How could a human individual not be a human person?

[Ghosty1981]

Well, there are things that don’t meet the definition of a human that can come from the union of man and woman. Triploids, tetraploids, etc. Not sure what those are called.

What definition are you using?

 

[Seeksadvice]

The biological one. I wonder what the Church has to say about things like triploids/tetraploids… do they count as “humans” or not… Can’t imagine what they go through during their short and miserable lifespans

 

[Elf01]

Yes they would.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The biological one. I wonder what the Church has to say about things like triploids/tetraploids… do they count as “humans” or not… Can’t imagine what they go through during their short and miserable lifespans

That isn’t really specific. There isn’t any one biological definition of human.

Mosaic Triploids would almost certainly be human from a theological perspective (we are all at least somewhat polyploid, after all) whereas pure polyploids may not be, depending on one’s definition, but we have no way of being certain and would have to take it on Faith either way (the existence of a rational soul in such a being isn’t certain, and there is no evidence that a rational should exist in such a being). I don’t believe that there is anything we could lean on with regard to official Church teaching on the matter.

As for whether or not their existence is miserable, that’s a judgement we can’t make. We simply don’t have enough understanding of their experience to make any kind of conclusion in this regard.

 

[o_mlly]

Sticking to the topic of the thread, do we agree that the rational soul of the person is still present in the “brain dead” body? I’ve yet to see a convincing argument that it isn’t.

Does not the burden of a “convincing argument” in the case of one who is (or was, depending on how one argues) certainly a human person fall on those who claim the rational soul has departed?

 

[Ghosty1981]

Does not the burden of a “convincing argument” in the case of one who is (or was, depending on how one argues) certainly a human person fall on those who claim the rational soul has departed?

Well, I am saying that I haven’t seen a convincing argument from that side. I’m not so interested in “debate rules”, however, as I am in discussion of a nuanced topic.

 

[BlackFriar]

A new human individual begins at conception…

So we have gone full circle in this “discussion” with no deepened insights…

A 16 cell zygote, as demonstrated above, can just as easily be considered as a community of 16 different human life forms each with its own soul. Hardly an “individual human” then is it?

 

[BlackFriar]

There is no problem calling them human life forms from what I can see.
Why do you see a problem?

No Thomistic theologian would ever agree that exemplar DNA is THE criterion of human life.
One is still human without having a limb (or having an extra one). Malformed or heterodox DNA is really no different from what I can see.

 

[JimG]

A zygote is the initial single cell formed by the fusion of the egg and sperm. Are you saying that at the 16 cell stage of embryogenesis, every pregnancy consists of 16 new human beings?

 

[BlackFriar]

The question of individuality of the zygote is clearly not settled until the 32 cell stage when the individual cells start differentiating and are incapable of surviving to term on their own.

 

[hope]

Because the Church has held as mainstream teaching until 150 or so years ago to the outdated science of delayed hominisation.

Would you provide a Church Document where this was taught?

But what do you think quickening means…its when the baby moves and kicks. This was considered the physical sign that the life within had a human soul and was now a person.

Not quite. Quickening was when the woman first felt the baby. The baby was actually moving long before the mother felt them.

There is no answer because nobody knows when the foetus definitively gains a human soul…so nobody knows exactly when a human life form becomes a human person.

The Church teaches

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.235

I am afraid I didn’t get past this sentence. Its not me positing this its the Church, and for the last 1800 years or so.

Document of this teaching? Not speculation but a document where it was officially taught.

 

[BlackFriar]

Please provide us the respectful courtesy of actually reading the above thread which has done all your questions to death.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

Happy Easter everybody. Today we celebrate the day our Lord rose from the dead. Hallelujah! With regards to the question in this thread’s title, I got credit for answering it like this: “by lacking the characteristic of personhood, which is the activity of cellular respiration within the cells of the human individual.” We know that this activity restarted in our Lord’s body on this day, because he BREATHED on his disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22).

With regards to brain death. I believe the person, or soul, leaves the body at the moment of brain death, because that’s when the brain cells permanently stop undergoing cellular respiration. In the case where respiration has permanently ceased in only a part of the body, I believe the presence of the soul is determined by whether respiration has permanently ceased in the brain. However, I don’t doubt that it is possible for a false diagnosis of brain death to be made.

In a natural death, cellular respiration permanently ceases throughout the whole body at the same time, and the brain is the first organ to use up its stored energy. Other organs keep running on their stored energy for several hours and this is what makes organ donation possible.

Once we understand this about the END of the person’s time in the body, we can understand the corresponding BEGINNING of the person’s time in the body. This beginning is when the cells of the body start undergoing cellular respiration and this starts happening when the embryo is implanted in the womb. This means that every abortion which is done after implantation kills a person and must therefore be made illegal.

 

[o_mlly]

Does not the burden of a “convincing argument” in the case of one who is (or was, depending on how one argues) certainly a human person fall on those who claim the rational soul has departed?

Well, I am saying that I haven’t seen a convincing argument from that side. I’m not so interested in “debate rules”, however, as I am in discussion of a nuanced topic.

Friend, the question was rhetorical. All reasonable men agree as did his holiness, " … human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes" (Pope Pius XII, November 24, 1957).

 

[Ghosty1981]

In the case where respiration has permanently ceased in only a part of the body, I believe the presence of the soul is determined by whether respiration has permanently ceased in the brain.

What is your reason for applying this criteria to only the brain and not the heart, or the left foot? They are all part of the body, and all equally ensouled.

This beginning is when the cells of the body start undergoing cellular respiration and this starts happening when the embryo is implanted in the womb.

Cellular respiration in an embryo begins before implantation.

At least you are working with actual life functions, which strikes me as a good path to take.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Friend, the question was rhetorical. All reasonable men agree as did his holiness, " … human life continues for as long as its vital functions – distinguished from the simple life of organs – manifest themselves spontaneously or even with the help of artificial processes" (Pope Pius XII, November 24, 1957).

I’m not sure I agree with this definition. Someone who is hypothermic is dead by this definition. This is an old definition of death that is not typically used alone in modern medicine, as people are revived from it all the time.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

What is your reason for applying this criteria to only the brain and not the heart, or the left foot? They are all part of the body, and all equally ensouled.

The brain is what gives our life purpose and meaning. It’s where we make all the decisions that effect where we spend eternity.

Cellular respiration in an embryo begins before implantation.

How so, being that it’s nowhere near a blood vessel, from which it could get the oxygen and food that it needs for cellular respiration?

 

[o_mlly]

I’m not sure I agree with this definition. Someone who is hypothermic is dead by this definition. This is an old definition of death that is not typically used alone in modern medicine, as people are revived from it all the time.

The definition is one of life, not death.

The inverse may not be presumed to have the same truth value as the statement. Only the statement’s contrapostive follows as having the same truth value.

Statement:
If vital body functions manifest then a person is alive. (True)
Inverse:
If vital body functions do not manifest then a person is not alive. (False)
Contrapostive:
If a person is not alive then vital body functions do not manifest. (True)

The contrapositive conditional is “if not alive.” If true, the contrapositive consequence “vital functions do not manifest” is always true.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The brain is what gives our life purpose and meaning. It’s where we make all the decisions that effect where we spend eternity.

The brain is just one organ of the body. It is the central processor of neurological information, but it is not the “seat of the soul”. The same rational soul that enlivens the brain enlivens the heart and the foot, at least according to traditional Catholic theology. The brain serves a vital function for the body, and for centralizing sensory information for the soul, but is still just an organ of the body, an organ that doesn’t exist until well after implantation.

I’m not questioning its importance, mind you, just saying that I don’t believe that it can be given a special place in determining the presence of human life.

How so, being that it’s nowhere near a blood vessel, from which it could get the oxygen and food that it needs for cellular respiration?

Oxygen exists in the environment of the Fallopian tubes and uterus, and the embryo absorbs it through diffusion. As the embryo grows and requires more oxygen it requires a connection to the blood supply, but it certainly respires before then.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The definition is one of life, not death.

The inverse may not be presumed to have the same truth value as the statement. Only the statement’s contrapostive follows as having the same truth value.

Fair enough.