast, which will form the cells of the embryo, and the hypoblast, which will form extraembryonic tissue.

The blasticyst you describe is already well developed from fertilization. I was referring to the early blastocyst, which was started as the fertilized ovuum completed its first division.

But the point is, this all started at fertilization, and *we all began this way! * Every single one of us was once at the blastocyst stage.

Yes.

At what point of development do you think a new human being should be endowed with legal and moral personhood? Implantation? Neural cord formation? Birth? Age 18? After all, the brain is not fully developed even into the teen years.

Let me give you a very poor analogy.
When you go down to Wallmart and buy a computer, you get a tin box full if bits of silicon, copper, steel, and various plastics, carefully arranged within.
You call in a computer, but it is in fact nothing more that I described it.
It is though a potential computer.
That potential becomes real when power is applied to the processor.
It becomes a computer when the operating system is loaded.

The blastocyst stage contains all of the essential parts, but they are not arranged into a form in which they can function as a human being.
In the early embrio stage, the parts are being assembled into a functional situation. This assembly continues until the later embrionic stages.
Some time in the later stages, various subassemblies start to function, the heart starts to beat, (power supply switch-on) and signs of activity in the nervous system begin to show. (The computer begins to be a computer.)
This is the quickening.
This is the traditional time at which the pregnancy is considered to be a fully formed human being, and consideration of names, and plans for the future are made.
Yes there was a living entity before this time, but it was not a fully funtioning human being, only a human being in construction.
At what point do you call a plot of land a house?
At the stage of architect’s completed drawing?
At the stage of digging the foundations?
At the stage of flagging the peak?
When it is weather-tight?
When it is fitted out?
Or when the first occupiers move in?
All the pre-ultimate points describe a potential house, as all can accept that all embrionic stages describe a potential human being.
Science cannot give a precise point in development where primary development is complete.
It still seems to me that the traditional point, of ‘quickening’, loiterally, the ‘beginning of life’, is the most useful definition.
In scientific term, we have a chicken and egg situation, which defines a continuous process which has no beginning. There are benchmarks in the process, but most of them are quite arbitrary.
Fertilization is an obvious benchmark, but is not necessarily the most important one to mark the beginnings of humanity in the embrio. This will probably remain an open question.

And at what stage of mental decline shall we remove legal and moral personhood?

See above.

Personhood is a legal, moral, and philosophical concept, not a biological one. What the law gives, the law can take away. If something other than simple humanity determines our personhood, then we are all subject to someone else’s whim as to when to put in the plug (ok, now he’s a person) or when to pull the plug (ok, now he’s no longer a person.)

And what is a “potential human life”? It’s not Mom, but it’s not me yet either? An embryo is a baby in formation, and an infant is an adult in formation, but ‘potential human life’ seems to have no meaning except to the deny the personhood of a distinct human being.

Most of what you say I can agree with.
Setting the principle benchmark is the problem.
Still science cannot improve upon ‘quickening’.

 

[JimG]

Well, you have used a materialist analogy about building a human. If I were a materialist I might find it useful. But I’m not. I think that a human being is more than the sum of its parts, and that a human being, though composed of matter (plus, in my view, spirit), is a unity whose essence is expressed in personhood, not personality. Consequently, I don’t find any point in the development of a human individual at which we should be free to disregard its essential humanity.

A new human being, from the zygote stage to infancy to adulthood, shows what scientists, as scientists, would be prohibited from calling a teleology: it behaves like it has sense of purpose. It’s building from its own plan, right from the outset.

You may wish to grant legal personhood when the new human develops a nervous system. Others may say it’s when it develops a heartbeat. Still others may say, not until third trimester. Others have suggested 30 days or more after birth. These are all arbitrary points. The only true benchmark that I see is when a new individual with distinct DNA begins its journey of development. From that point on, it’s a distinct and new human being. It’s got different DNA than Mom; it’s purposefully growing toward infancy and adulthood. Even from a purely biological standpoint, it seems to me that the idea of ‘quickening,’ whatever anatomical benchmark is used to designate it, has become obsolete with improvements in embryology, which clearly show that the embryo is distinct, individual, and human from fertilization forward.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Well, you have used a materialist analogy about building a human. If I were a materialist I might find it useful. But I’m not. I think that a human being is more than the sum of its parts,

but likewise a computer running its operationg system is more than a box full of various components, likewise a house is more than a collection of assembled bits: there is no difference in principle,

and that a human being, though composed of matter (plus, in my view, spirit), is a unity whose essence is expressed in personhood, not personality.

But personality, being an expression of personhood, is an indication of the presence of personhood.

Consequently, I don’t find any point in the development of a human individual at which we should be free to disregard its essential humanity.

In terms of process, there is no real difference between an unfused sperm and ovum pair, and a zygote, or between a zygote and a blastocyst.
The pair might not fuse.
The zygote might not divide.
The multiplying sphere of cells might not form a blastocyst, which might not develop into embrio and placenta.

A new human being, from the zygote stage to infancy to adulthood, shows what scientists, as scientists, would be prohibited from calling a teleology: it behaves like it has sense of purpose. It’s building from its own plan, right from the outset.

Perhaps biologists have dificulty with teleology, but mathematicians have been using this science ever since the development of game theory.
Target seeking programs can now play a veritable game of chess which can defeat some grand masters.
The dividing line between artificial inteligence and human inteligence is beginning to blur.
Who can say that a chess playing program has no purpose.
It clearly is designed to maximise the possibilty of defeating the player, and behaves with clear intent.
To call this other than teleology is playing with words.
Yes, SOME biologists still have problems with the concept, but they fail to see the complexity of their subject.
Enlightened biologists now even see purpose in plant behaviour.

You may wish to grant legal personhood when the new human develops a nervous system. Others may say it’s when it develops a heartbeat. Still others may say, not until third trimester. Others have suggested 30 days or more after birth. These are all arbitrary points. The only true benchmark that I see is when a new individual with distinct DNA begins its journey of development. From that point on, it’s a distinct and new human being. It’s got different DNA than Mom; it’s purposefully growing toward infancy and adulthood. Even from a purely biological standpoint, it seems to me that the idea of ‘quickening,’ whatever anatomical benchmark is used to designate it, has become obsolete with improvements in embryology, which clearly show that the embryo is distinct, individual, and human from fertilization forward.

So you will call a plot of land a house when the architect’s drawings have been granted planning permission.
In some legalistic senses, that can be true, and houses are sold on that basis.
To me though it is entirely artificial.
Unless there is some indication of functioning life, and at least operating nervous system, preferably conciousness, then the entity is not essentially different from a corpse.
A fresh corpse has still living and harvestable transplant organs.
The beginnings of life and the endings of life are very similar to the same film being played backwards.

 

[JimG]

Unless there is some indication of functioning life, and at least operating nervous system, preferably conciousness, then the entity is not essentially different from a corpse.
A fresh corpse has still living and harvestable transplant organs.
The beginnings of life and the endings of life are very similar to the same film being played backwards.

You say that a sperm and ovum pair are no different than a zygote. I just don’t think that is accurate. A sperm, or an ovum, individually, are not going anywhere. They are just individual specialized cells. A zygote, with its own DNA, forms a new individual of the human species. It is not the same individual as its mother. There is a discontinuity: now it’s Mom and offspring. And it is developing into an embryo and then into an adult.

The more analogies you give, the more it seems to me that your point is that individual human beings just have NO beginning: As individuals, our beginning and ending points are simply arbitrarily assigned somewhere along our lifeline. And of course, someone other than the individual in question gets to decide where those points are.

Now if a human without consciousness is no different than a corpse, that individual is in a precarious situation, for he or she can be “terminated” at any time. And that is not an unusual belief now. It is the basis for declaring brain death and harvesting organs, as well as for abortion and even infanticide, and the euthanasia of the elderly or disabled.* Yet I have heard accounts of persons who had been in a coma for years suddenly regaining consciousness. Not only that, they recount that they were aware of the conversations that had been going on around them, even though they seemed totally unresponsive. So I am not convinced that perceived consciousness ought to be the criterion by which one lives or dies. I think that being a distinct individual of the human species ought to be sufficient.

*I’ve mentioned the group “Not Dead Yet” in the forums previously. It’s a disability rights group which is quite worried about the trend toward infanticide and euthanasia. They’re afraid that they will be next on the list. And unless we can have some protection just by reason of being human, so should we all be worried.

notdeadyet.org/docs/infanticide.html

notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You say that a sperm and ovum pair are no different than a zygote. I just don’t think that is accurate.

I was refering to life. Life is not a thing, it is a process. In that sense, all events in the process are equally important. The problems we seem to be having is in confusing things with processes.

A sperm, or an ovum, individually, are not going anywhere. They are just individual specialized cells. A zygote, with its own DNA, forms a new individual of the human species. It is not the same individual as its mother. There is a discontinuity: now it’s Mom and offspring. And it is developing into an embryo and then into an adult.

The more analogies you give, the more it seems to me that your point is that individual human beings just have NO beginning:

Not quite. here is that confusion again. Life has no beginning and no end, but the individuals that are alive do have beginnings and endings.
The sperm produced by the male, and the ovum produced by the female are part of the life process which is potentially immortal

As individuals, our beginning and ending points are simply arbitrarily assigned somewhere along our lifeline. And of course, someone other than the individual in question gets to decide where those points are.

This is the way it always has been.
Now however, we recognise that certain forms of apparent death are reversible.
Artificial respiration,
Cardiac compression,
Surgical heart massage,
Bypass surgery,
heart-lung machine.
2000 years ago, this did not exist.
You stopped breathing, you were dead. End of matter.
However, there were cases of spontaneous recovery, so a corpse was left unbound for three days to see if decomposition took place, then the body was embalmed and the tomb sealed.

Now if a human without consciousness is no different than a corpse, that individual is in a precarious situation, for he or she can be “terminated” at any time. And that is not an unusual belief now. It is the basis for declaring brain death and harvesting organs, as well as for abortion and even infanticide, and the euthanasia of the elderly or disabled.* Yet I have heard accounts of persons who had been in a coma for years suddenly regaining consciousness. Not only that, they recount that they were aware of the conversations that had been going on around them, even though they seemed totally unresponsive. So I am not convinced that perceived consciousness ought to be the criterion by which one lives or dies. I think that being a distinct individual of the human species ought to be sufficient.

(Lack of) Perceived conciousness has ALWAYS been the primary way of defining death. The problem is that now we can maintain the viability of a body long after natural death has occurred. This being the case, how then do you define death.
2000 years ago this was not a problem.
200 years ago this was not a problem.
50 years ago this was not a problem.
You still confuse life with living creature.
They are not the same, and judging one by parameters of the other leads only to deeper confusion.
People who have had Near Death Experiences seem to understand this, even to thev point that they consider individuality to be an illusion.

*I’ve mentioned the group “Not Dead Yet” in the forums previously. It’s a disability rights group which is quite worried about the trend toward infanticide and euthanasia. They’re afraid that they will be next on the list. And unless we can have some protection just by reason of being human, so should we all be worried.

notdeadyet.org/docs/infanticide.html

notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/

 

[JimG]

Not quite. here is that confusion again. Life has no beginning and no end, but the individuals that are alive do have beginnings and endings.

OK, so individuals to have beginnings and endings. It’s not clear to me just what points you are assigning as beginnings and endings. But it seems to be at some point other than conception and natural death. Apparently, quickening (which seems too vague) and cessation of brain function, which is also not as clear cut as it sounds.

Lack of perceived consciousness hasn’t always been the method of defining death. What was standard in the past was cessation of respiration and heartbeat, as well as the start of physical decomposition.

Note that I am not asserting that we must preserve life at any possible cost. I have a living will. But after reviewing it, I told my brother, “look, this seems to tend too heavily toward pulling the plug; but as my POA, I have to rely on you to decide whether a means is really extraordinary, or whether some rich guy down the hall just has dibs on my organs.”

Nevertheless, if there is a beginning and an end, at some point, someone is going to decide that I am no longer human, just as they may decide at some point before birth that this individual is not “yet” human. It’s that particular decision making that worries the folks at Not Dead Yet, because the deck seems to be stacked against them.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

OK, so individuals to have beginnings and endings. It’s not clear to me just what points you are assigning as beginnings and endings. But it seems to be at some point other than conception and natural death. Apparently, quickening (which seems too vague) and cessation of brain function, which is also not as clear cut as it sounds.

Dear Jim,
I think we are getting really close now.
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.
To me, death is alway defined as that sleep, from which there is no awakening. That is the irreversible cessation of brain function.
Without instrumental intrusion, the quickening is the only obvious indication of CNS activity.
Surely also you are happier to have assessment of brain-death by analysis of failure to respond to stimuli monitored by precise instrumentation, rather than failure to mist a mirror held near the mouth.

Lack of perceived consciousness hasn’t always been the method of defining death. What was standard in the past was cessation of respiration and heartbeat, as well as the start of physical decomposition.

Note that I am not asserting that we must preserve life at any possible cost. I have a living will. But after reviewing it, I told my brother, “look, this seems to tend too heavily toward pulling the plug; but as my POA, I have to rely on you to decide whether a means is really extraordinary, or whether some rich guy down the hall just has dibs on my organs.”

Nevertheless, if there is a beginning and an end, at some point, someone is going to decide that I am no longer human, just as they may decide at some point before birth that this individual is not “yet” human. It’s that particular decision making that worries the folks at Not Dead Yet, because the deck seems to be stacked against them.

 

[JimG]

I think I would rather have them wait till I am completely dead before they start cutting into me. If only my brain is dead, by someone’s neurological definition, then the rest of me isn’t.

However, from both a philosophical and biological standpoint, I still identify the beginning of a new individual as conception, rather than at some later point. I just don’t think that human beings are reducible to their brains.

There is also somewhat of a theological problem. If one believes that an individual is composed of body and soul, and soul is by definition the life prinicple of the body, then whenever the body is alive, the soul is present.

I don’t think it’s tenable to take a new human individual at some point after conception, and say, here we have a living organism: it’s human; it has human DNA, distinct from its parents, but it is at this point no different from a soulless corpse. We can kill it, take it apart, and use its parts if we choose, without moral compunction.

I haven’t seen any proposals from the biological sciences which specifically identify one particular instant of human development as the dividing line: Here it is non-human, this next minute it is human. If there is such a point I would like to see the biological and anatomical determinants that tell us when we can say OK–now this child has a right to continue living.

Actually, I have come across one identifiable biologic dividing line, and that is at conception.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I think I would rather have them wait till I am completely dead before they start cutting into me. If only my brain is dead, by someone’s neurological definition, then the rest of me isn’t.

However, from both a philosophical and biological standpoint, I still identify the beginning of a new individual as conception, rather than at some later point. I just don’t think that human beings are reducible to their brains.

What I have said, and said over, and you seem not to be able to grasp, is tat what develops from a human zygote is not NECESSARILY a human being.
Indeed, from quite a high proportions of conception, it is NOT, otherwise virtually all conceptions would result in a live birth, which indeed they do not.
Thus there are in the process following conception various decisions:
1/ whether the zygote will undergo the first division,
2/ whether that division will result in an individual, or two,
3/ whether the zygote will successfully implant,
4/ whether the zygote will successfully specialize into placenta and embrio(s).
The list goes on, and is limited only by imagination.
The point being is that conception is not the final decision in ythe process of forming a human being. It is only the decission to start the process. It is in effect the Architect’s drawing, and the planning permission. The design may be modified during build, or aborted altogether.

There is also somewhat of a theological problem. If one believes that an individual is composed of body and soul, and soul is by definition the life prinicple of the body, then whenever the body is alive, the soul is present.

Since both sperm and ovum are alive, then they too must have souls, but we are here talking of microbial souls.
We are skating on very thin ice here.
Does a human have two souls, one the animal principle, and the other the G_d given humanity, or does one develop into the other?
Do the souls of the sperm and ovum merge at conception, as the DNA merges?
Does the Animal soul mature as the embrio develops, and undergo changes to match the progress of the embrio?
I fear that this territory is skating around heresy.
I would prefer not to discuss the soul.
As for the spirit, and the mind, I am content that they are closely connected with conciousness, which is a function of the brain.

I don’t think it’s tenable to take a new human individual at some point after conception, and say, here we have a living organism: it’s human; it has human DNA, distinct from its parents, but it is at this point no different from a soulless corpse. We can kill it, take it apart, and use its parts if we choose, without moral compunction.

I haven’t seen any proposals from the biological sciences which specifically identify one particular instant of human development as the dividing line: Here it is non-human, this next minute it is human. If there is such a point I would like to see the biological and anatomical determinants that tell us when we can say OK–now this child has a right to continue living.

Actually, I have come across one identifiable biologic dividing line, and that is at conception.

I think I have answered that point repeatedly, but you seem unable to take it onboard.

 

[mlchance]

The distinction between “human” and “person” is sophistry designed to justify abortion. To be human is to be a person. To insist otherwise is to move away from science and into very slippery philosophical territory.

Ask: If it is possible for a human to not be a person, when does a human become a person? Note the wide variety of different answers.

The wide variety of different answers point strongly to the conclusion that no one knows when a human becomes a person. While this variety of answers doesn’t demonstrate that a human doesn’t become a person, it does very clearly point to the serious lack of wisdom of acting on incomplete information.

Put it this way: Someone offers you a job in which you have to push a button that drops a one-ton weight on top of a crate, thus completely crushing the crate. The crate may or may not have a person in it. There’s no way you can tell. Thus, each time you push the button to get paid, you may end up killing a person.

Is it rational and moral to accept such a job?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[JimG]

What I have said, and said over, and you seem not to be able to grasp, is tat what develops from a human zygote is not NECESSARILY a human being.

Of course it’s a human being. What else could it be? It’s a new individual of the human species. It’s genetically a human being, and human beings by their nature are persons, whether or not they have consciousness.

Indeed, consciousness is a subjective quality, directly observable only by the person experiencing it, not by outsiders. I’d rather go by genetics.

As for the spirit, and the mind, I am content that they are closely connected with conciousness, which is a function of the brain.

I think I have answered that point repeatedly, but you seem unable to take it onboard.

Well, you haven’t given me a biological marker as definitive as conception, which clearly demarcates a new individual. At what day or hour of embryogenesis does one become human? At what point does the doc tell the Mom–‘OK, yesterday it was non-human, today it is human.’ ?

As to how many zygotes make it all the way to birth, I don’t have that data, and I doubt that anyone does. Has anyone ever run a test to show how many fertilizations occurred in the general population vs how many births (or miscarriages or abortions) resulted? It seems that would be very hard to come by, and it is irrelevant to the biological marker of a new human individual: i.e. conception.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Of course it’s a human being. What else could it be? It’s a new individual of the human species. It’s genetically a human being, and human beings by their nature are persons, whether or not they have consciousness.

Indeed, consciousness is a subjective quality, directly observable only by the person experiencing it, not by outsiders. I’d rather go by genetics. Well, you haven’t given me a biological marker as definitive as conception, which clearly demarcates a new individual. At what day or hour of embryogenesis does one become human? At what point does the doc tell the Mom–‘OK, yesterday it was non-human, today it is human.’ ?

Dear Jim,
I have said over, and I am sure you can read my words.
So here is an equivalent model:
Architects plans are submitted for approval.
This is equivalent to intercourse.
Approval and building permission is granted.
This is equivalent to conception.
The site is cleared and tools are assembled.
This is equivalent to implantation.
Work begins on the foundations and drainage systems, and services are routed in.
This is equivalent to setting the placenta.
Building is completed to weather-tightness.
This is equivalent to the point that the embrio begins to look like something other than a ball of cells, and clearly some internal organisation is taking place.
Electrical wiring is completed, and internal power and lighting is now available to the finishing crew.
This is equivalent to the CNS taking over the individual subsystems into an organised state. This is commonly observed as the quickening.
Final fit is completed, and the house is ready for market.
This is full term, and delivery.

Now if you are totally happy to state unambiguously that on the granting of planning permission to the architects drawings, and permission to build, even though the site has not been cleared, and no tools or supplies are prepared, that you have a house,
then I guess that defines your position.
I see it somewhat differently.
I suspect the majority of others also do.
Markyou though, at no point do I devalue the potential human founded at conception, I just deny that this entity is as yet fully human.
The very word human is rooted in humanity, which is a function of conciousness. The Latin name for the specie is ‘Home Sapiens’ or ‘thinking man’. Clearly, no brain, then no thought, so no ‘sapiens’, thus not homo sapiens.

As to how many zygotes make it all the way to birth, I don’t have that data, and I doubt that anyone does. Has anyone ever run a test to show how many fertilizations occurred in the general population vs how many births (or miscarriages or abortions) resulted? It seems that would be very hard to come by, and it is irrelevant to the biological marker of a new human individual: i.e. conception.

Is then every miscarriage, or misconception, a death of a fully human being, and a soul of the dead returns to the Maker?
You are caught up in a fundamentalist trap.
The essence of your belief is fine, but the nitty-gritty is more complicated than you are prepared to accept.

 

[JimG]

Your analogy would be better if it involved a blueprint being placed on a vacant lot, and suddenly the blueprint itself began to arrange for materials and construction, and to direct the completion of the building process itself—in other words, if the initial blueprint demonstrated the qualities of an organism with teleology and a plan, which is what happens at conception.

Keep in mind that nearly all of the qualities of the adult are already present in the DNA of the initial zygote. Boy or girl, eye color, physical characteristics, yes even the brain characteristics—it’s all in the unique DNA. Everything that this unique individual will be, is already there. From the time of conception, that unique human individual is in the process of development and growth—a process of development which will not cease at birth.

But you still didn’t define “quickening.” As far as I can see, the term has nothing to do with consciousness. It’s commonly defined as the first time a mother feels her baby move in the womb. It’s not exactly a precise embryological term, and not of much use in delineating the human from the non-human.

Shall we use consciousness as a criterion for humanity? But people aren’t always conscious. Sometimes they are unconscious, even for long periods. During the early months of my marriage my wife was struck with a sudden illness and was in a coma for several days. She was unconscious, yet still human, still a person, still my wife. Later she regained consciousness. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to declare her non-human during the time she was unconscious, or a non-person.

My mother once suffered a miscarriage. May father arranged for the burial of the child in the infants’ section of the Catholic cemetery. She was given a name. Yes, she was a person, and my sister; her name is listed on our genealogies. The nitty-gritty of life is always complicated. But identifying when a new individual of the human species has its biological beginning is pretty straightforward.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Your analogy would be better if it involved a blueprint being placed on a vacant lot, and suddenly the blueprint itself began to arrange for materials and construction, and to direct the completion of the building process itself—in other words, if the initial blueprint demonstrated the qualities of an organism with teleology and a plan, which is what happens at conception.

No, the zygote has to find the vacant lot. It is still free-floating for at least eright divisions post conception, prior to implantation.
The sperm contains only information, the ovum contains an equal amount of information and some manufacturing equipment, but that equipment does not manufacture the embrio, it manufactures tools to produce the embrio.

Keep in mind that nearly all of the qualities of the adult are already present in the DNA of the initial zygote. Boy or girl, eye color, physical characteristics, yes even the brain characteristics—it’s all in the unique DNA. Everything that this unique individual will be, is already there. From the time of conception, that unique human individual is in the process of development and growth—a process of development which will not cease at birth.

Yes, this DNA is pretty fantastic stuff. It is estimated that the DNA in a single cell ammounts to approximately 30 Gigabytes of information!

But you still didn’t define “quickening.”

I see the ‘quickening’ as evidence of conciousness.

As far as I can see, the term has nothing to do with consciousness. It’s commonly defined as the first time a mother feels her baby move in the womb. It’s not exactly a precise embryological term, and not of much use in delineating the human from the non-human.

Shall we use consciousness as a criterion for humanity? But people aren’t always conscious.

Yes, this is true. I was being brief. Yes, conciousness is interposed with periods of unconciousness, (sleep), but I was meaning by the ending of conciousness, the permanent ending of conciousness, being the sleep from which there is no (earthly) awakening.

Sometimes they are unconscious, even for long periods. During the early months of my marriage my wife was struck with a sudden illness and was in a coma for several days. She was unconscious, yet still human, still a person, still my wife. Later she regained consciousness. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to declare her non-human during the time she was unconscious, or a non-person.

My mother once suffered a miscarriage. May father arranged for the burial of the child in the infants’ section of the Catholic cemetery. She was given a name. Yes, she was a person, and my sister; her name is listed on our genealogies. The nitty-gritty of life is always complicated. But identifying when a new individual of the human species has its biological beginning is pretty straightforward.

Yes, but would you go through the full procedure of funeral for a zygote which failed to divide?
or a clump of cells that failed to implant?
Remember, in the Gospel, the fuss made of John’s quickening: this was made to be a remarkable moment.

 

[JimG]

Well, quickening is evidence of movement. Consciousness would not be perceptible to the outside observer. But the mother’s perception of movement in the womb is not evidence that the child has suddenly become alive or human. In fact, there has been movement from the beginning: the embryo grows and moves from the moment of conception, proceeding with a purpose toward birth. Ultrasound will show movement before it becomes perceptible to the mother.

If a fertilized ovum fails to implant, chances are that no one would ever know. As I mentioned before, I doubt that anyone has any good data on that.

When Mary visited Elizabeth, Elizabeth cries out: “Blest are you among women and blest is the fruit of your womb. But who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me? The moment your greeting sounded in my ears, the baby leapt in my womb for joy.” (Luke 1:43-44) This seems to be for Elizabeth, something different than normal quickening, and it would have been rather late for quickening, as Elizabeth was in her 6th month. Mothers can first feel the baby’s movement as early as 14 weeks and as late as 21 weeks. Traditionally many theologians have taken this event to be the moment at which John was cleansed of original sin, in the presence of his savior.

In any case, we have both made our positions clear. I think that conception is the biological starting point of a new human being. You place that point at quickening. Now we are beginning to repeat ourselves, and since no one else has jumped in, I figure the thread has just about reached the end of its own life. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.