R
Rau
Guest
It’s “don’t come the raw prawn with me”. It means “don’t try to put one over me”. How could you not get this right Blue?
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Perhaps you missed these posts - which are working from the same position:BlackFriar:
This isn’t an explanation for what an individual is, it is merely an assertion without foundation.
… If you are going to juggle usernames at least keep them straight within a single thread.
And:
Admittedly I didn’t go into the full 16 cell thing but the principle of individuality is clearly made.
Yes, that’s my current hypothesis for satisfying a philosophic definition of “individual”.
Though you haven’t mentioned the issue of irreversibility.
You lost me there. Twins are irreversible individuals as are clones surely?
Don’t get your point here either. Body cells are hardly omnipotent and comparable to a 8 cell zygote.
Lost you here sorry.
I am already here as an adult individual with an operational intellectual soul.
When I lose body cells to science I am still the same as I was before. My soul doesn’t get split in half or get absorbed into the departing skin cells. They are only “vegetative” and have no inherent trajectory to full human life.
I also think you need to rethink your view of “potential”.
Without an egg from somewhere my skin cells don’t have much spiritual potential at all if left to themselves and a petri dish I would think.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
When the question is ambiguous, or adopts language or words of multiple meanings (context dependent or without agreed usage), it could be unreasonable to expect a yes/no answer.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Like the Cardinals, “confused”.
Often a sign that one is wedded to an inflexible “system” that cannot cope with some aspect of reality that another system, being more comprehensive, can.
But really, resurrecting a 25 day old issue past its use by date…
Often a sign that one is wedded to an inflexible “system” that cannot cope with some aspect of reality that another system, being more comprehensive, can.
But really, resurrecting a 25 day old issue past its use by date…
Last edited:
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Again, these aren’t definitions of what it means to be an individual.
To use your words:
The principle of individuality that you are proposing here is an illusion. You are not an individual now, according to your reasoning, because any cell can be taken from your body to produce a twin. We call this type a twin a clone. This is the same genetic process that occurs when a zygote splits and two identical twins emerge, though the external mechanisms and timing differ.
Irreversibility in what way? Two zygotes can merge, but this is not a reversion to a previous state. They may be identical twins that merge, in which case we may not be able to detect this fact, or they may be dizygotic twins that merge, creating what we call a chimera. Two adults can merge with organ donation, producing a genetic chimera far beyond the birth of the host. Irreversibility can not be a definition for individuality if any human being is to be considered an individual, for the same reason that the impossibility of “twinning” can not be.
No, they are not. Chimeras are an example of the merging of two distinct, individual genomes, and bone-marrow transplantation is an example of two genomes combining to form one body at a much later stage of development. This isn’t even new science; we’ve been doing bone-marrow transplants since before the discovery of the double-helix pattern of mammalian DNA.
continued…
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
Yes, they certainly are, they just require a little bit of a poke in order to develop. Dolly, the first recorded clone, was developed from the nucleus of a mammary cell of an adult sheep. Dolly was a real, individual female sheep by every detectable measure, and she grew from the adult cell of an adult sheep. Your cells have the same potential as those of the sheep that produced Dolly.
The zygote that loses cells is also the same as it was before, even if those cells grow into a new individual or later reunite with the original zygote to produce a chimera; there is no reason to believe otherwise.
The egg does not provide spiritual potential, it provides material potential. Without nutrients from the mother’s body the zygote has no potential to develop into a toddler, and with out oxygen from the atmosphere the toddler has no potential to develop into a poster on an internet forum. We do not determine a human’s individuality by the environment it is placed in and its potential to develop further.
It is the nucleus of the original cell that provides the engine for development of the clone, the egg merely provides the environment. The genome, in the right environment, develops into an adult body. This is the trajectory of life, and this trajectory lies fundamentally in the genome, and this genome exists from the moment of conception. Your skin cells possess the same genome that you did at birth, give or take some mutations. This isn’t philosophy or conjecture, it’s observable fact.
So again I say that your definition of individuality erases the individuality of yourself and every human that has ever lived. Your genome is pluripotent even now, limited only by its environment. That zygotic cells have the means to develop further than mammary cells is an accident of environment, not something inherent to the nature of the zygotic genome. This is made clear by the fact that adult mammary genomes placed into the same environment as zygotic genomes develop in the same manner as zygotes.
And, going back to the ovum and the sperm, neither of them possess a human genome, so while certainly alive they are not human in the way you are. If you wish to expand the definition of “human life” to include gametes, you should first include skin cells as they are infinitely closer to your current existence then any gamete ever was. A skin cell can become a human being given the right environment, after all, while a gamete never can.
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
An odd statement given that you are arguing genetics and embryology when you aren’t familiar with the rudimentary elements of our current, more comprehensive, knowledge of the subject.
R
Rau
Guest
Infanticide, fratricide, abortion, murder, filicide, matricide, patricide… Yes, there are differences, but are these held to share the same moral species? Would we (ever) distinguish moral objects here?
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You seem to be way overthinking things and have gone off on tangents. I really don’t have time to sort out the rather large complexus sorry.
T
thistle
Guest
The Didache specifically states abortion is murder and the Didache is a document that the Church refers to in some teachings.
“Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.”
Also the Church does not have to specify abortion is murder because that is already covered by the 5th Commandment.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Give it up Thistle, this is 12 days ago.
The didache, please.
The didache, please.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Read more carefully: the comment was made by thistle, not by me.
T
thistle
Guest
What does the time matter. I just saw the thread.
The Didache is an important document used by the Church.
Apart from that, as I said, the 5th Commandment covers abortion.
In both cases abortion is covered and has been for thousands of years.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Wholly agreed, which is the final conclusion of this topic so far as most of us are concerned.
Questions of ensoulment,(which appears to rule out “murder” if there is no human soul present) are still open to discussion given the Church has explicitly made no ruling in this area and really has no need to re the ethics of the matter.
T
thistle
Guest
Maybe because I came into the thread late I have missed some points but the Church teaches that life begins at conception, that the soul is immediately created by God, and that from conception we are a human person. That means from conception to before birth any deliberate killing of the human life/person (i.e. an abortion) is murder in the eyes of God. Is that not correct?
E
Ender
Guest
That this is the only logical conclusion is pretty obvious…nonetheless the church has chosen not to dogmatically declare when ensoulment occurs.
Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. (Donum vitae, I, 1)
Since the church has not declared when ensoulment occurs, she cannot declare that a human life at conception is also a human being, and thus has not officially declared the destruction of an embryo to be murder. That said, it is clear that abortion is murder long before birth, it’s just that the exact point has not been declared.
To assume abortion is not murder right from conception, or that because it has not been officially declared a murder it is therefore a lesser crime, is to grossly underestimate the seriousness of the offense.
It is ironic that the secular argument can be unequivocal. Since there is no concern for a soul, and since human life undeniably begins at conception (not birth as previously entered), there is no essential difference between an abortion at any time and infanticide.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
&^%$# yes, I’ll go back and change that. Geez…Ender:
Do you mean conception?
G
Ghosty1981
Guest
This is the key to my approach to the issue. I was raised an atheist and yet I was pro-life long before I was a Catholic, even before I believed in a soul. The presence of an immaterial soul does not enter into the secular arguments about murder, but human life and individuality certainly do.
The science is very clear now where it was sonewhat murky just decades ago. A unique, individual human life begins at conception. From a biological perspective this is an observable fact, viewable “under the microscope”. It was on this basis, along with my secular humane values regarding the defense of human life, most especially the vulnerable and innocent, that I was an ardently pro-life atheist. The pro-life argument does not require the existence of an immaterial soul.
That the Catholic Church hasn’t made any Dogmatic declarations about ensoulment doesn’t bother me any more than the fact that it has said almost as little about angels. Ensoulment is by its nature a hidden matter, not directly discernable by the human mind with our natural powers. We can infer its presence from the evidence, and we can make Faith-based declarations about the properties and destinations of the soul, but actual ensoulment is a mystery hidden behind a material veil. That immaterial souls exist is a question of Faith, perhaps informed by clever philosophy, but the existennce of biological life is a matter of objective physical observation.
I believe we can and should utilize the best science available when considering matters of ensoulment. The existence of the immaterial soul at the moment a unique human life begins to exist is the most reasonable conclusion, though it is not a matter of doctrine or dogma.
If someone wants to argue that the Church hasn’t defined the moment of immaterial ensoulment, I can’t argue against them because it is a mere statement of fact. If they want to argue that the zygote isn’t a human individual at the moment of conception then they’d better be ready to do some heavy lifting with biological facts and reasonable conclusions; the existence of unique human life at conception (something entirely different from the life of a gamete) is firmly within the secular domain.
T
thistle
Guest
This is an extract from a Jimmy Akin article about the soul. It makes sense to me.
"A question arises of when God creates the soul and infuses it into the child. The common teaching of creationists is that this takes place at conception. There are arguments which support this.
In Hebrew thought the spirit is the principle of life - the thing that makes one alive.[“Spirit” can also be translated “breath” in Greek and Hebrew, so “spirit of life” = “breath of life.”] As James tells us, “The body without the spirit is dead” (Jas. 2:26). If a spirit is what makes a body alive, then so long as the body is alive it has a spirit. Since the child’s body is alive at the time of conception - non-living zygotes do not grow, after all - the child must have a spirit from the moment of conception.
In Psalm 51:5 David tells us, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). Thus David already had a sinful nature at the time of conception, even though he had not yet “done anything good or bad” (see Rom. 9:11). But a sinful nature is a spiritual rather than a physical reality. Therefore, David must have had a spirit at the time of conception. "
"A question arises of when God creates the soul and infuses it into the child. The common teaching of creationists is that this takes place at conception. There are arguments which support this.
In Hebrew thought the spirit is the principle of life - the thing that makes one alive.[“Spirit” can also be translated “breath” in Greek and Hebrew, so “spirit of life” = “breath of life.”] As James tells us, “The body without the spirit is dead” (Jas. 2:26). If a spirit is what makes a body alive, then so long as the body is alive it has a spirit. Since the child’s body is alive at the time of conception - non-living zygotes do not grow, after all - the child must have a spirit from the moment of conception.
In Psalm 51:5 David tells us, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). Thus David already had a sinful nature at the time of conception, even though he had not yet “done anything good or bad” (see Rom. 9:11). But a sinful nature is a spiritual rather than a physical reality. Therefore, David must have had a spirit at the time of conception. "
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The difficulty with your attempt to harmonise soul theory, embryology and Church moral teaching is perhaps here:
In fact secular “science” of the day was pro soul. It was considered simply a fact of reason, of science. That is why the Church built on it. Nothing really to do with faith at all - but obviously supporting Christian religion.
The same ancient secular reasoning still makes the Church cautious about questions re the time of ensoulment despite improved understanding of the embryology. Hence the avoidance of formal statements on the matter especially involving the philosophically potent words “person” and “individual” where modern science and religious/(and ancient science) worlds collide.
No one denies there is some form of human biological life from conception. But there are difficulties describing it as “the life of a human person” which is the same as saying “a single, human soul is permanently present.” “Person” in this context is the same technical philosophic word as used in ancient dogmatic statements re the Trinity and the incarnation. The word does not mean what colloquial modern English or embryologists mean by the word “person”.
That identification is as much a matter of philosophy (ie reason) as of embryology (science).
In fact the Church has traditionally assumed that the immortal human soul is a truth of reason and not of faith. It was considered a “scientific fact” by the ancients.
In fact secular “science” of the day was pro soul. It was considered simply a fact of reason, of science. That is why the Church built on it. Nothing really to do with faith at all - but obviously supporting Christian religion.
The same ancient secular reasoning still makes the Church cautious about questions re the time of ensoulment despite improved understanding of the embryology. Hence the avoidance of formal statements on the matter especially involving the philosophically potent words “person” and “individual” where modern science and religious/(and ancient science) worlds collide.
No one denies there is some form of human biological life from conception. But there are difficulties describing it as “the life of a human person” which is the same as saying “a single, human soul is permanently present.” “Person” in this context is the same technical philosophic word as used in ancient dogmatic statements re the Trinity and the incarnation. The word does not mean what colloquial modern English or embryologists mean by the word “person”.
That identification is as much a matter of philosophy (ie reason) as of embryology (science).
Last edited:
- Status