How could a human individual not be a human person?

[Ghosty1981]

So is that agreement or disagreement with my simple proposition?

Your proposition was not simple so much as sloppy. Human life is a term that can be applied equivocally to several things, so your proposition doesn’t work as stated. If a mouse with a human ear, and a human ovum can both be called “human life” while nearly sharing only the characteristics of being alive and being derived from human DNA then your proposition isn’t very meaningful.

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?

They are gametes, their own distinct form of life. They certainly aren’t “human” in the sense of possessing a functional human genome. When combined with another gamete of the opposite type a functional, diploid human genome is produced, but this moment is very clearly distinguished and can be observed, and the function and nature of the “life” under the microscope is obviously different before the merger of the gametes and after the merger.

There is certainly a different genetic material and process occurring after the merger of the gametes that continues until the death of the specimen, whether in the womb or in bed at the age of ninety.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

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.

It actually is fairly easily scientifically solvable. We can see gametic life, and we can see somatic life (functional, diploid human cells). They are quite different, visibly so.

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.

Correct, but since we are talking about Evangelium Vitae, which states:

“from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act”.57 Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”. 58

…and this argument is founded in fundamental genetic science, we can turn to the science as our guide post just as Evangelium Vitae does. If you are proposing a different model of life and genetics then by all means present it and back it up. Simply pointing out that there have been different models historically doesn’t really do much to address the matter at hand, however.

 

[BlackFriar]

_A tragic mutual incomprehension … the clarifications furnished by recent historical studies enable us to state that this sad misunderstanding now belongs to the past. _
From the Galileo affair we can learn a lesson…
Another lesson which we can draw is that the different branches of knowledge call for different methods…
Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist Galileo…understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world…
The error of the theologians of the time…

If one does not have the scholarly, diplomatic or mature skills of experience to see that high level face-saving apologies can be subtly given and understood without explicitly mentioning the word then I can see why you didn’t find the apology.

Strange, it was recognised all around the world at the time as an apology. Perhaps not in yours. Anyways, maybe it was just a universally held personal opinion by 99% of the Church hierarchy but not really by the Church (whatever that means), so the Church cannot be held responsible for JPII’s re-instatement of Galileo either… or the teaching of geocentrism and delayed hominization in medieval times. They were only disseminated but not taught.

Shall we call them disseminations instead of teachings perhaps?

As usual there’s nothing more to say against this invulnerable approach to interpreting a disagreeable reality. Not much different from saying nothing can move an immovable object.
God bless.

 

[BlackFriar]

Your proposition was not simple so much as sloppy

Looked succinct and clear to me.
It is far less sloppy than the propositions that numerous contributors above put forth.

The whole point is to show that at this level our own pet philosophies are revealed in the way we choose our words. Everybody means something different according to the unreflected philosophic assumptions they work from.

You are no exception.

If a mouse with a human ear, and a human ovum can both be called “human life” while nearly sharing only the characteristics of being alive and being derived from human DNA then your proposition isn’t very meaningful.

I would agree a human ovum is validly called a form of human life.
I would also agree that a human ear receiving nourishment from the mouse still has living human cells and so they deserve to be called a form of human life.
No big deal.
What are the negatives of doing so?

They are gametes, their own distinct form of life. They certainly aren’t “human” in the sense of possessing a functional human genome.

This seems circular reasoning. You are using your philosophy that human DNA determines “human” to decide if they are human. This simply begs the question of what the designation “human” means when we all intuitively apply it to some things but not others.
What is our unreflected basis for doing so? is it valid?

I suggest the majority of unbiased persons here would hold that gametes are validly described as a form of human life. They aren’t some unknown species of tadpole.
I suppose the philosophic principle is that whatever life proceeds from a human must also be human.
I see nothing problematic with that - you seem to disagree only because you have already a set position that it must be DNA from what I can see.

modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act”.

Did you notice the “what this living being will be.”
Notice how the Pope very carefully avoids calling the initial embryo a “person”. Rather he calls it a “living being”. he then goes on to say “it will be” a person.
He does not state that at conception it IS a person.

How can he, the Church has never denied the possibility of delayed hominization even though it went on the backburner 150 or so years ago.
As with the teaching on Limbo.
Lots of wishful thinking going on in your interpretation.

So back to the simple question.
Are human gametes a form of human life - yes or no?

 

[Benadam]

I just want to express these thoughts after some online reading thinking about St. John Paul’s question.

A principle that guided St Thomas was to modify his theology to accommodate further empirical facts.
Had he known the empirical facts about genes and genetic coding, he would abandon the idea of delayed hominization. I think he would conclude that the bodies genetic code contains at conception the necessary organization to receive an intellectual soul. Also, because that is when the body begins to be determinate in of it’s own power, the requirement that the body of the embryo have a cause other than it’s own intellectual soul becomes obsolete.

The idea that a succession of souls from lower to higher states of life is unnecessary.

The idea that the soul of a generator as necessary to be a determinate power is obsolete. Also that a vegetative soul is corrupted as the body is organized sufficiently to receive a sensitive soul, is founded on knowledge that was available to St Thomas at the time. I doubt he would cling to his theology of delayed hominization if he had known what is known today.

I am reminded of something St. John Paul II said; “for a lower state of life to become higher, a higher state of life must lift it up.” To me that is a principle of human life as a continuum from the lowest state of necessary organization to it’s final perfection.

Aristotles idea that generation of one means the corruption the other is implied by St John Paul II’s statement in that the lower state no longer is as it was but as it is lifted up to a higher state.That can be applied to Christ lifting up human life as we die to ourselves and be lifted up to His human perfection. His Incarnation to the infusion of the intellectual soul at conception having determinate power in of it’self to proceed to it’s final perfection.

Are we human persons at conception? the body received it’s organizing principle and determinate power to reach it’s final perfection.

This to me, is like what the Incarnation is to humanity. . The world received it’s organizing principle and determinate power to reach it’s final perfection.

 

[mVitus]

BlackFriar, what practical purposes does you definition of “human life” fulfill? While the way you define it in a consistent way that is not wrong per se, it is rather useless to the question of ensoulment.

 

[BlackFriar]

Had he known the empirical facts about genes and genetic coding, he would abandon the idea of delayed hominization.

It might sound logical he would agree with your position but in fact those who are well trained in Aquinas battle over this today. Yet another reason the Magisterium does not currently pronounce on the matter.

Yes the 40 day delay has been abandoned. However I believe it has only been advanced up to the moment when the embryo is judged by science to possess rudimentary brain activity that would require the presence of a human intellective soul which then remains until death.
Certainly not advanced to before the point at which twinning or recombination of twinned cells is possible. The latter is indicative of a “vegetative soul” as it were.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am reminded of something St. John Paul II said; “for a lower state of life to become higher, a higher state of life must lift it up.” To me that is a principle of human life as a continuum from the lowest state of necessary organization to it’s final perfection.

I personally agree. However who on earth knows.
It doesnt matter, the Church in its morality is pragmatic.
All life from conception must be treated as if a full human person exists.

Anti abortionists are mistaken to argue that abortion is wrong because a full human person exists from conception. The Church never argued this for 1700 yrs and it still has not declared that science has proven this.
Nor has science proven this as yet for the reasons stated.
It is also a philosophic issue with no final Catholic consensus as yet.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Looked succinct and clear to me.

Only because you fail to appreciate the various applications of the term “human life”. Asking “is a gamete human life” is meaningless for this discussion because it is far too broad. A neighborhood community is “human life”, a chilled liver awaiting transplant is “human life”, a mouse with a human ear is “human life”. A gamete is alive, and it can be called “human” according to certain uses of the term, but it in no way overlaps with somatic human life, and in fact barely even resembles it. A gamete is not biologically a human individual, genetically nor otherwise.

The whole point is to show that at this level our own pet philosophies are revealed in the way we choose our words. Everybody means something different according to the unreflected philosophic assumptions they work from.

You are no exception.

A point that is both irrelevant and unhelpful to the discussion. The parameters and definitions are fairly clear from the portion of Evangelium Vitae we are working with, especially since it takes genetic science as the foundation for discussion.

I would agree a human ovum is validly called a form of human life.

I would also agree that a human ear receiving nourishment from the mouse still has living human cells and so they deserve to be called a form of human life.

No big deal.

What are the negatives of doing so?

The negatives arise when you muddy a discussion about embryology (which the OP stated he is studying) with vague terminology that doesn’t even apply to the discussion at hand. Evangelium Vitae is not talking about community theatre, mice with human ears, or excised livers, it is talking about the modern sciences of genetics and embryology.

This seems circular reasoning. You are using your philosophy that human DNA determines “human” to decide if they are human. This simply begs the question of what the designation “human” means when we all intuitively apply it to some things but not others.

What is our unreflected basis for doing so? is it valid?

I said “not ‘human’ in the sense of possessing a functional human genome”, not that they couldn’t be called human at all. It is a bald fact that a gamete does not possess a functional human genome, and therefore lacks this sense of the term “human” that a somatic cell possesses. You are again begging the question, and conflating different meanings and senses of the term “human”.

Precision in terminology is important in discussions such as this, and imprecision can have dangerous consequences.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

I suggest the majority of unbiased persons here would hold that gametes are validly described as a form of human life. They aren’t some unknown species of tadpole.

I suppose the philosophic principle is that whatever life proceeds from a human must also be human.

I see nothing problematic with that - you seem to disagree only because you have already a set position that it must be DNA from what I can see.

Nope, this is just your assumptions and question-begging showing through. No one here in this thread has questioned whether or not gametes are human life, including myself. A gamete is not, however, a human individual in the genetic sense that Evangelium Vitae is utilizing.

The question in this discussion is whether or not every human individual is a human person, not whether or not a gamete is a human individual. That a gamete is not a human individual is a matter of settled terminology in genetics and embryology, the paradigm we are utilizing in this discussion.

Did you notice the “what this living being will be.”

Notice how the Pope very carefully avoids calling the initial embryo a “person”. Rather he calls it a “living being”. he then goes on to say “it will be” a person.

He does not state that at conception it IS a person.

And this is relevant to what I’ve written how? Yes, the Pope didn’t call the embryo a person, though the rhetorical thrust of Donum Vitae (which is the source of the quote in Evangelium Vitae) is that available scientific data points towards the reasonable conclusion of a personal presence at the beginning of the human individual, and that the we are to treat the human individual as a person despite any uncertainty.

Regardless, the embryo is a human individual while the gamete is not, at least according to any useful and relevant meaning of the term.

How can he, the Church has never denied the possibility of delayed hominization even though it went on the backburner 150 or so years ago.

As with the teaching on Limbo.

Lots of wishful thinking going on in your interpretation.

Given you haven’t yet accurately read or represented what I’ve said on this thread, this is a pretty bold statement about “my interpretation”. As for the historical stances of the Church, they remain completely irrelevant to the discussion.

So back to the simple question.

Are human gametes a form of human life - yes or no?

Would you care to re-read post #74, or post #76? You can take your pick.

 

[Benadam]

Thanks BlackFriar,
I gotta admit, I didn’t know either. An eye opener for me. At first it was a bit disturbing. It seemed a bit like the ensoulment beliefs adopted by some Wiccans from ancient pagan religions. That the ability to reason is the sign that the child has a human soul. Anyway, I understand the discussion now.

 

[Benadam]

I gotta say though I think I’m with Ghosty on this. Shouldn’t life be determinate? If it isn’t it would be human tissue. Fresh meat so to speak.

 

[BlackFriar]

A gamete is not biologically a human individual, genetically nor otherwise.

A gamete is alive, its from a human, its human life.
You continue to argue in circular fashion.

Instead of reflecting on how we can validly apply the predicate human to a variety of beings you short circuit the process and say my designations are invalid because they are not human.
And they are not human apparently because no human DNA
Therefore the range of beings I apply “human” to is “sloppy” and “equivocal” according to you.

There is no logic here at all. Just a set position you do not reflect on.
Have you ever had any serious training in philosophy?

I said “not ‘human’ in the sense of possessing a functional human genome”

I perfectly understand what you mean by “human”.
However you do not personally get to define what that word means.

In fact the Church traditionally defines “human” as a creature composed of a body and an intellectual spiritual soul. It still does as far as I am aware.

So you see there are many different definitions floating around out there.
You have sold your soul to but a recent scientific one without question.
You will find no magisterial statement clearly endorsing your somewhat simplistic view but I am willing to be corrected if you want to have a go.

"I said “not ‘human’ in the sense of possesumansing a functional human genome”, not that they couldn’t be called human at all. It is a bald fact that a gamete does not possess a functional human genome, and therefore lacks this sense of the term “human” that a somatic cell possesses.

You say tomateo I say tomarto. of course we will come to different conclusions.
I am not over-impressed with the dna hypothesis.
Sure, a zygote has full dna while a gamete and an independently living cell or a disembodied soul are less in that regard. But by other criteria the disembodied soul possesses more of what makes us human than a zygote. All these examples are human life but all are incomplete in different ways. They are incomplete forms of human life. I think that is more than analogous commonality.

You are again begging the question, and conflating different meanings and senses of the term “human”.
This is only because you are wedded to a different criterion for defining fully human.
If “fully human” requires fulfilment of criterion more than full dna your view falls apart.
So this is not equivocal usage as you have said, it is at least analogical usage, probably more than analogical.

No one here in this thread has questioned whether or not gametes are human life, including myself.

Surely we cannot progress to other uses of the predicate “human” if we cannot agree on valid use of the predicate human life". Clearly “human individual” means some further than human life.
Obviously an ear on a rat or a gamete is not a human individual. But then nor is an 8 celled zygote which is still capable of twinning and recombining. A individual does not do that. An individual will die if it is halved.

continued…

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, the Pope didn’t call the embryo a person

Glad we agree on the text.

though the rhetorical thrust of Donum Vitae (which is the source of the quote in Evangelium Vitae) is that available scientific data points towards the reasonable conclusion of a personal presence at the beginning of the human individual

Yes, that may be JPIIs personal view, however he is certainly not declaring it so with but is steering current debate in that direction.

and that the we are to treat the human individual as a person despite any uncertainty.

Exactly so. That is the main point I am making. The right to life flows from fertilisation regardless of philosophic or scientific debate as to when a fully human soul appears or not.

Would you care to re-read post #74, or post #76? You can take your pick.

It amazes me that you are unable to make a clear yes or no answer.
I think it is you who has the ambivalent sloppy definition of human not me.

 

[Benadam]

They are incomplete forms of human life. I think that is more than analogous commonality.

That got me thinking. an individual cell or a human gamete is human life in that it is doing what is proper to it’s being human.?.

 

[mVitus]

Obviously an ear on a rat or a gamete is not a human individual. But then nor is an 8 celled zygote which is still capable of twinning and recombining. A individual does not do that. An individual will die if it is halved.

Disagree. The ear, left to its natural destination, will continue only to be an ear. It will not form into a self-reliant being that would naturally be self-sustaining.

The zygote, left to their natural course, will continue to grow and be a self-sustaining individual. The zygote is a person.

This is why your definition of human life is problematic in terms of how you want to use it here. To conflate a human ear on a rat with an individual human is detrimental.
To put it in one analogy, it would be like if we were discussing severity of sin and you argued in favor of sin is sin, missing the point that distinctions of venial and mortal would be pertinent to such a discussion. While you would technically be right, it would hinder discussion and lead to erroneous conclusions to dismiss the distinctions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Interestingly I believe Aquinas holds that Jesus received an intellective human soul at conception (not that he really knew what conception was).

So no DH there.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think you are on the right track.
We have many different examples of incomplete human life. And each is incomplete in a different way.

Telelogy (the potential to become an actuall fully human) is they key philosophic concept in determing degrees of incompleteness and ease by which a full human person may come about in the normal course of events.

An ear on a rat could become a person…though the science isnt quite there yet though it may be for hairy mammoths. But the point is that considerable scientific intervention would be needed to bring this about.

A gamete could become a person if introduced to his soulmate. Hetero introductions only please. This is quite possible, happens every night around the world.

A conceptus is also incomplete, it may still twin so is not yet an individual. However if nourished another 2 weeks there is every chance it will pass that stage and become an individual.

An embryo, according to some, needs to evidence brain activity before we can posit a person with a full human soul permanently infused. If nourished unto 40 days that will very very likely happen (unless encephalic perhaps?).

So there is a wide range of incomplete human life.
Some with better teleological chances than others to become a human person.

The Church has simply put a natural dividing line in the sand.
All human life from the moment of conception is to be treated as a full human person even if it isnt.

 

[mVitus]

If I may ask, are you in favor of Delayed Humanization? And if so, what would your criteria be to determine a human person?

And to go with the zygote. If we were to know the future of a zygote and know they would not be twins, but only one fetus, would they be a full human person at that point? Or would they still need to meet certain criteria? In other words, is the lack of personage because the zygote may split or because of other properties?

 

[midori]

Everyone realizes we’re talking about John Paul II’s 1995 Evangelium Vitae, and not Paul VI’s 1968 Humanae Vitae, right?