How could a human individual not be a human person?

[BartholomewB]

Then he asks, “How could a human individual not be a human person?” But then he doesn’t answer it. What’s the answer?

Have you considered the possibility that it may be a rhetorical question?

 

[Kei]

It’s a rhetorical question

 

[Joe_5859]

I think you (the OP, not the poster above me) are making this far more complicated than necessary.

The rhetorical question is “How could a human individual not be a human person?”

The obvious answer is “He can’t.” A human individual cannot not be a human person.

Hence why abortion is always wrong. You can’t have a human individual that is not a human person. Some who want to argue for the permissibility of abortion make false distinctions with regards to the unborn being “human individuals”, but not “human persons” and then say that we are only obligated not to kill “human persons,” therefore abortion is okay. That is contrary to Catholic teaching (not to mention biology).

Sorry, I don’t generally like to do people’s homework for them, but the conversation has gotten way more complicated than it needs to be. I didn’t want to see you hung out to dry.

 

[BlackFriar]

I have raised a salient philosophic problem re use of the word human…I dont claim to have perfect solutions. Yes I suppose am challenging the modern assumption that dna is the sole criterion of defing what is human. It doesnt seem to be the silver bullet many think it is.

I believe I have good reason for doing so.
Personally I believe human gametes still deserve the adjective human. Just as a disembodied soul does.

Whether both are strictly speaking “human beings” even if they are “forms of human life” is another matter.

Words and the way we use them is crucial in conversations like this if we are not to talk past each other surely.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Consequently it seems clear to me the ovum deserves the name human in so far as it derives from a human.

It is living so perhaps it is technically correct to call it a form of human life…just as a butterfly might be said to be a form of caterpillar.

There is a big difference between the growth of a caterpillar into a butterfly and the nature of an ovum. The two can’t be said to be the same kind of transformation in any way.

An ovum originates from a human, but so does a painting, and while we could call them both human we wouldn’t say that they are human in the same sense. An ovum contains human DNA, but not a diploid human genome. It is arguably less human than a mouse with a human ear grafted to it.

It is not a philosophical matter to say that an ovum does not contain the physical, genetic character of a human. Left to its own it will not develop into a human because it lacks the very genetic means to do so. The caterpillar, on the otherhand, is a butterfly in the genetic sense. It is more like comparing an infant to an adult, as they have different physical structures to some extent but possess the same DNA.

 

[JimG]

A woman’s ovum is a human cell within a human body. A man’s sperm is a human cell within a human body. They are cells—components of bodies, not human beings. A new human being is formed by the union of both. It’s not complicated.

My kidney is a human organ within a human body. It’s not a human being, not a person.

Human beings have a beginning. We know when a new human being begins. All human beings are endowed with a human soul, which necessarily contains the aspect of personhood.

 

[BlackFriar]

Hence why abortion is always wrong. You can’t have a human individual that is not a human person. Some who want to argue for the permissibility of abortion make false distinctions with regards to the unborn being “human individuals”, but not “human persons” and then say that we are only obligated not to kill “human persons,” therefore abortion is okay.

If you believe this you are not in the ball game yet.
The Pope made the distinction between individual and person exactly because he was theologically trained in Aquinas and knows the delayed ensoulment opinion. He does not deny its possibility but appears to hold the contrary personally.

Regardless, the Churches ancient prohibition on abortion has never rested on assuming a full human person is present from conception as you believe.

That is an obsession of some prominent US pro life groups.
Anyone who studies Church history deeply knows it is a recent argument. It is likely true. But it was virtually non existent 200 yrs ago.

Abortion is wrong simply because all life in the womb is considered inviolable with a right to life regardless of whether or not a human intellective soul is present or not.

Its simply an unarguable fact of Church history.

 

[JimG]

The rhetorical question is “How could a human individual not be a human person?”

The obvious answer is “He can’t.” A human individual cannot not be a human person.

Yes. It was a rhetorical question. The answer was implicit.
It’s not complicated. Every human being is a human person.
No point in beating it to death.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Yes I suppose am challenging the modern assumption that dna is the sole criterion of defing what is human. It doesnt seem to be the silver bullet many think it is.

Then provide reasoning for this challenge, otherwise you are merely saying “nuh uh”. That can hardly be called a salient philosophical question.

I believe I have good reason for doing so.

Personally I believe human gametes still deserve the adjective human. Just as a disembodied soul does.

It’s great that you believe you have good reason to do so. Are you going to share any of these reasons, or merely assert your belief and leave it at that?

 

[BlackFriar]

So if the egg is not a human egg what sort of egg is it?

 

[BlackFriar]

Why do you believe human gametes, which have life, should not be called human?

Why are you getting sarky, its a reasonable question?

 

[BlackFriar]

Every human being is a human person.

The Church however does not currently teach this as true. It assumed the contrary for 1700 years.

You are entitled to hold this view…as are other Catholics to hold the traditional view…just as with Limbo and whether Mary died or not.

 

[Ghosty1981]

So if the egg is not a human egg what sort of egg is it?

Who said that it is not a human egg? I did in fact call it human. A footprint is human as well. There are many ways in which something can be called human. I am saying that an ovum is not a human person, and for the purposes of this discussion I am limiting my argument to the physical reasons for it not being a human person, namely that it lacks the functional diploid DNA of a human.

A human ovum is of course human in the sense that it derives from a human, and even moreso because it is derived exclusively through human DNA, but that does not even begin to rise to the question of human personhood or human individuality.

Why do you believe human gametes, which have life, should not be called human?

Why are you getting sarky, its a reasonable question?

You are not reading very carefully. I said that they can be called human.

It is not a reasonable question, it is either question begging or sloppy reading.

 

[BlackFriar]

Great we are agreed then that gametes are a form of human life then but not human persons?

Some here seem to deny this.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Great we are agreed then that gametes are a form of human life then but not human persons?

Gametes are a form of human life equivocally. They lack the biologic character of human life that even a beating human heart removed from the body possesses. While they are alive, and they derive from human DNA, they do not live as human cells possessing a diploid human genome. In this very fundamental sense they are not “human life”.

Again, in the sense of possessing a functional human genome a mouse with a human ear grafted to its back has a greater claim to the term human life than a human ovum does.

I don’t see anyone on this thread denying that ovums possess “human life” in this equivocal sense, I merely see that you haven’t yet supported your claim that the term “human life” should properly be expanded to include human-derived things that don’t possess a functional human genome. Others on this thread merely accept the standard definition that you have yet failed to reasonably challenge.

 

[BlackFriar]

So is that agreement or disagreement with my simple proposition?

It sounds like you do not agree that human gametes are validly considered a form of human life.

If not, then what sort of life-form are they?

So now I hope you understand the philosophic difficulties I spoke of earlier.

It is not a black and white scientifically solvable issue from what I can see.

To say that a life form can only be considered as possibly human on the basis of full dna is a philosphic position not an objective scientific fact.

 

[Ender]

I rest my case, delayed hominisation was generally held and so taught.

Nobody said it was a dogma or a unanimlus doctrine.

But it was taught and was the common opinion.

It is still validly held even it is no longer mainstream like limbo, geocentrism, Mary died, and there are no exceptions to absolute usury.

If your set views on the matter so distort your reading of your own texts further converse with you is pointless.

It is your perception of what it means when you say the “church taught” something that is the problem. As you yourself noted, delayed hominisation was neither dogma nor a “unanimius doctrine”, meaning it was no doctrine at all…meaning it cannot properly be called a church teaching. Individuals, including popes and clergy, may express opinions on many topics, but the church does not teach opinion. Her teachings are her doctrines. This is not to say that church leaders don’t offer prudential judgments on matters (such as when a body is ensouled), only that “To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” (Dulles) The point to note here is that such judgments are not in fact church teachings.

But perhaps you are right, discussion with someone who doesn’t understand his own arguments probably is pointless.

BTW if you havent read the apology for the way Galileo was treated then you as yet have nothing credible to say re the Church’s teaching on the matter of geocentrism.

That I haven’t read the formal apology should not be taken as evidence that I am unfamiliar with the event. I’d be interested in reading exactly what was said if you can provide a link to the document. One thing the church did get right though was to insist that Galileo teach his position as theory rather than fact inasmuch as his claims could not be proven. Given that his theories themselves contained errors that was a wise precaution.

Why regret something that was never taught and commonly held and was merely the unsanctioned opinion of a few influential officials?

Galileo was treated unfairly irrespective of the position he advanced…none of which has anything to do with whether a human life form should be granted status as a human person.

Lets get real my friend, nobody said all teachings are infallible doctrine.

Not all doctrines are held to be infallible, or infallibly taught, which doesn’t change the fact that unless there is a doctrine on the matter it is hard to claim the church has taught something. It is not about infallibility. It is about what is or is not doctrinal.

 

[Ender]

I have raised a salient philosophic problem re use of the word human…Yes I suppose am challenging the modern assumption that dna is the sole criterion of defing what is human. It doesnt seem to be the silver bullet many think it is.

Blacks, Jews, Chinese, and indigenous people generally can attest to the real world problems such distinctions can lead to.

 

[BlackFriar]

It is your perception of…

If your set views on the matter so distort your reading of your own texts further converse with you is pointless.

You have the same distortion re the meaning of “Church teaching”.
Good luck with that.

Re Galileo If you cannot be bothered reading seminal easily available Papal texts (yet in other discussions I see you easily find the most arcane proof texts when it allegedly serves your purposes) I really dont have time to engage you further.

As the Aussies more bluntly put it, “dont play the raw prawn mate.”

 

[Ender]

Re Galileo If you cannot be bothered reading seminal easily available Papal texts (yet in other discussions I see you easily find the most arcane proof texts when it allegedly serves your purposes) I really dont have time to engage you further.

I actually spent a fair amount of time looking for the document, but all I could find was that it was a letter issued by JPII on October 31, 1992. Even the Vatican web site didn’t yield it up. As I said, I’m happy to read the actual text if you, or anyone else, can point me to it. If it is as easily available as you say, how much trouble could it be to provide the link?