How to answer an Atheist

[Catholig]

Digger71,

A few other things that I couldn’t quite fit into my post, or didn’t see until a second ago are 1) even though the apple is only an “apple” as we know it after a certain amount of time (in which it blooms and rippens) is its DNA different than when it was a flower? I’m willing to conceed that it may be on account of pollination - I’m really not that versed in science, however it is something to consider. Or maybe the act of pollination is its definitive point of creation just like conception? In any case, whether or not I made a point, I’d like to point out that this analogy isn’t exactly fitting, because in Christian thought the soul of an apple (vegetative?) isn’t comparable with that of man - a persons soul existing after death and being created directly by god, instead of arising due to the transference of the parents soul or life force (in the case of plants) 2) god wouldn’t be commiting a murder by the creation of a soul which he knows will not remain long in the body. He doesn’t kill the body - it dies of natural causes. To argue otherwise leads into another argument that took place on this board a while ago which states that men and women shouldn’t conceive because means there’s a 50/50 chance of going to heaven or hell, where there is a 0% chance if the soul doesn’t exist. Existence is FAR better than Non-existence.

Again hope this helps,

Catholig

 

[Maranatha]

It’s not an apple, we know what an apple is. And that swelling is not an apple.

And as hist first argument collapse, the rest follows.

The argument only relies on the reader knowing what a apple is, not on a reader knowing if an apple bud is an apple. Since you claimed that we all know what an apple is, then the argument stands.

The full non-religious argument against abortion can be read here, catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0045.html

 

[Digger71]

The argument only relies on the reader knowing what a apple is, not on a reader knowing if an apple bud is an apple. Since you claimed that we all know what an apple is, then the argument stands.

Yes, we all know what an apple is, that is why we know a fertilised flower, and that green swelling are not apples. Because they don’t have the shape, smell, sweetness, seeds or colours of an apple.

Thus, if the analogy is true, a fetus, cytoblast, etc is not a person because it doesnt have a nervous system, independence, a brain, fully formed organs…etc.

The analogy fails at the very first hurdle. Apples do not appear fully formed, now do humans.

 

[cpayne]

Dear Digger 71: Regarding “Apples do not appear fully formed, nor do humans”: Again, I’d insist on the Thomistic distinction between form and shape. Apples do not appear shaped like the mature expression of the apple fruit, just as human zygotes don’t resemble mature humans. However, zygotes DO have the human form–otherwise, they wouldn’t end up resembling mature humans, i.e., they would grow into something else, maybe dogs or raccoons, whatever their form is. But the central point is still the stance of the Catholic Church (and the rational stance, IMHO): Zygotes end up being mature examples of humans because they are already humans.

 

[Digger71]

Dear Digger 71: Regarding “Apples do not appear fully formed, nor do humans”: Again, I’d insist on the Thomistic distinction between form and shape. Apples do not appear shaped like the mature expression of the apple fruit, just as human zygotes don’t resemble mature humans. However, zygotes DO have the human form–otherwise, they wouldn’t end up resembling mature humans, i.e., they would grow into something else, maybe dogs or raccoons, whatever their form is. But the central point is still the stance of the Catholic Church (and the rational stance, IMHO): Zygotes end up being mature examples of humans because they are already humans.

Hello.

My argument with the anaology is simply this. Regardless of the ‘form’ of the bud, it isnt an apple. We know what qualities make an apple, and the bud does not have them.

That’s one reason we wait for them to mature to apples.

A zygot may mature into human form, but until they have even the rudimentaty qualities of a human (like internal organs, a nervous system, etc), it difficult to argue it is more than a bunch of cells with human chemistry.

The analogy is simply wrong. What is wrong with recognising that/

 

[cpayne]

In one sense, I agree with you regarding the fact that anything to be called human must possess the “rudimentary qualities of a human”; however, I think our disagreement lies in what exactly those rudimentary qualities are. You mention central nervous system, etc. Instead I would list three:

(1) A DNA code from the species Homo sapiens.
(2) A unique, separately expressed DNA code (even identical twins express their identical genotype with separate phenotypes).
(3) The capacity under normal circumstances to develop into a mature example of the species.

Humans have all three of these “rudimentary qualities” from the time of conception. A wart or a human organ would not have these qualities–they’d have # 1 but not 2 or 3. On the other hand, something like a zygote resulting from in vitro fertilization would have all three qualities; even though the zygote was not developing “under normal circumstances” (# 3 on the list), it would still have the CAPACITY to do so if it were in normal circumstances. Further, the only reason it would have the capacity to develop into a mature human is that it already is an immature human, at the earliest stages of human development.

These considerations are why I don’t agree with the position as stated by you, although I know a great many people, including many Christians, who have adopted it. (No pun intended there.)