How could a human individual not be a human person?

[goout]

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.

Right. What you said before.

And if you are uncertain that a thing is human, you should give him/her/it (you pick) your good faith response.

 

[Ender]

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.

True, but this ignores the reason why this was so. The church has always called the intentional killing of an innocent person a murder. What the church could not know, because science did not know, was that point at which human life began. Since she did not know for a fact that early fetal life was not human she could not label its destruction as murder. Despite that, she labeled abortion as a grave moral evil since her earliest days.

It is true the Church did not always consider abortion to be murder. But she does now.

 

[Ender]

There is technical uncertainty as to whether the embryo is a human person from conception.

There is no uncertainty among embryologists, but then they don’t make a distinction between a human life and a human person. That distinction is entirely arbitrary.

 

[BlackFriar]

???
Which is what the Pope said - all human life, whether a true person or not, is to be treated as if it were and therefore its right to life is inviolable.
That is the good faith moral response required.
An intellectual assent to the presence of a “human individual/person” is not required by the Magisterium.

You don’t seem to get it.
There is nothing more to say if you don’t.
God bless.

 

[BlackFriar]

It is true the Church did not always consider abortion to be murder. But she does now.

Its certainly the personal view of some recent Popes.
It has not risen to the level of a dogmatic teaching in any way so far as I am aware.

You are welcome to provide a quote which makes the dogmatic case…

 

[BlackFriar]

BlackFriar:

There is technical uncertainty as to whether the embryo is a human person from conception.

There is no uncertainty among embryologists, but then they don’t make a distinction between a human life and a human person. That distinction is entirely arbitrary.

Matters of ensoulment, personhood and human individuality are both a philosophic and a scientific issue. Embryologists, even Catholic ones untrained in Catholic philosophy and theology, don’t really get to have the last word on this.

Call that “arbitrary” if you like…I simply call it unsolved and uncertain.

The Magisterium is quite clear it has not definitively adopted any particular philosophic stance on the issue. There are professional theologians that still disagree with the conclusions of such embryologists re these matters. Its a valid position.

Nothing more to say on this point either - the Magisterium’s current position is clear.
It adopts no philosophic stance at this point in time - it is simply a matter of moral precept.
All human life from the moment of conception is inviolable.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

It is true the Church did not always consider abortion to be murder. But she does now.

Its certainly the personal view of some recent Popes.
It has not risen to the level of a dogmatic teaching in any way so far as I am aware.

You are welcome to provide a quote which makes the dogmatic case…

Declaration on Procured Abortion
Pope Stephen V: “That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.”[10]…Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13]… Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life “which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator.”[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: “Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.”[17]

 

[BlackFriar]

Pope Stephen V: “That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived.”[10]…

So your hypothesis that the Church has a dogmatic teaching that “abortion is murder” is based on only a single sentence which happens to be the personal opinion of a Pope back in 890AD?

Which then happens to be mentioned in a 1974 document from the Vatican, which isn’t developed along the lines you would like, and is written by the CDF without the Pope’s signature.

Surely you can do better than this for a dogmatic teaching?

On the other hand all the heavy weight doctors and theologians of the Church explicitly deny the words of this Pope of 5 years reign and all Popes before and since Pope Stephen V are silent or opposing on this matter.

Strangely, for your thesis, the footnote 10 on the above quote from Pope Steven V refers to Gratian. Gratian is known to deny that abortion is always murder:

Basing his position on writers such as Ivo of Chartres, Augustine, and Jerome, Gratian states: He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.
(Gratian, Concordia discordantium canonum, Decretum, Ad. c8, C. XXXII, q. 2.)

So, as a trained scholar, I humbly suggest this means that the quote from Pope Steven V in the CDF document is not placed there to make the point that abortion is murder but rather for another reason as the context suggests.

That the murder theme is not then developed further, and has never been a concern of Popes since 1974 as far as I know suggests you have grasped the wrong end of the stick.
Your “proof” is really no more than amateur “proof texting”.
That is, not much different than just looking for “abortion is murder” in Google and pulling out any vaguely authoritative text that literally says that without judging context.

That is not the professional or scholarly way to approach such matters.

However if you can come back with post 1974 strong Papal support for Pope Steven V against the doctors of the Church and Gratian I am willing to be surprised.

I personally have never come across anything - though there is much in recent Popes to contradict the medieval view on Capital Punishement - but not the medieval view that “abortion is not murder”.

 

[Ender]

That the murder theme is not then developed further, and has never been a concern of Popes since 1974 as far as I know suggests you have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

Then again, maybe not.

Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. (JPII Evangelium Vitae #58)

Your “proof” is really no more than amateur “proof texting”.

Is this “proof texting” as well, or does it mean something other than what it obviously says?

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. (EV #58)

When the Church declares that unconditional respect for the right to life of every innocent person-from conception to natural death-is one of the pillars on which every civil society stands… (EV #101)

I personally have never come across anything - though there is much in recent Popes to contradict the medieval view on Capital Punishment - but not the medieval view that “abortion is not murder”.

Actually you have this exactly backward. First, modern teaching on abortion does not contradict medieval teaching; it simply extends the teaching based on what science can now verify. Second, recent popes have said nothing that contradicts the teachings on capital punishment, which are in all likelihood are not reformable.

 

[BlackFriar]

Second, recent popes have said nothing that contradicts the teachings on capital punishment, which are in all likelihood are not reformable.

You arent good with humour I see. In the last few years I see months long debates between you and others on this point re a change in Magisterial teaching from what was mainstream. You are never convincing in your arguments sorry.

Re EV above, when hou can find a clear phrase teaching that abortion is murder do come back.

Yes I get it that JPII personally appears to hold it so.
However for someone who is trying to make it a dogmatic teaching, as you allege, he is strangely very coy and indirect about it.

He makes no case before or after, he does not attempt to build from tradition, he does not even try to quote your Pope Steven from what I can see. He is not one to mince words is he when he wants to teach something new in dogmatic fashion. Look at how he did this with ordination of women.

Very strange for a strong dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. So yet another proof texting approach and no cigar sorry.

When the Church teaches that the conceptus is an actual human person and an actual human individual I will agree with you. But we are not quite there yet.

Thats fine, God at times does seem to be the author of confusion, but not of disorder. We know abortion is always wrong even if it is not always murder.

 

[Ghosty1981]

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.

I have read every one of your posts on this thread. You have not given an explanation of what a human individual is. You have spoken of human life but not of human individuals. You still haven’t defended your implication that gametes and human beings possess the same kind of life, which is what is truly at the heart of the argument of whether or not gametes and zygotes are both human individuals.

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

This wasn’t the question the OP proposed. Some have taken the discussion in that direction in this thread, but it is not what I have been discussing with you.

 

[BlackFriar]

I have read every one of your posts on this thread. You have not given an explanation of what a human individual is.

That’s funny, I thought it fairly clear I believed a “human individual” cannot exist until after the omnipotent (16 cell, two week mark) stage of the zygote.

You still haven’t defended your implication that gametes and human beings possess the same kind of life,

I think I made it fairly clear I believed this to be a strongly self-evident intuition that best explains the way we use the words “human” and “life”. Yes its only a partial form of life. But it is life and surely it is human if it comes from a human.
If it isn’t those who deny this must defend their position by stating what kind of life it is…tadpole?

Then you decide which explanation better accounts for the use of the word “human life” commonly predicated of many different things.

 

[Ender]

Re EV above, when hou can find a clear phrase teaching that abortion is murder do come back.

Yes I get it that JPII personally appears to hold it so.
However for someone who is trying to make it a dogmatic teaching, as you allege, he is strangely very coy and indirect about it.

That you consider this coy and indirect pretty much precludes ever finding anything you would accept.

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder

So yet another proof texting approach and no cigar sorry.

So your position is that he didn’t actually mean what he said?

When the Church teaches that the conceptus is an actual human person and an actual human individual I will agree with you. But we are not quite there yet.

JPII was there:

procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

But perhaps he didn’t mean this either, although he said no more than the catechism proclaims.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

Is there another way to understand what is said here?

 

[JimG]

Ensoulment theology has reached the point of irrelevance; it has become outmoded. There is not the slightest doubt as to when a new and distinct individual of the human species comes into existence. At conception, a sperm and ovum, which are specialized cells of the father and mother, fuse to become a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species.

Every individual of the human species is a human being. From a philosophical perspective, every human being is a human person. Designating any other starting point is simly arbitrary and not in accord with the biology of human beginnings.

All human beings have a beginning. We know from embryology when a new human being begins. It is at conception. Arguments about ensoulment are pointless. We ought not kill human beings regardless of their age.

 

[BlackFriar]

The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder

Ender this is amateur “proof texting” and its not serious scholarship. Did you notice the rather significant conditional “if”? Its a hyperbole, a strong personal position in an assumed debate. Clearly not a dogmatic statement nor a main point…unlike his phrases re ordination of women.

procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

He clearly avoids the word person.
Of course he does because the Magisterium has very clearly stated it adopts no philosophic position on the issue.

You are relitigating inconsequential quotes already addressed above. Do come back when you have more than disconnected rare proof text hits on Google.

 

[BlackFriar]

Omnipotent zygote cells loosely held together by biological “gelatine”, each potentially representing a human life over and above that of the zygote itself…hardly means the zygote represents a single individual.

So while we have human life we clearly do not yet have a zygote which we can call a unique individual human person. That is only certain after two weeks or so when cells start specialising.

That is the issue…and it is not an irrelevance re the words we carefully must choose.

It is an irrelevance re abortion … as all abortion is a grave evil and always has been.

 

[Ender]

Ender this is amateur “proof texting” and its not serious scholarship. Did you notice the rather significant conditional “if”? Its a hyperbole, a strong personal position in an assumed debate. Clearly not a dogmatic statement nor a main point…unlike his phrases re ordination of women.

Proof texting: “You have found a citation that directly refutes my position and for which I have no response, therefore I will ignore it.”

He clearly avoids the word person.

True; the phrase he used was “human being”. That’s what is called a synonym.

… the Magisterium has very clearly stated it adopts no philosophic position on the issue.

If you have a citation where the Magisterium states it takes no position on the matter we should all like to see it. In the meantime you can explain why this part of the catechism can be either ignored or interpreted in such a way that it means other than what it clearly says.

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Will you suggest the church holds that a human being should have the rights of a person even though she takes no position on whether a human being is a person?

 

[BlackFriar]

True; the phrase he used was “human being”. That’s what is called a synonym.

Sorry Ender, you simply do not have the scholarly hermeneutic skills (nor the texts) needed to make your case.

Prooftexting (sometimes “proof-texting” or “proof texting”): is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition. Such quotes may not accurately reflect the original intent of the author,[1] and a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not support the proposition for which it was cited.

Example:
A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, ‘Then Judas went away and hanged himself’ (Matthew 27:5b). Finding these words unhelpful, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, ‘Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”’ (Luke 10:37b). In desperation, he tried one more time. The text he found was: ‘What you are about to do, do quickly.’" (John 13:27)

 

[Rau]

Respiration.

That respiration occurs during only a part (almost all) human life does not seem to have any bearing on this undefined thing called personhood. What is the reason to define person? To decide when after its creation a human life may/may not be destroyed? That would be a self-serving definition. Why should we assert that during the part of our life that our cells don’t “respire”, we are below the threshold of “person”?

 

[Rau]

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

Correct. It is surely human. Though not “a human”.