How could a human individual not be a human person?

[mkoopman]

You appear highly mechanical in your mannerisms, almost entirely like a finite automata. Allow me to ask if you perceive the shoreline of Bermuda to be better represented as Hausdorff or non-Hausdorff?
Yes, of course, two f - but the name has a single character for the double letter in some of the original publications and I often forget as his original contributions were my only introduction to his work. Have you read any of his work in the original form?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When you are able to say something that reads less like a bot or a poorly coded AI perhaps we can take things further.

 

[mkoopman]

Understanding that God knows what we choose to do no matter how wretched bothers you?
Should God allow madness like that of “playing” with human embryos and naming it “science”?
War crime is a better fit.

 

[Peter_John]

The physical characteristic of personhood is having a physical body. Every cell in your body is stamped as you and not part of another. That starts with the first one. When you have two cells, you have communication among your cells. That never changes–the same communication among your cells continues until you die.

That’s it. With your body you exist in physical space. Without it you do not. Things like level of development do not matter. You don’t have one cell in your body now that you had when you were five, but you are the same person. Personality, changes in physiology that elicit changes in it, are immaterial to who you are; these are expressions of yourself.

One of the biggest mistakes “Pro-Life” activism made over 40 years ago was responding to the book Our Bodies, Ourselves as if your body really is not yourself, just because they so defended that two bodies are at issue. Think about it: if the unborn child’s body is not the unborn child’s self, there is no person to protect.

Your body is your tangible attribute of personhood. You have it before you even make your mother pregnant 6-12 days after your conception.

If you want to break it down to a subcellular level, it’s having a mitochondrion from the same ancient mother as all other humans, and a unique genome to structure. That mitochondrion physically includes you in the human family, and that unique genome identifies you as unique, irreducible, incommunicable, and irreplaceable–the intangible attributes of personhood. (Crosby, The Selfhood of the Human Person) Your intangible attributes of personhood are firmly rooted in the physical attribute of your personhood–your body.

(This is an abbreviated argument from Chapters 2-3 of How Your Life Matters: Your Personhood Manifesto)

 

[Ghosty1981]

I apologize for taking so long to get back to this thread. I will get caught up as much as possible and respond as best I can.

I perfectly understand what you mean by “human”.

However you do not personally get to define what that word means.

I am not the one using a personal definition. I am using a commonly accepted biological definition and supplementing it with philosophical notions derived from Catholic spiritual reflection. Since you are the one operating with a definition that is not commonly accepted I think it falls on you to present the case for why your peculiar definition should be accepted.

In other words, if a body that does not possess the genome of a functioning human person is still a human individual then please explain why and be prepared to justify it. A human gamete possesses none of the characteristics of uniquely human somatic life, and despite its human origin it is not on a trajectory of developing into a functioning human being. It is not a case of merely not being viable, as when there are critical flaws in the development of a zygote, but rather that there is no motion towards human development whatsoever. It is a life, but its life is not that of a human being, not even the early stages of a human being.

If we must define the meaning of life, then I would put forth this definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
   1.1 Living things and their activity.

From this definition we can say that a human being is alive, and a human gamete is alive, but they are not the same life because they have a different kind of growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change; whatever kind of life the gamete is, it is not the same kind as the human adult, unlike the zygote.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

Now there are different stages in the life of a human being in which the macro-level functional activity is different, as in the case of zygotic metabolism versus adult cell metabolism, but in both cases the same human genome is being utilized; different pages from the same instruction manual are being read to do different things at different times, similar to how a hand can be used to scratch an itch or hold a pen. The gamete does not possess these instructions, and can not function in the same way even potentially; it literally has a different manual from that of the zygote and the adult human.

It’s worth mentioning that there is a brief window of time after fertilization in which it could be argued, under this definition of life above, that the zygote does not have the same life as the adult human. For a matter of hours after fertilization the zygote divides without growth utilizing maternal proteins from within the egg as the “instruction manual” in order to set the stage for the zygote’s own genome to take over. The foundation of zygotic development is laid by the mother’s pre-produced mRNA contained within the ovum, setting up a “workshop” for the zygote’s own genome to begin working in. During this period the zygote’s genome is not active, and the zygote is not functioning as it will a few hours later and then for the rest of its life. I can certainly see a case being made that in this period the zygote is a different life from the human being it will become, but I believe that is for another discussion.

If you have a different definition of life you’d like to use, by all means present it. Again, however, the OP and the documents cited discuss genetic definitions and scientific foundations for knowledge. We don’t have to accept them dogmatically, but they do provide the very framework for the magisterial documents we are discussing.

Sure, a zygote has full dna while a gamete and an independently living cell or a disembodied soul are less in that regard.

A disembodied cell is the same as, not less than a zygote in this regard, and a disembodied soul is a different class all together, distinct from biological considerations and requiring other uniquely human characteristics for identification. A gamete is not “less”, it has a genome, but not the same type of genome that is found in the human zygote and disembodied human somatic cell. The gamete is a different thing, genetically speaking, even more different from a zygote than a frog is to a man. It is more akin in function to a bacterium than it is to the human being it will become.

continued…

 

[Ghosty1981]

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.

It is not a question of complete or incomplete, but of fundamentally different function. A gamete is not a part of a whole, unless in a certain sense it is considered a part of the human that produces it. A gamete is not an incomplete human being, it is a complete gamete, just as an ecoli bacterium is not an incomplete dog. When two opposite human gametes meet a new, discrete, functioning human genome is made that functions just as its parents’ did but not as either of their gametes did.

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.

No. An adult human will die if they are cut in cut in half because the organs necessary for the life of the adult body will be severed. An adult could be split by removing some of their cells and cloning them, producing a new individual with essentially identical DNA. We have done this with other mammals, and some scientists have claimed to have done so with humans. Even now you are a potential twin, BlackFriar. Are you not an individual because a cell of yours could be used even now to produce an identical twin that is much younger than you?

When a zygote splits it is the same basic genetic process as when we make clones today, it merely happens naturally at a time when the human body has not developed functioning organs. That a zygote can split and two parts develop separately is due to the process of the human body at that stage of development, not because of any properties unique to the zygote itself.

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.

You haven’t asked a question that can be given a clear yes or no without clarification. Yes, a gamete can be called human, and it can be called life, but it can’t be called “human life” in the same sense as a zygote as it has different function, growth, reproduction, and continual change from the kind shared by zygotes, children, and adults. Similarly, a car and a gamete could be called a “vehicle of human life”, but certainly not in the same sense.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The poster appears to be objective. There is indeed a wide variety of public opinion on these matters not only amongst atheists but also Catholics:

http://www.fototime.com/{9568A09D-9416-42D5-95A5-7A24E808C039}/origpict/Survey.jpg

I can’t get your link to work, so I don’t know what you are pointing out.

How can a human intervention create immortal souls?

God obeys the lancet? Aquinas could not agree with this.

Does God obey the rape? The affectionate roll-in-the-hay?

On the other end of the life-continuum, does God obey the murder’s knife? Does God obey the doctor’s life-saving CPR and administration of epinephrine?

That humans can perform actions that materially lay the foundations of, or contribute to, the life or death of another human being is not really in question. Whether the human life arises materially because of the actions of the scientist in the lab, or the scientist in the bedroom doesn’t change God’s role in supplying the immaterial soul.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am not the one using a personal definition. I am using a commonly accepted biological definition and supplementing it with philosophical notions derived from Catholic spiritual reflection. Since you are the one operating with a definition that is not commonly accepted I think it falls on you to present the case for why your peculiar definition should be accepted.

My friend we have all moved on 6 days ago.

In other words, if a body that does not possess the genome of a functioning human person is still a human individual then please explain why and be prepared to justify it.

Have done so numerous times. Please reread the thread.
There is nothing more to say if you dont understand or agree with what “individual” means and implications thereof for a human soul’s presence.
In the end ensoulment theology makes no difference re the immotality of abortion.
God bless.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

In the end ensoulment theology makes no difference re the immotality of abortion.

But when ensoulment occurs makes all the difference. If ensoulment occurs at implantation (as I now believe) or sooner (as most catholics believe), then first trimester abortion is murder and all who support it are accomplices; but if ensoulment occurs around the end of the first trimester (as “pro-choice” catholics think is possible), then it is bearing false witness to say that first trimester abortion is murder. Personally, I believe that the God who gives us the commandment not to murder (ie. not to kill an innocent person) must also give us a way to find out exactly when ensoulment happens (ie. when personhood begins) so that we can keep that commandment.

 

[Wesrock]

Nobody is certain that personhood (as defined by theologians) exists from conception.
In fact the Church assumed otherwise for 1800 years.

Yes, but that was based in part on not having a proper scientific understanding of conception and embryonic and fetal development.

 

[JimG]

Personally, I believe that the God who gives us the commandment not to murder (ie. not to kill an innocent person) must also give us a way to find out exactly when ensoulment happens (ie. when personhood begins) so that we can keep that commandment.

Souls are not observable by any means. But how about this. A human being by definition has a human soul. From embryology, we know when a new human being has its beginning. It’s not complicated. Every new individual human being has its beginning at conception.

 

[goout]

midori:

, but its essence-- its humanity-- exists from the moment of conception.

I do not believe the Pope is saying this.
It is the soul that traditionally gives a living thing its nature, certainly its personhood.

Nobody is certain that personhood (as defined by theologians) exists from conception.
In fact the Church assumed otherwise for 1800 years.

The embryo of course is “human”, but when it becomes a human person is another question.

Note your words “no one is certain” and “is another question”.

It’s a little like a hunter firing at the first thing that moves in the woods.
It’s a little like the claim that black and Jews are not human beings, or any other group for that matter.

If a person has a doubt as to the validity of the humanity of a human, perhaps your bona fides is due to the humanity of human beings.
We should act on the basis of good faith in respect to the dignity of human beings, not on our intellectual doubts.

 

[BlackFriar]

Abortion is a separate evil from murder, that is why it has always had its own name.
It is still always and everywhere wrong.

So what is the problem?

 

[BlackFriar]

That is your assumption.
The Church has not withdrawn the ensoulment teaching.
Read the above thread in full.

 

[BlackFriar]

Please read this expired thread in full…its clear you have missed things.

 

[Ender]

Abortion is a separate evil from murder, that is why it has always had its own name.

Infanticide has its own name as well; are you suggesting it is not also murder because of that? An abortion is a particular kind of killing. It is a subset of murder.

 

[goout]

Please read this expired thread in full…its clear you have missed things.

I was not responding to the whole thread, I was responding to your post like this:

Midori
, but its essence-- its humanity-- exists from the moment of conception

Your response to Midori:

Black Friar:
I do not believe the Pope is saying this.
It is the soul that traditionally gives a living thing its nature, certainly its personhood.

Nobody is certain that personhood (as defined by theologians) exists from conception.
In fact the Church assumed otherwise for 1800 years.

The embryo of course is “human”, but when it becomes a human person is another question.

My response to you:

Note your words “no one is certain” and “is another question”.

It’s a little like a hunter firing at the first thing that moves in the woods.
It’s a little like the claim that black and Jews are not human beings, or any other group for that matter.

If a person has a doubt as to the validity of the humanity of a human, perhaps your bona fides is due to the humanity of human beings.
We should act on the basis of good faith in respect to the dignity of human beings, not on our intellectual doubts.

The point is: you use “uncertainty” to cast doubt on the full humanity of the human person from conception.
The Church’s answer to that is that human beings deserve our bona fides, or “good faith”, when appreciating their humanity.

If you are unsure of who’s a human being (how I wish those doubts would be banished from the world), you should assume the good. To do otherwise is neglect.

 

[BlackFriar]

No, that is incorrect.
The labelling of all abortions as murder is a recent phenomemon of less than 100 years from what I can make out. The Church has a 1900 year old tradition that never did so.

 

[BlackFriar]

There is no uncertainty as to the right to life.
There is technical uncertainty as to whether the embryo is a human person from conception.

If that were not so there would be no need for a “good faith” assertion, it would simply be an asserted fact.