C
catharina
Guest
Rosalinda - I’ve suggested ‘embryo being at least one individual’ but he seems to be locked in a box regarding the word ‘individual.’ I don’t know why he seems to need to stick to that.
- Status
J
Jennifer123
Guest
Because the acts of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, euthanasia, et al, depend on this separation between human beings and their inherent dignity in order to justify these actions.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Rosalinda, Dear Catharina,
Can we please have some accuracy in reporting.
I never ever made the following statement.
There is a tendency to substitute words which you wrongly assume to be similes.
Of course an embryo is a new (human, in this context), life.
What I said was that an embryo that can fission cannot be an individual.
I explained carefully, and painfully, that ‘individual’ shares with ‘indivisible’, the root verb, ‘to divide’. Thus a divisible entity cannot be an individual.
It can still be a human being, (under construction), and it most definitely is new (human) life.
We can agree that the embryo can become one, two, or more individuals, but while it is in the condition that ‘it can become’, it is divisible, and hence cannot be an individual.
There is clearly a ‘pro life agenda’ in this thread, and though I support ‘pro life’, I consider that the case is weakened by incorrect use of language.
The zygote, up to the fission window closing, is ‘a human being under construction’. It is not a person, and it is not an individual.
After the fission window has closed, the embryo has become an individual, or possibly a number of individuals, who all share the same life, which began with conception. All new life begins with conception. Even a cloned creature’s life begins with conception, but that conception is artificially engineered, by the manufacture of a functioning zygote, by injecting mature DNA into an emptied zygote.
Some time before the eighth week, the CNS is clearly well formed, and nervous activity can be detected. This is the beginning of brain function, and the beginning of the person. The person is a logical unit which is a function of the mind, hence brain.
When you consider conjoined twins, you have no difficulty in deciding that a bi-cephalic body comprises two persons, and you assume two souls. When there is only one head, no matter what other parts of the body might be duplicated, you happily say only one. Thus you already, at least unconciously accept a one to one relationship between brain and person, and, brain and soul.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
How can you possibly know that if science does not know why or how exactly a human being twins?
I just want to be clear that what you are saying is philospohical and certainly shouldn’t be any reason to deny humanness or be a justification for the death or exploitation of the embryo before “twinning” occurs. First do no harm.
Again, science is clear. The embryo from the time of conception is a human being. A person is a human being. Even if it twins, it will not turn into a cat, a frog, or a tree. It becomes more human beings. Again, a person is a human being. We do not give personhood to any other species.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco has lamented:
[sign]There is a tendency to substitute words which you wrongly assume to be similes.[/sign]
Voco Pro Tatiano, Yes. Let’s please be accurate. Frankly, this little “colonial” doesn’t understand what you are talking about every time you use the word “simile”. You may begin to make more sense to your interlocutors if you could define “simile” for us.
Is it not a common figure of speech used to compare two unlike objects that have a point in common? For instance, "Her thoughts in the morning are as tangled as her hair."
If you would be so kind as to show us the similes we are using which you object to we might begin to make some progress.
[sign]There is a tendency to substitute words which you wrongly assume to be similes.[/sign]
Voco Pro Tatiano, Yes. Let’s please be accurate. Frankly, this little “colonial” doesn’t understand what you are talking about every time you use the word “simile”. You may begin to make more sense to your interlocutors if you could define “simile” for us.
Is it not a common figure of speech used to compare two unlike objects that have a point in common? For instance, "Her thoughts in the morning are as tangled as her hair."
If you would be so kind as to show us the similes we are using which you object to we might begin to make some progress.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Voco Pro Tatiano in Post 13:
[sign]“Whether or not a Human being is a person, I think is a mistaken judgement to make. One might judge whether a human being has lost, or ever had humanity.”[/sign]
If it is a mistake to judge a human being as a person in the first place, then by extension, it must also be an mistake to judge a person is no longer a human being.
Also from post 13 Voco unequivocally stated:
[sign]“A human being lacking a mind, clearly lacks humanity”[/sign]
No. Such a person is either sick, injured or disabled. Humane people will understand this and in caring for the weaker members of the human family they develop their innate qualities of generosity and compassion. On the other hand, we coarsen ourselves and our culture when we fail to act humanely; deny the status of personhood to entire classes of people for self-serving purposes.
Let’s contrast Voco’s philosophy with this philosopher, John Paul II.
"When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefitting from his humanity and of entering into that relationship of solidarity and communion with others for which God created him. Indeed, it is through the free gift of self that man truly finds himself. This gift is made possible by the human person’s essential “capacity for transcendence.” Man cannot give himself to a purely human plan for reality, to an abstract ideal or to a false utopia. As a person, he can give himself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of his being and who alone can fully accept his gift. A man is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God."
Centesimus annus, 1991, paragraph 41
[sign]“Whether or not a Human being is a person, I think is a mistaken judgement to make. One might judge whether a human being has lost, or ever had humanity.”[/sign]
If it is a mistake to judge a human being as a person in the first place, then by extension, it must also be an mistake to judge a person is no longer a human being.
Also from post 13 Voco unequivocally stated:
[sign]“A human being lacking a mind, clearly lacks humanity”[/sign]
No. Such a person is either sick, injured or disabled. Humane people will understand this and in caring for the weaker members of the human family they develop their innate qualities of generosity and compassion. On the other hand, we coarsen ourselves and our culture when we fail to act humanely; deny the status of personhood to entire classes of people for self-serving purposes.
Let’s contrast Voco’s philosophy with this philosopher, John Paul II.
"When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the possibility of benefitting from his humanity and of entering into that relationship of solidarity and communion with others for which God created him. Indeed, it is through the free gift of self that man truly finds himself. This gift is made possible by the human person’s essential “capacity for transcendence.” Man cannot give himself to a purely human plan for reality, to an abstract ideal or to a false utopia. As a person, he can give himself to another person or to other persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of his being and who alone can fully accept his gift. A man is alienated if he refuses to transcend himself and to live the experience of self-giving and of the formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final destiny, which is God."
Centesimus annus, 1991, paragraph 41
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
My error, I too can confuse my words.
I was trying to find ‘synonym’, but ‘simile’ got in the way.
Where you find ‘simile’ in my posts, please understand it to be erroneously substituted for ‘synonym’.
Yes the word I incorrectly used is such a figure of speech. but you have quoted a metaphor.
The correct use of a simile would be:-
Her thoughts were a mess, like the tangle of her unkempt hair.
The metaphor actually changes her thoughts into tangled hair.
Synonyms, not similes, my error.If you would be so kind as to show us the similes we are using which you object to we might begin to make some progress.
‘Human being’ is not necessarily either an ‘individual’ or a ‘person’.
To be an ‘individual’, the ‘human being’ must be defined and indivisible.
To be a person, there are two views to be considered.
1/ A person is normally considered to be a born human being. This is the normal legal understanding.
2/ A person is expected to have a personality, hence brain function and consciousness. Temporary unconsciousness, such as sleep, or recoverable coma notwithstanding.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Thank you for taking the time to clear up the difference between similes and synonyms. It was very gracious of you to admit to confusing your figures of speech. It is a long time since I studied English and every once and a while a little refresher course is helpful. 
R
Rosalinda
Guest
[sign]A person is expected to have a personality, hence brain function and consciousness.[/sign]
O.K. Voco Pro Tatiano, you have made this very clear and I thank you for your forthrightness. Nevertheless, you can’t reduce a human person to his functions. Too many people would be excluded with such a definition and this mentality has resulted in too much suffering already.
As much as you don’t like this author, Dr. Dianne Irving I do. This is from her article, N.I.H. & Human Embryo Research: A Critical Analysis :
O.K. Voco Pro Tatiano, you have made this very clear and I thank you for your forthrightness. Nevertheless, you can’t reduce a human person to his functions. Too many people would be excluded with such a definition and this mentality has resulted in too much suffering already.
As much as you don’t like this author, Dr. Dianne Irving I do. This is from her article, N.I.H. & Human Embryo Research: A Critical Analysis :
LifeIssues.net
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Actually such a person is in the process of dying, indeed, in a very real sense, is already dead, and the continued bodily activity, whether spontaneously maintained, or artificially so, is a vanity.
Reference has been made to an earlier posting of mine. To save you looking back, here is the core of the posting. Please be aware, that the words I use can have various measures of meaning. See comments after the extract.
[sign]
Whether or not a Human being is a person, I think is a mistaken judgement to make. One might judge whether a human being has lost, or ever had humanity. A human being lacking a mind, clearly lacks humanity, as like personality, humanity is a function of mind,
My dog has a very definite personality, including a wicked sense of humour. Does that not make her a person.
What do you mean by person?
Can it be uniqueness of essence?
Many of the creatures of the lower creation have such uniqueness.
Parrots an budgies are so renowned.
Another aspect is the mental disorder resulting in split or multiple personality.
Beware of confusing ‘person’ with ‘soul’
[/sign]
I understand that in certain contexts, ‘person’ and ‘human being’ are synonyms. This context though is normal, and especially legal context, referring to a born person. This context specificaly excludes the unborn.
'Humanity has various meanings, see Collins English Dictionary:-
humanity *n, pl *-ties 1 human race. 2 the quality of being human. 3 kindness or mercy. #pl 4 study of literature, philosophy, and the arts.
Obviously, you are using exclusively definition #1, where I am, because in context, definition #1 is trivial, using definitions #2, and #3. These latter definitions have a deep connection with the higher functions of the brain, that which sets us aside from the rest of creation. Thus a human being, lacking a mind, has lost those higher functions, so is limited to the technical definition #1.
‘Person’, and ‘individual’, I described my dog, sorry, let’s get it right, she is a b|i|t|c|h. She definitely has a strong personality, and she is definitely an individual. So is she not a person?
Certainly she is not a human being, so that rules out the first definition, but she certainly displays higher brain function and creativity. She can work out original solutions to problems that occur by the way-side.
Rudyard Kipling estimated the intelligence of a dog to be comparable to a three year old child. Dogs can comprehend approximately 300 human words, but their diction is severely limited, and it takes a good ear to determine the contextual meaning of their vocalizations.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Dear Rosalinda,
Though it is not obvious from my apparent outlook, I am not only pro-life, but also anti-cruelty, whether to humans or animals, or even condemned criminals.
In as much as in some circumstances, vain forced prolongation of a futile existence, amounts to cruelty, I would allow, in very rare circumstances, a form of euthanasia, which would comprise prolonged anesthesia, while the painful inevitable took its course.
Rabies comes to mind.
In order to classify a human as so lacking humanity as to not meaningfully to be a person, then we are talking of something so severe that a deaf/blind Down’s case seems like a genius.
Again, I would insist on no cruelty, but have to ask, is the pro-life position more cruel than wise-choice.
We always used to say, that as long as the dog can wag his tail, the time has not come.
R
Rosalinda
Guest
Yes, Voco Pro Tatiano, you may well consider yourself pro-life notwithstanding the many ideas you have adopted which inevitably add to humanity’s heavy burden of cruelty. There is a hierarchy of order which only hubris would dare defy and with today’s technology certainly does:
Alice Ramos, Ph.D., “The Meaning of the Concept of Personhood”, 2007
C
Conservative
Guest
I’m like that little child in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. While I have respect for experts who can put names and explanations to it all, I look at things very simply and call it as I see it.
I’m not a doctor, scientist or theologian. But I do know this. A sperm is life. An egg is life. Put the two together, and they form a HUMAN life. Call it ‘zygote’ or ‘embryo’ or prenatal or whatever - - - the key words are “human life”. Once it’s reached that stage - it’s a baby, a person, if ever so tiny, and has soul worthy of respect - and Baptism. Sadly, I have friends who were not able to bury children who did not live “to term” for varied reasons - they were so small, or destroyed. You have to be a certain size to qualify? We need to be bluntly demanding with physicians or anyone who tries to tell us otherwise.
I’m not a doctor, scientist or theologian. But I do know this. A sperm is life. An egg is life. Put the two together, and they form a HUMAN life. Call it ‘zygote’ or ‘embryo’ or prenatal or whatever - - - the key words are “human life”. Once it’s reached that stage - it’s a baby, a person, if ever so tiny, and has soul worthy of respect - and Baptism. Sadly, I have friends who were not able to bury children who did not live “to term” for varied reasons - they were so small, or destroyed. You have to be a certain size to qualify? We need to be bluntly demanding with physicians or anyone who tries to tell us otherwise.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
I do not support the hubris of government.
My belief is that human life, however initiated, is still a gift from G_d, and every human zygote, however formed should be given the opportunity to come to term.
Though I consider the formation of human artificial clones to be the greatest of sins, nevertheless, any such, should too, be allowed to come to term. That life, yes even that life is also a gift from G_d!
The other thing I insist on, and that puts me in direct opposition to many, is that no human should be treated worse than a dog. I pray that when my time comes, there will be for me a friendly veterinary, who understands the meaning of mercy.
C
catharina
Guest
Hi to you.
Before I decide to enter (again) into any discussion with you, I have a few questions for you.
Your profile states that you are a heretic.
In what sense are you a heretic? A heretic from what?
In many of your posts (like the one quoted above) you refer to God as G-d. That is a practice of orthodox (and some conservative) Jews.
Why is that “spelling” of God your preference?
What does that choice mean to you and what is it meant to say about you?
Do you actually believe that the souls of humans and dogs are equal in value -
to God?
to society?
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Hi Catharina,
A short answer to this question will of necessity be close to meaningless.
I have in my postings, been quite open about what I believe might be true, and what I find difficult to accept.
As a Christian, my first loyalty is to the words and instructions of Our Lord, as found in the Gospel(s). If you check through my recent postins, you will find a detailed hierarchical list of scripture and tradition, in order of priority.
I share with Jews, the idea that G_d is so infinitely ineffable that words or names cannot describe. I also never, as far as I can help so use pronouns, for the same reason. The use of this unpronounceable formula is intended to remind readers of that fact.
Our Lord compared the love G_d has for a sparrow with the love for Man. Thus though a sparrow is way down the list in terms of importance, it is on the same page.
An individual dog, compared with an individual man, comes in a very poor second, however should any man, or society seek to exterminate dogs, then the duty of care is negated, and that man or society should not prevail, and whosoever raises his hand so that they prevail not, does the work of G_d.
G_d did not give MAN license to abuse the world, G_d set up Man as a husbandman to care for the world.
C
catharina
Guest
VpT - please don’t tell me to search through your postings. I have neither the time nor the desire to do so. So I present my questions again:
**
Your profile states that you are a heretic.
In what sense are you a heretic? A heretic from what?
In many of your posts (like the one quoted above) you refer to God as G-d. That is a practice of orthodox (and some conservative) Jews.
Why is that “spelling” of God your preference?
What does that choice mean to you and what is it meant to say about you?
Do you actually believe that the souls of humans and dogs are equal in value -
to God?
to society?**
**
Your profile states that you are a heretic.
In what sense are you a heretic? A heretic from what?
In many of your posts (like the one quoted above) you refer to God as G-d. That is a practice of orthodox (and some conservative) Jews.
Why is that “spelling” of God your preference?
What does that choice mean to you and what is it meant to say about you?
Do you actually believe that the souls of humans and dogs are equal in value -
to God?
to society?**
J
Jennifer123
Guest
The respect you have for the name of God belies the fact that you have placed Him in such a lowly state as to not grace His creation with the ability to infuse souls into those He knows will become more than one.
Philosophically, we can not know how or when ensoulment takes place. The Creator is capable of anything.
Scientifically, an embryo is a human being from the point of conception.
A human being is a person. We don’t grant personhood to any other species. The theoreticals of when a human being loses their personhood is an elitist argument.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
Not so. The problem is derived from trying to follow Church teaching that the human soul is indivisible and immergible.
If we accept this teaching as spurious, then the problem vanishes.
‘On Earth, as it is in Heaven’, implies that when the embryo fissions, the soul fissions to match the embryo human, to which it is bound throughout life.
But that is another story.
Yes, indeed, but does the Creator reform the animalistic soul of the sperm and of the egg into the soul of the zygote, then into the soul of the pre-individual embryo, then into the soul of the individual embrio.
‘On Earth as it is in Heaven’.
All my recent post accept this fact, though add the descriptive phrase: ‘under construction’.
A born human being is a person, (legal requirement).
Who is ‘We’?
No, it is a realistic analysis of the stages in the process of death, as the dawn of personhood is a realist analysis of the process of embryonic development.
Neither the appearance, nor its disappearance can be marked by an instant. It is though eminently clear when it is fully present, and also when fully absent.
It is not necessary to wait until the corpse is decayed before it is declared dead, though in the past, some errors have been made, with horrifying consequences.
So how will you judge, do you watch for the apparition of the spirit ascending to heaven, or do you respect the judgement of the trained scientist, who says when meaningful operation of the body has permanently ceased.
You are happy to accept science sometimes, but not others.
This is cafeteria science.
C
catharina
Guest
I’d like to guess that you don’t think you sound patronizing or disrespectful as you present your singular view regarding the the presence of a new soul. Nonetheless …
Since you’ve already declared yourself as “heretic” of some still-unexplained deviation, is it fact that you “can not” (do not, will not) accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, one of the few “declared” infallible teachings of the Catholic Church?
- Status