Help Defining a Person

[catharina]

VpT, a reminder for all of us:

This thread originated with this question:
Help Defining a Person​

What is the best way to define a Person in an abortion debate?

---

I wonder if your responses have in any way been helpful or even adequate to OP’s requests for assistance? From all you’ve said, it seems likely that you are fine with induced abortion for the first two or three weeks of pregnancy. True or false?

 

[Ronald_E]

Personhood began in the womb as was evidenced by the conception of Christ. This truth was validated when John the Baptist rejoiced from the womb of his mother. It appears that to be a person begins beyond our understanding.

 

[catharina]

Personhood began in the womb as was evidenced by the conception of Christ. This truth was validated when John the Baptist rejoiced from the womb of his mother. It appears that to be a person begins beyond our understanding.

Quite a lovely reference and undoubtedly true.

Our own mechanistic “knowledge” through the sciences remains totally inadequate. Thanks be to God for His Church and its duty and habit of interpreting God’s wisdom for us.

 

[Rosalinda]

Frankly, I don’t think it is relevant to this discussion as to whether or not Voco Pro Tatiano is a heretic or not. It is obvious he has some difficulties but he has respectfully posed some interesting questions and has patiently replied to our poking and prodding so let’s examine if his ideas are based on a firm foundation.

As Jennifer well knows already from the article she submitted earlier from Life Issues the “pre-embryo theory” originated not from a human embryologist but was invented by a frog embryologist. There is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” or any of its variations.

In 1979 Clifford Grobstein authored an article in Scientific American in which he introduced his invention called the "preembryo"8. He used false science in justifying this term, and it became known as "The Big Lie in Human Embryology"9. He was upfront about the use of this term and admitted it was invented to change the “status” of the human embryo. This translated to a change in the moral status of the human embryo. He also equated this term with a “preperson”. At first he said the preembryo age extended to 14 days post-fertilization, but later claimed it to be 7 weeks post fertilization10. This term was seized upon by prochoice advocates, including members of the clergy11 and physicians12. In spite of many efforts to discredit the term, it is still used today in the mainstream media to enable abortion and stem cell research, e.g. the use of “spare” embryos in IVF laboratories. Some of the more wild extrapolations of this term include declaring that human life does not begin at fertilization, but, in fact, only at implantation. So, here we are strapped with another false dogma in Human Embryology, so far for 28 years.

From "The Final Corruption of Human Embryology" C. 2006, Ward Kischer, Ph.D., emeritus professor of cell biology and anatomy, specialty human embryology, University of Arizona.

lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_28corruption.html

 

[Ronald_E]

I just read a part of another message using a line from the Lord’s Prayer “On earth as it is in heaven” The line before this reads “…Thy will be done” It appears that in heaven there is a perfect union with God that begins with a purity of heart. Jesus suffered and died but nobody saw him rise again. What may be implied here is that life and death occur beyond our ability to observe its beginning and end. Perhaps we are to support life since everything in creation exists to support our life.

 

[catharina]

Frankly, I don’t think it is relevant to this discussion as to whether or not Voco Pro Tatiano is a heretic or not. It is obvious he has some difficulties but he has respectfully posed some interesting questions and has patiently replied to our poking and prodding so let’s examine if his ideas are based on a firm foundation.

As Jennifer well knows already from the article she submitted earlier from Life Issues the “pre-embryo theory” originated not from a human embryologist but was invented by a frog embryologist. There is no such thing as a “pre-embryo” or any of its variations.

From "The Final Corruption of Human Embryology" C. 2006, Ward Kischer, Ph.D., emeritus professor of cell biology and anatomy, specialty human embryology, University of Arizona.

lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_28corruption.html

That might be true for you, but it’s certainly relevant to me. Before you joined the discussion (at length) VpT and I had been back and forth for a number of days. Always, I’ve wondered and even asked why he is intent on presenting such extremely qualified and very nuanced responses when in the odd moment, he’ll surprise by saying I agree completely with this or that.

Finally, I checked his profile and saw that he’s described his religion as heretic. That new bit of info caused me to question him much more closely. I’ve never had the clear impression that he is necessarily arguing for the sake of argument so I wonder, very simply, what is his belief system. Is he a heretic in the eyes of the RC Church? Is he a self-proclaimed heretic?

Most important to me (and in reference to the OP’s need) what is his belief on the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and has that caused him to separate from the Catholic Church? If that’s so, then he’s the kind of heretic whom I’d avoid since I’m not qualified to bring him back from such an error. A confessor, (priest-theologian-apologist) would be qualified.

 

[Rosalinda]

Voco in post 37 asked:[sign]Is then every miscarriage or misconception, a death of a fully human being, and a soul of the dead returns to the Maker?[/sign]

The premise behind this argument seems to suggest G_d wouldn’t be so extravagant or callous as to create a soul for a human being who is going to exist only a few hours or a few days. I wouldn’t presume to tie G_d’s hands or limit His generosity. From the viewpoint of eternity the lifespan of each one of us, whether a few hours or a hundred years, is over in a blink of an eye. Nonetheless our Creator has attached enormous significance to our existence.

Yes, parents do grieve when they miscarry.Yes, it is human being albeit not a fully developed human being. The newborn is not yet fully developed, neither is the child nor the teenager nor the adult for that matter. We are all developing as our lives unfold.

Only the Lord- who can read all hearts knows- if any of us, even the most successful among us has reached his full potential. We all fall short. The wonder remains our Creator, before time began, before the foundations of the world were made, decided there was something so uniquely special about each one of us that He chose to give us this gift. He is the Master artist at work in each of us and it is mind-boggling that any one of us creatures would dare snatch that canvas out of His hands and trash it. We cheat ourselves. We deny G_d glory.

Finally, yes, the soul returns to His Maker. Human souls are immortal. Catholics believe at the general Resurrection on the Last Day all souls will be reunited with their glorified bodies because we are embodied spirits. I’m looking forward to seeing my brother who lived for only a few hours after his premature birth before I was born. Although I’ve never known him I have had a lifetime relationship with my big brother.

 

[catharina]

Voco in post 37 asked:[sign]Is then every miscarriage or misconception, a death of a fully human being, and a soul of the dead returns to the Maker?[/sign]

The premise behind this argument seems to suggest G_d wouldn’t be so extravagant or callous as to create a soul for a human being who is going to exist only a few hours or a few days. **I wouldn’t presume to tie G_d’s hands or limit His generosity. **From the viewpoint of eternity the lifespan of each one of us, whether a few hours or a hundred years, is over in a blink of an eye. Nonetheless our Creator has attached enormous significance to our existence.

Yes, parents do grieve when they miscarry.Yes, it is human being albeit not a fully developed human being. The newborn is not yet fully developed, neither is the child nor the teenager nor the adult for that matter. We are all developing as our lives unfold.

Only the Lord- who can read all hearts knows- if any of us, even the most successful among us has reached his full potential. We all fall short. The wonder remains our Creator, before time began, before the foundations of the world were made, decided there was something so uniquely special about each one of us that He chose to give us this gift. He is the Master artist at work in each of us and it is mind-boggling that any one of us creatures would dare snatch that canvas out of His hands and trash it. We cheat ourselves. We deny G_d glory.

Finally, yes, the soul returns to His Maker. Human souls are immortal. Catholics believe at the general Resurrection on the Last Day all souls will be reunited with their glorified bodies because we are embodied spirits. I’m looking forward to seeing my brother who lived for only a few hours after his premature birth before I was born. Although I’ve never known him I have had a lifetime relationship with my big brother.

My sentiments exactly.

When one insists on defining life according to one’s own very limited knowledge then one is very much likely to argue in a way that would seem to tie the hands of God. God is ineffable - very much in the same sense as use of the Name of G-d.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

My sentiments exactly.

When one insists on defining life according to one’s own very limited knowledge then one is very much likely to argue in a way that would seem to tie the hands of God. God is ineffable - very much in the same sense as use of the Name of G-d.

Dear Catharina, Dear Rosalinda,
You answer my question with a question.
Yes, I accept the drift of your argument. I need to consider further, but the direction we seem to be heading is contrary to my understanding of the Church’s teaching on souls.
The Human soul, according to Church teaching, as I understand it, reflects the indivisibility, and immergibility of the born human, (ignoring for the moment conjoined twins), and so is seen as such.
However, life is mergible, and divisible, at least on the microbic scale, and part of our life-cycle uses operations on that scale.
All living creatures, including microbes and viruses have at least an animalistic soul. Since part of our life-cycle, involves haploid fission, and diploid merging, then the animalistic souls must also fission and merge.
Now is the animalistic soul of the zygote converted into a human soul, or is it overlaid by a human soul, or is the conversion to a full human soul delayed until the embryonic fission window is passed.
Yes, we are messing about with a mixture of modern science, and ancient philosophy, masquerading as science. It is not a healthy mix.
If you mix science with philosophy, then precious beliefs will be questioned.
This argument is very much thought out on the fly, feel free to pick it apart. Try though to keep it logical, that at least is faithful to both science and philosophy.
Please note:
I place absolutely no limit on the capabilities of G_d.
That includes the capability to perform acts which we in our ignorance of the whole picture, might perceive as evil.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

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?

Dear Catharina,
In a nutshell, I am nominally ‘Church of England’ or ‘Anglican catholic’, which ever you prefer.
So that makes me a schismatic for starters.
However, I am not convinced into a full acceptance of Anglican theology, and though I accept the Lord’s prayer, as is, though I prefer my translation of the Latin, and replace ‘as we forgive’ with ‘for we have forgiven’, and I generally accept the apostle’s crede, I have difficulty with the filioque clause in the Nicaean crede, and replace ‘who proceeds from’ with ‘who is seen through (cause of)’.
The Athanasian crede, I find utterly objectionable as it is exclusive in a church which should be inclusive.
That I guess makes me heretical wrt the Anglican community.
So I am a schismatic heretic.
Can it get any worse?
Yes. I could be a protestant!
ps
I have not made a study of Mariology, so I have no opinion at the moment, however, I do recall that when Our Lord saved Peter from drowning, he did not rebuke him for his presumption to walk on water, but for his lack of faith.
The profound implication here is that PHYSICALLY, Our Lord did not consider himself to be anything other than a perfectly normal human being, thus, anything he could do, anyone else, with sufficient faith, could also do.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

VpT, a reminder for all of us:

This thread originated with this question:
Help Defining a Person​

What is the best way to define a Person in an abortion debate?

---

I wonder if your responses have in any way been helpful or even adequate to OP’s requests for assistance? From all you’ve said, it seems likely that you are fine with induced abortion for the first two or three weeks of pregnancy. True or false?

The use of abortion at any time as a means of contraception is to me an abomination.
I actually consider early abortion to be a more serious matter than late abortion, because prior to the fission window closing, there exists the potential to more life than after.
To me the only acceptable cause for abortion is where there is serious risk to the mother’s life in bringing the foetus to term. however, I consider that unless it is totally infeasible, every effort should be made to save the infant alive, not to wantonly destroy it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Personhood began in the womb as was evidenced by the conception of Christ. This truth was validated when John the Baptist rejoiced from the womb of his mother. It appears that to be a person begins beyond our understanding.

Yes, but the science and philosophy of this time put the dawn of personhood, and ensoulment coincident with quickening.
This is the verdict of the Gospel(s).
Modern science shines no light on these philosophical concepts.
I would allow thet the quickening is evidence that personhood has dawned, and ensoulment too, and not that this is a sign of it actually happening.

 

[crowonsnow]

What is the best way to define a Person in an abortion debate?

Actually, the death of any person constitutes the aborting and the abortion of a human life. So clearly you cannot have an abortion without a human life. I guess the lingering question is whether each individual human organism is a person. My answer would be, “no.” And maybe it’s as simple as knowing that an acorn is not an oak tree.

So when does an acorn become an oak tree? Or is an acorn on an oak tree already another oak tree? Or when does a developing acorn become another oak tree? If I smash a viable acorn have I chopped down an oak tree? These seem to be the questions.

We know that many people see human life as being superior to other forms of life, when in reality human life is just as interdependent as all else. We cannot live without the billions of bacteria in our gut for example.

A “person” can be a lot of things. We really don’t need to define it, or narrlowly define it for purposes of discussing abortion. That’s how it seems to me anyway.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Actually, the death of any person constitutes the aborting and the abortion of a human life. So clearly you cannot have an abortion without a human life. I guess the lingering question is whether each individual human organism is a person. My answer would be, “no.” And maybe it’s as simple as knowing that an acorn is not an oak tree.

So when does an acorn become an oak tree? Or is an acorn on an oak tree already another oak tree? Or when does a developing acorn become another oak tree? If I smash a viable acorn have I chopped down an oak tree? These seem to be the questions.

We know that many people see human life as being superior to other forms of life, when in reality human life is just as interdependent as all else. We cannot live without the billions of bacteria in our gut for example.

A “person” can be a lot of things. We really don’t need to define it, or narrlowly define it for purposes of discussing abortion. That’s how it seems to me anyway.

Hi CrowonSnow,
We have already passed by that argument.
We accept that an embryo is not a completely formed human being, but we all accept that it is a human being in the making.
Thus, though still in the making, yet it is a human being.
Likewise, an acorn is an oak tree in the making.

 

[crowonsnow]

Hi CrowonSnow,
We have already passed by that argument.
We accept that an embryo is not a completely formed human being, but we all accept that it is a human being in the making.
Thus, though still in the making, yet it is a human being.
Likewise, an acorn is an oak tree in the making.

Or maybe just food for a squirrel.

I’m just saying that acorn is to oak tree what embryo is to person. That’s how I see the debate. All semantics aside that’s something quantifiable.

All human egg/sperm unions are human. But not all human egg/sperm unions become a person. Most don’t. This should be part of the debate, and not attempting to define what “person” is.

Do you agree?

 

[catharina]

Dear Catharina,
In a nutshell, I am nominally ‘Church of England’ or ‘Anglican catholic’, which ever you prefer.
So that makes me a schismatic for starters.
However, I am not convinced into a full acceptance of Anglican theology, and though I accept the Lord’s prayer, as is, though I prefer my translation of the Latin, and replace ‘as we forgive’ with ‘for we have forgiven’, and I generally accept the apostle’s crede, I have difficulty with the filioque clause in the Nicaean crede, and replace ‘who proceeds from’ with ‘who is seen through (cause of)’.
The Athanasian crede, I find utterly objectionable as it is exclusive in a church which should be inclusive.
That I guess makes me heretical wrt the Anglican community.
So I am a schismatic heretic.
Can it get any worse?
Yes. I could be a protestant!
ps
I have not made a study of Mariology, so I have no opinion at the moment, however, I do recall that when Our Lord saved Peter from drowning, he did not rebuke him for his presumption to walk on water, but for his lack of faith.
The profound implication here is that PHYSICALLY, Our Lord did not consider himself to be anything other than a perfectly normal human being, thus, anything he could do, anyone else, with sufficient faith, could also do.

Thank you for your answers, delayed though they were. You seem to have invented your own religion, not unusual for those who dabble in the sciences without a firm faith. Your beliefs seem to grow from a personal decision that you can take it or leave it according to your personal conclusions regarding any article of faith. Therefore your notion of faith is distinct from my own. In regard to the faith given to me within the RC Church, my decision, fully dependent on grace, is to “take” it all. and to cherish it and guard it and let it grace and strengthen and protect me.

That you parse the creeds to cast out those srticles you do not support in faith is typical for any who approach faith as just another discipline, rather than as the force (virtue) that gives new meaning to life. You are not RC and knowing that now, I wouldn’t expect you to have made a study of Mariology.

As for your interpretation based in your imagination of the exchange between Our Lord, Jesus Christ and Peter in the case given, it is merely that, your opinion, and in fact another attempt to diminish the the essence of God. What you call a “profound implication” is rather of a nature that I would call “meaningful” to you.

Now, finally, your response to crowinsnow: “We accept that an embryo is not a completely formed human being, but we all accept that it is a human being in the making.” You are not speaking for me in that conclusion of yours and I doubt that you’re speaking for Rosalinda either. I say (and I think she says): “New human life begins at conception.” No variables accepted. As to your “unique to you” decision that abortion is allowable though regrettable to save the life of a mother, I’ll remind you that this being a Catholic site, again, I repeat the Catholic teaching that abortion is never allowed for any reason - and that is my belief.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Sorry Catharina,

Now, finally, your response to crowinsnow: “We accept that an embryo is not a completely formed human being, but we all accept that it is a human being in the making.” You are not speaking for me in that conclusion of yours and I doubt that you’re speaking for Rosalinda either. I say (and I think she says): “New human life begins at conception.” No variables accepted. As to your “unique to you” decision that abortion is allowable though regrettable to save the life of a mother, I’ll remind you that this being a Catholic site, again, I repeat the Catholic teaching that abortion is never allowed for any reason - and that is my belief.

I thought that my qualification was acceptable to you.
Surely you do not consider the early embryo/zygote to be a completely formed human being.
I just thought that the qualifying phrase, ‘in the making’ was accurate, and in the lack of immediate denial, acceptable.
Please forgive me for putting words in your mouth.
My appologies also to Rosalinda, if she is also affronted.

 

[Rosalinda]

Voco Pro Tatiano has said:
[sign]The Human soul, according to Church teaching, as I understand it, reflects the indivisibility, and immergibility of the born human, (ignoring for the moment conjoined twins), and so is seen as such.[/sign]

Yes, I have been meaning to get to the issue of the human soul which seems to be the core of our failure to understand one another. Indeed, Voco you are correct the Church teaches the soul is indivisible. However, and I do ask for your continued patience, but I’m not familiar with this word which you are so fond of: "immergibility". From other posts your suggestions about the sexual gametes each containing a soul has left me scratching my head frankly. In post #49 you made this claim. Elsewhere you said the sperm and the ovum are animated by “micro-souls” and that these “micro-souls can fission”.

Do the parents contribute more to the new human embryo than just matter ie.: the body? Do they contribute to the soul of their offspring also? No. This idea was condemned by the Church a long time ago. She has stated unequivocally: G_d alone creates an immortal soul for each individual human child. It did not exist before in some huge amorphous one soul which is waiting to be shared with the latest member of the human race. It cannot be divided into pieces from the parents and shared with the unborn child. The soul does not pre-exist. It comes directly from G_d and returns directly to Him after death.

Yes, while I agree the sexual gametes contain human life they are not to be confused with a new, genetically unique, single-cell human being which comes into existence at fertilization. What happens at fertilization is radically different from the process of gametogenesis which brings mature sexual cells to the point where they are ready to play their role. After fertilization is complete neither the sperm nor the oocyte continue to exist. Their contribution is complete, finished. Neither of the sexual gametes can survive long once released. The sperm will die in seven days if it hasn’t entered an oocyte successfully and the oocyte has only a twenty four hour window where it can be fertilized before it too dies. The earliest embryo however is self-sufficient and self-directed.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune who was a professor of Fundamental Genetics in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, and was the first to discover the chromosomal mistake that causes Down Syndrome summed it up best:

[sign]To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.[/sign]

lifeissues.net/writers/lej/lej_02whenlifebegins.html

 

[catharina]

Voco Pro Tatiano has said:
[sign]The Human soul, according to Church teaching, as I understand it, reflects the indivisibility, and immergibility of the born human, (ignoring for the moment conjoined twins), and so is seen as such.[/sign]

Yes, I have been meaning to get to the issue of the human soul which seems to be the core of our failure to understand one another. Indeed, Voco you are correct the Church teaches the soul is indivisible. However, and I do ask for your continued patience, but I’m not familiar with this word which you are so fond of: "immergibility". From other posts your suggestions about the sexual gametes each containing a soul has left me scratching my head frankly. In post #49 you made this claim. Elsewhere you said the sperm and the ovum are animated by “micro-souls” and that these “micro-souls can fission”.

Do the parents contribute more to the new human embryo than just matter ie.: the body? Do they contribute to the soul of their offspring also? No. This idea was condemned by the Church a long time ago. She has stated unequivocally: G_d alone creates an immortal soul for each individual human child. It did not exist before in some huge amorphous one soul which is waiting to be shared with the latest member of the human race. It cannot be divided into pieces from the parents and shared with the unborn child. The soul does not pre-exist. It comes directly from G_d and returns directly to Him after death.

Yes, while I agree the sexual gametes contain human life they are not to be confused with a new, genetically unique, single-cell human being which comes into existence at fertilization. What happens at fertilization is radically different from the process of gametogenesis which brings mature sexual cells to the point where they are ready to play their role. After fertilization is complete neither the sperm nor the oocyte continue to exist. Their contribution is complete, finished. Neither of the sexual gametes can survive long once released. The sperm will die in seven days if it hasn’t entered an oocyte successfully and the oocyte has only a twenty four hour window where it can be fertilized before it too dies. The earliest embryo however is self-sufficient and self-directed.

Dr. Jerome Lejeune who was a professor of Fundamental Genetics in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, and was the first to discover the chromosomal mistake that causes Down Syndrome summed it up best:

[sign]To accept the fact that, after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or of opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention. It is plain experimental evidence.[/sign]

lifeissues.net/writers/lej/lej_02whenlifebegins.html

Dear Rosalinda.

You ROCK!

 

[Rosalinda]

Voco Pro Tatiano from post 169:
[sign]Since part of our life-cycle, involves haploid fission, and diploid merging, then the animalistic souls must also fission and merge.[/sign]

Sorry, Voco, I know this is confusing but let’s not confuse it further. Mature sexual gametes are haploid cells which contain only 23 chromosomes which result after a process known as meiosis. They have been divided in preparation for fertilization. Whereas the diploid cells have 46 chromosomes which results after the “merging” of the sperm and the oocyte at fertilization. Therefore, may we safely conclude you intended to say the diploid cells divided and the haploid cells merged?

If anyone is still confused this article by Dr. Dianne Irving, should help:

lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_01lifebegin1.html

Fission: reproduction by spontaneous division of the body into 2 or more parts each of which grows into a complete organism.