M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
As is fertilization just a stage.They are not to be confused as entirely separate entities - it is just a stage in the process of growth in a human being.
The fact is that this is just one part of a life-long series of changes in human beings’ development. One is no less a human because they happen to be in the toddler stage, or the teen-age stage, or the senior stage of living.
Yes we can see where the potential of a new individual comes into existance, but life is continuous.
The problem with defining person at the same time as potential is that 0, 1. 2, or more persons might derive from a single zygote.
Yes, all the siblings will be genetically identical, but they will not be the same person.
Science is defined by understanding exceptions.
The simple concepts cannot handle these exceptions.
fission of the embryo can occur at an early stage, or later. The fission can be complete or partial, (Siamese twins).
Fission, if it occur seems to be more frequently after specialization into foetus and placenta, for indentical twins invariably share a placenta, while fraternals do not.
Because of the uncertainty existing up to specialization into foetus and placenta, it is unsafe to assert that a single person exists from fertilization.
So I accept that some time between specialization and quickening, the number of persons is defined, and a scan can verify the number.
I do not know what the latest time for fission to occur is, I do not know if a study has been performed, it may be worth investigating.
M
mlchance
Guest
Incorrect. Rather, as has been explained, “because of the uncertainty existing up to specialization into foetus and placenta,” it is prudent to assert that at least a single person exists from fertilization. Otherwise, one runs the risk of ignorantly destroying a human being via abortion.Because of the uncertainty existing up to specialization into foetus and placenta, it is unsafe to assert that a single person exists from fertilization.
You’re very “uncertainty stance” completely undermines your position.
– Mark L. Chance.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
What I should have said was the embryo has the potential to become a number of human beings, typically the range 0 to 2, but I believe that 2 can be exceeded. Thus, because 1<>0, and 1<>2, then an embryo cannot be a = 1 human being by definition.The embryo is a human being. The sperm and egg, at the point of fertilization, combine to create a single-cell embryonic zygote, at which point the sperm and egg no longer exist. The zygote now has 46 chromosomes (plus/minus with Down’s and other syndromes), the exact number needed to create a member of the human species. This new single-celled being then immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes that drives his or her development throughout its whole life.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html
It may become one, or it may become two or more, or it may fail to produce any.
To posit that a human being can fission raises a severe philosophical problem, for if a human being can fission, then the soul must also fission. I do not belive that Mother Church accepts that souls can fission.
This means that the soul can be given only after the number of individuals is defined, that is, the number of persons.
This is all a philosophical argument. In the final analysis, science cannot help.The potential argument is philosophical, not scientific.
Science though. can show up paradoxes in philosophies, but beyond that it is of little help.
Yes, there are areas on the planet that can support more than they do, but if an average is taken of population density, and rate of consumption, then we need about seven planets to hold the present population without it suffering starvation.The planet is not bursting at the seams with a population crisis, but that is a point for another thread I guess. Just wanted to point out an ideological fallacy that drives the abortion agenda.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Most Catholics will use human DNA or membership in the species* Homo sapiens*.
Regarding human DNA, I wonder what rights do bacteria with plasmids that carry the code for human insulin and growth hormone that produce those biological products at Genentech. I do not think embryos or fetuses before eight weeks old have any rights (because brain stem activity emerges from the eighth week of conception).
Here is an essay that you should read:
Saving Human Rights from the Human Racists.
Regarding human DNA, I wonder what rights do bacteria with plasmids that carry the code for human insulin and growth hormone that produce those biological products at Genentech. I do not think embryos or fetuses before eight weeks old have any rights (because brain stem activity emerges from the eighth week of conception).
Here is an essay that you should read:
Saving Human Rights from the Human Racists.
These formulas express the “natural rights” theory, based on a theory of natural law or natural order, religious or secular. Unfortunately, although many people still believe in a God-given natural law with self-evident moral truths, natural rights provides little practical guidance since everyone sees different self-evident truths emerging from the same facts. Most philosophers today attempt to avoid this line of argument, which is known as the “naturalistic fallacy.” The first men to articulate these principles 200 years ago thought it was self-evident that only white men were genetically suited for full democratic citizenship. Today most rights advocates think that women and all races should be included in the circle of rights, but that the circle self-evidently stops at the human race, a position I call “human-racism.”
Since the only minds that were ever considered by democratic theorists were those of human beings, this tradition became subsumed within human-racism, which could appeal to religious beliefs about the soul and the divine intention for human beings. But now the animal rights movement has challenged the rights tradition by demonstrating that some nonhuman minds suffer, are self-aware and have other mental traits that make them worthy of rights-bearing. Likewise the personhood ethics tradition of bioethics has argued that some human beings, such as fetuses or the brain-dead, are human but not persons, and therefore are no longer bearers of rights. In liberal democracy’s personhood tradition rights are for persons, not humans, and not all humans are persons nor are all persons necessarily human. As the UDHR says, “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…” —to which we need now add, species.
J
JimG
Guest
This could have been posted at the entrance to Auschwitz, as a justification for what was happening there.“In liberal democracy’s personhood tradition rights are for persons, not humans, and not all humans are persons nor are all persons necessarily human.”
If not all humans are persons, some person can be killed. The government will decide who qualifies.
C
catharina
Guest
Agree. Will and has, a fact throughout history.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.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
My DH works at Genentech. PM me if you need info on how this process works. Human DNA strands are used to make proteins that are replicated, expressing the protein needed for the product, put into a buffer solution, and injected into the human being. It’s just DNA. One DNA strand doesn’t make a human being. A part doesn’t equal a whole.Regarding human DNA, I wonder what rights do bacteria with plasmids that carry the code for human insulin and growth hormone that produce those biological products at Genentech. I do not think embryos or fetuses before eight weeks old have any rights (because brain stem activity emerges from the eighth week of conception).
As for the rights of the embryo - at which point do human beings have rights? Once you move away from the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of the human being at conception, then the justifications are soley dependant on subjective factors, and then who decides? Usually the ones who have the most power.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Science can’t tell us when the soul is imparted to the body, this is true. Science can’t tell us when this twinning exactly occurs. But this has no bearing on whether the human being exists. The science is clear. The rest is philosophical.What I should have said was the embryo has the potential to become a number of human beings, typically the range 0 to 2, but I believe that 2 can be exceeded. Thus, because 1<>0, and 1<>2, then an embryo cannot be a = 1 human being by definition.
It may become one, or it may become two or more, or it may fail to produce any.
To posit that a human being can fission raises a severe philosophical problem, for if a human being can fission, then the soul must also fission. I do not belive that Mother Church accepts that souls can fission.
This means that the soul can be given only after the number of individuals is defined, that is, the number of persons.
This is all a philosophical argument. In the final analysis, science cannot help.
Science though. can show up paradoxes in philosophies, but beyond that it is of little help.
Yes, there are areas on the planet that can support more than they do, but if an average is taken of population density, and rate of consumption, then we need about seven planets to hold the present population without it suffering starvation.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano mused in post #64:
[sign]To posit that a human being can fission raises a severe philosophical problem, for if a human being can fission, then the soul must also fission. I do not belive that Mother Church accepts that souls can fission.[/sign]
Theologian, Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, wrote the following in his article, Human Personhood Begins at Fertilization:
[sign]The soul is whole and entire in every part of the human body, but the soul itself is not composed of the parts which it animates. The soul integrates the body into one system, is co-extensive with the body which it animates, but is not divisible as are the materials of the body. When part of the body is amputated, the soul is no longer in the separated limb. When tissue is taken to the laboratory for inspection and cultivation, the soul is not in that living tissue.
[/sign]
This would also apply to the misleading statement in post #49 which asserted ‘gametes have souls’. They do not possess a soul anymore than do strands of DNA or an amputated limb.
lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_187personhood.html
[sign]To posit that a human being can fission raises a severe philosophical problem, for if a human being can fission, then the soul must also fission. I do not belive that Mother Church accepts that souls can fission.[/sign]
Theologian, Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, wrote the following in his article, Human Personhood Begins at Fertilization:
[sign]The soul is whole and entire in every part of the human body, but the soul itself is not composed of the parts which it animates. The soul integrates the body into one system, is co-extensive with the body which it animates, but is not divisible as are the materials of the body. When part of the body is amputated, the soul is no longer in the separated limb. When tissue is taken to the laboratory for inspection and cultivation, the soul is not in that living tissue.
[/sign]
This would also apply to the misleading statement in post #49 which asserted ‘gametes have souls’. They do not possess a soul anymore than do strands of DNA or an amputated limb.
lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_187personhood.html
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Jennifer,Science can’t tell us when the soul is imparted to the body, this is true. Science can’t tell us when this twinning exactly occurs. But this has no bearing on whether the human being exists. The science is clear. The rest is philosophical.
I did a net trawl on embryo fission, and came up with four to fourteen days after conception being the usual limits for fission to occur.
What logic can tell us is that if souls are allocated to humans at conception, then if fission occurs, then the soul must likewise undergo fission. I believe that the majority opinion in the Church is that this cannot happen, but that is a philosophical point.
This objection to fissionable or mergeable souls leads to a logical paradox if souls are allocated at conception.
If however, ensoulment occurs when or after the number of embryos to be formed has become settled.
Of course, in the event of a misscarriage, the soul returns to G_d as in the normal occurrance of bodily death.
If though we say that the excess embryo(s) are ensouled at the completion of fission, then we are saying that at least for some of the embryos, ensoulment does not occur at conception.
Here is a special question brought to light by the occurrance of incomplete fission.
There is a pair of incompletely fissioned twin girls in the US, who share all organs below the neck, some under shared control, but most, for instance, legs and arms, are controlled independantly. In effect, she/they is/are a two headed girl.
She/they has/have learned to so work together that she/they can walk normally as a single organism, and can even drive a car, having passed the driving test with flying colours.
Each head considers herself to be a distinct person, so I would consider this pair of twins to have two independant souls, and to be two persons.
There is another girl in India, who had, (now removed), two extra arms, and two extra legs. What this girl was/is then is a partially fissioned organism, which lacked most parts of the second part of the twin, presenting only the extra limbs, and some of the support system for them.
She has no illusion of being more than a single person, and I would consider her not to have more than one soul.
Thus we seem to have the situation:-
One brain, one person, one soul: two brains, two persons, two souls.
So in the case of incomplete fission, personhood, and ensoulment seems to be dependant upon there being a brain present, at leat, an embryonic brain.
This brings us back to the development of CNS.
V
viennaprelude
Guest
Exactly, Mark. A fetus is a human being at a certain stage of development. Just like an embryo, a child, adolescent or adult. It will never be anything else.
It also is true that thought I may loose certain biological functions, I’m not less of a person. If I loose the ability to walk because of an accident, all I loose is the biological expression of walking. I’m still a human person.
It also is true that thought I may loose certain biological functions, I’m not less of a person. If I loose the ability to walk because of an accident, all I loose is the biological expression of walking. I’m still a human person.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Ah yes, accepting this is just the logical blockbuster that leads to an insoluable paradox. that was the point I was skating around.Voco Pro Tatiano mused in post #64:
[sign]To posit that a human being can fission raises a severe philosophical problem, for if a human being can fission, then the soul must also fission. I do not belive that Mother Church accepts that souls can fission.[/sign]
Theologian, Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, wrote the following in his article, Human Personhood Begins at Fertilization:
Actually, for the period of existance of the gametes, they are complete functioning organisms, though they run only on stored energy, having no means of self-nourishment, but then, seeds and eggs run on stored energy in their initial stages.[sign]The soul is whole and entire in every part of the human body, but the soul itself is not composed of the parts which it animates. The soul integrates the body into one system, is co-extensive with the body which it animates, but is not divisible as are the materials of the body. When part of the body is amputated, the soul is no longer in the separated limb. When tissue is taken to the laboratory for inspection and cultivation, the soul is not in that living tissue.
[/sign]
This would also apply to the misleading statement in post #49 which asserted ‘gametes have souls’. They do not possess a soul anymore than do strands of DNA or an amputated limb.
In that context, they have their own life-force, purpose and drive, or soul.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Abortion isn’t wrong because the embryo has a soul. It is wrong because it intentionally takes the life of another human being.She has no illusion of being more than a single person, and I would consider her not to have more than one soul.
Thus we seem to have the situation:-
One brain, one person, one soul: two brains, two persons, two souls.
So in the case of incomplete fission, personhood, and ensoulment seems to be dependant upon there being a brain present, at leat, an embryonic brain.
This brings us back to the development of CNS.
Regardless of whether or not one believes a human being has a soul at conception, the undeniable biologic truth is that it is a human being at conception. These things you are bringing into the conversation are interesting, albeit rare and exotic, but it doesn’t change the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being.
In regards to twinning and your 14-day window, please see this article:
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_48amicicuriaebriefs2.html
“Far too much emphasis has been placed on the occurrence of twinning. If twinning occurs (either from mechanical or natural means), it only signifies that one individual has given way to two individuals. The individuality of the latter in no way diminishes the reality of the individuality of the former.”
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I never mentioned abortion.Abortion isn’t wrong because the embryo has a soul. It is wrong because it intentionally takes the life of another human being.
Regardless of whether or not one believes a human being has a soul at conception, the undeniable biologic truth is that it is a human being at conception. These things you are bringing into the conversation are interesting, albeit rare and exotic, but it doesn’t change the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being.
I concerns me not whether that which is aborted is fully human, or potentially human.
abortion is denial of human life, whether it is actual or potential.
This is a very sad article by a cafeteria scientist.In regards to twinning and your 14-day window, please see this article:
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_48amicicuriaebriefs2.html
“Far too much emphasis has been placed on the occurrence of twinning. If twinning occurs (either from mechanical or natural means), it only signifies that one individual has given way to two individuals. The individuality of the latter in no way diminishes the reality of the individuality of the former.”
He seeks to sweep under the carpet, the shiboleth which destroys his foundation.
Let me for the moment accept your position that the human being and person begining with fertilization.
Then because at a very early stage, the embryo can fission, then, the entire human being/person may fission.
So if a person fissions, and becomes two persons, at what point does the pair of persons come into existance?
Do we pervert logic to the point that we posit that the two persons were present from conception as potential twins, and two co-located souls were present at conception?
Sorry the arguments are too futile for me to even try to repeat.
Our Lord said:
‘On earth, as it is in Heaven’
Was he telling us that whatsoever happens in the physical world is mirrored in the spiritual world, and vice versa.
Do we thus have to accept that a person may fission and become two, and that likewise, a soul may fission and become two.
Mother Church denies this.
Are we getting close to saying Mother Church is WRONG???
We have two mutually exclusive philosophies:-
1/ The soul is immergible, and indivisible.
2/ Personhood, and ensoulment occur at conception.
#1 denies #2, and #2 denies #1.
Take your pick.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano has made this remarkable analogy in post #49:[sign] I do not in any way devalue a human-being under-construction.
I just assert that a human-being under-construction must be considered in the same light a a house under-construction.[/sign]
Fellow posters have done a fine job replying to Voco so bear with me while I offer my reflections. It is startling anyone could pretend embryonic humans are no more than a pile of inanimate bricks awaiting construction. Frankly, it is degrading. Bricks will never build a home unless an outside source of energy and intelligence moves them and puts them where they belong. As JimG has already pointed out the embryo is self-directing. The significance of what he said seems to have been lost on Voco Pro Tatiano but maybe Fr. Zimmerman can elaborate further:
Clearly, these are not the actions of a “potential” or “possibe” human being but this is a self-developing person -already in existence-who is alerting his mother of his arrival as he prepares to implant on her uterine wall.
I just assert that a human-being under-construction must be considered in the same light a a house under-construction.[/sign]
Fellow posters have done a fine job replying to Voco so bear with me while I offer my reflections. It is startling anyone could pretend embryonic humans are no more than a pile of inanimate bricks awaiting construction. Frankly, it is degrading. Bricks will never build a home unless an outside source of energy and intelligence moves them and puts them where they belong. As JimG has already pointed out the embryo is self-directing. The significance of what he said seems to have been lost on Voco Pro Tatiano but maybe Fr. Zimmerman can elaborate further:
lifeissues.net/writers/zim/zim_187personhood.htmlWithin 6 to 24 hours after fertilization the zygote sends a hormone to the ovary of the mother called the “ovum factor” in order to protect its newly created life…In response to the stimulus of the ovum factor from the zygote, the mother’s ovary secretes a product into the blood stream called the “Early Pregnancy Factor.” …The ovaries then secrete the early pregnancy factor into the blood circulation, and the lymph glands pick it up with their receptors. They respond by releasing immuno-suppressor factors which protect the zygote from being attacked and destroyed by the mother’s immune system because he or she is a foreign body… EPF is also a growth factor, facilitating cell division. The newly conceived child continues to secrete its signal until the blastocyst stage…
Clearly, these are not the actions of a “potential” or “possibe” human being but this is a self-developing person -already in existence-who is alerting his mother of his arrival as he prepares to implant on her uterine wall.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano has discounted Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. as a “cafeteria scientist”. She is an articulate scientist and philosopher, and a former research biochemist at the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Name-calling is not what we do in this forum. We are here to exchange ideas and to critically examine the merit of these ideas.
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_09cloninghuman1.html
Compare the truth and precision of her writing with these:
“In terms of process, there is no real difference between an unfused sperm and an ovum pair, and a zygote or between a zygote and a blastocyst.” post #28 by Voco
or
“The sperm and the ovum… are part of the life process which is potentially immortal.” post #30 by Voco
or
“Life is not a thing, it is a process…all events in the process are equally important.” post #30 by Voco
or
“The embryo has the potential to become a human being…Likewise, the human being has the potential to become a person, but that is only a potential.” post #55 by Voco
Dianne IrvingThe correct scientific facts about which there is a scientific consensus are the following. Human *life *is biologically a continuum which has not halted or been interrupted for thousands of years. Although this continuum may be seen by some to be just a “process”, it must be pointed out that there must be *something *there which is undergoing the “process”. For example, “childhood” is a “process”, yet no one would seriously argue that there is *no child *present which is undergoing that process. Similarly, fertilization (or cloning) is a process; but there is *something *which is undergoing that process. A human sperm or ovum, a kidney cell, or a liver, may be said to have human “life”, but the real issue is that they are not human beings, capable *themselves *of directing and sustaining the continuum of human life. One could implant any of these in a uterus and they would simply rot. Only human beings can direct and sustain the continuum of human life and transmit it
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_09cloninghuman1.html
Compare the truth and precision of her writing with these:
“In terms of process, there is no real difference between an unfused sperm and an ovum pair, and a zygote or between a zygote and a blastocyst.” post #28 by Voco
or
“The sperm and the ovum… are part of the life process which is potentially immortal.” post #30 by Voco
or
“Life is not a thing, it is a process…all events in the process are equally important.” post #30 by Voco
or
“The embryo has the potential to become a human being…Likewise, the human being has the potential to become a person, but that is only a potential.” post #55 by Voco
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Rosalinda,Voco Pro Tatiano has discounted Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. as a “cafeteria scientist”. She is an articulate scientist and philosopher, and a former research biochemist at the National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Name-calling is not what we do in this forum. We are here to exchange ideas and to critically examine the merit of these ideas.
Dianne Irving
lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_09cloninghuman1.html
Compare the truth and precision of her writing with these:
“In terms of process, there is no real difference between an unfused sperm and an ovum pair, and a zygote or between a zygote and a blastocyst.” post #28 by Voco
or
“The sperm and the ovum… are part of the life process which is potentially immortal.” post #30 by Voco
or
“Life is not a thing, it is a process…all events in the process are equally important.” post #30 by Voco
or
“The embryo has the potential to become a human being…Likewise, the human being has the potential to become a person, but that is only a potential.” post #55 by Voco
Just because I, a common farmer, observe an error in the logic of a skilled orator, does not make my criticism automatically invalid.
We have a saying:
‘The exception proves the rule’.
This is commonly misunderstood that the exception validates the rule, but the old meaning for ‘prove’ is akin to ‘test’.
So the exception tests the rule.
The orator deliberately disregarded an uncommon exception to the normal run of things, so that the problem so caused could be ignored.
If Science had ignored rare exceptions, such as the particular behaviour of light, and the wave like behaviour of electrons, then Science would still be wallowing where itbwas 200 years ago.
The author by deliberately ignoring the exception is a cafeteria scientist, ignoring inconvenient facts which can destroy the case.
By testing your philosophy according to the exceptional cases, it becomes clear that two philosophies are mutually exclusive:-
1/ The person, and/or the soul are/is indivisible and immergible.
2/ The person, and/or the soul are/is allocated at conception.
The cases of complete and incomplete fission clearly test the coincident validity of these two rules to destruction.
One or the other, or both need to be reconsidered.
J
JimG
Guest
The case of twins or triplets arising from a single zygote is easily addressed.
The human soul, being immaterial, is in any case directly infused by God for each individual. If there is a division into more than one individual subsequent to the zygote stage, God infuses a soul into that new individual. One could also posit that two souls are present from the beginning, since God certainly knows how many individuals are to arise from the zygote. It is not a problem.
But that is a matter of philosophy and theology, not biology, which clearly delineates that a new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception. (It is quite possible that there are biological factors at the zygote stage which determine whether there is one or more individual present.)
But the demarcation line biologically is that one goes from two specialized cells to a new individual of the human species at the time of conception. That holds true whether we are speaking of individuals or twins.
The human soul, being immaterial, is in any case directly infused by God for each individual. If there is a division into more than one individual subsequent to the zygote stage, God infuses a soul into that new individual. One could also posit that two souls are present from the beginning, since God certainly knows how many individuals are to arise from the zygote. It is not a problem.
But that is a matter of philosophy and theology, not biology, which clearly delineates that a new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception. (It is quite possible that there are biological factors at the zygote stage which determine whether there is one or more individual present.)
But the demarcation line biologically is that one goes from two specialized cells to a new individual of the human species at the time of conception. That holds true whether we are speaking of individuals or twins.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Thank you for your insight here and for bringing it back to what is the most important point to adhere to IMHO - an embryo is a human being. Life begins at conception.But that is a matter of philosophy and theology, not biology, which clearly delineates that a new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception. (It is quite possible that there are biological factors at the zygote stage which determine whether there is one or more individual present.)
Personhood is a philosophical point, not scientific. Science cannot tell us when personhood exists, regardless of the age, status, or location of a human being.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.