If life begins at fertilization

[Presence]

As the Catholic Church teaches, and to which I also believe, then what are your thoughts on a human ovum that has been fertilized but never attaches to the uteral wall and therefore cannot continue any further development? Is this basically the same thing as a miscarriage? Was a soul created for that fertilized egg?

Is there any teaching by the Church on this?

 

[Della]

In that case, it is a miscarriage, as is an ectopic pregnancy. A life was created, but could not live longer due to circumstances. The length of a person’s life is not as important as the fact that it is a life. It’s a sad thing, of course, to lose a child in such ways, as it would be if s/he had come to full term.

 

[edwest2]

As the Catholic Church teaches, and to which I also believe, then what are your thoughts on a human ovum that has been fertilized but never attaches to the uteral wall and therefore cannot continue any further development? Is this basically the same thing as a miscarriage? Was a soul created for that fertilized egg?

Is there any teaching by the Church on this?

First of all, through no intention of her own, or perhaps due to an unknown medical condition, these things happen spontaneously.

Church teaching is clear: human life is precious, from conception to natural death. Here is a detailed answer from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1310

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skye_Ariel]

As the Catholic Church teaches, and to which I also believe, then what are your thoughts on a human ovum that has been fertilized but never attaches to the uteral wall and therefore cannot continue any further development? Is this basically the same thing as a miscarriage? Was a soul created for that fertilized egg?

Is there any teaching by the Church on this?

I believe it was. I believe the soul is created at conception and even though the baby didn’t develop, he/she is still a human being, still had human DNA that would have eventually developed if he/she had attached. That fertilized egg is no different from a child who would eventually develop into an adult if their life is not cut short.

 

[Julia_Mae]

In that case, it is a miscarriage, as is an ectopic pregnancy. A life was created, but could not live longer due to circumstances. The length of a person’s life is not as important as the fact that it is a life. It’s a sad thing, of course, to lose a child in such ways, as it would be if s/he had come to full term.

No, it isn’t. First, the woman wouldn’t know there was a fertilized egg to lose. (I find this idea that so many fertilized eggs are expelled without attaching fairly specious scientifically, but I suppose that’s another thread.) Second, when you have carried a pregnancy and your baby moves and has personality and you attach to your child, I guarantee you it’s certainly much sadder than theorizing that you’ve probably lost a few fertilized eggs.

The Church does not use the word “ensoulment” in Her Catechism or say when a soul becomes part of a person, because we cannot possibly know that. The Church errs on the side of the sanctity of life and insists an embryo be treated as a person.

** 2319 **Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I believe it was. I believe the soul is created at conception and even though the baby didn’t develop, he/she is still a human being, still had human DNA that would have eventually developed if he/she had attached.

There’s no reason to believe this. One reason an ovum united with a sperm would not attach is that it’s genetic component is so abnormal the surface of the egg and the placental wall do not “recognize” one another and so no implantation occurs.

 

[devoutchristian]

Contrary to what some might say, the Church teaches that life begins at conception.

 

[frjohnmaryt]

As the Catholic Church teaches, and to which I also believe, then what are your thoughts on a human ovum that has been fertilized but never attaches to the uteral wall and therefore cannot continue any further development? Is this basically the same thing as a miscarriage? Was a soul created for that fertilized egg?

Is there any teaching by the Church on this?

Read the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” and “Evangelium Vitae”. They are very helpful.

 

[Della]

No, it isn’t. First, the woman wouldn’t know there was a fertilized egg to lose. (I find this idea that so many fertilized eggs are expelled without attaching fairly specious scientifically, but I suppose that’s another thread.) Second, when you have carried a pregnancy and your baby moves and has personality and you attach to your child, I guarantee you it’s certainly much sadder than theorizing that you’ve probably lost a few fertilized eggs.

You will note that I alluded to both circumstances, not only one. Besides, it is sad that lives are lost even if we never knew about them. I’d be sad if I knew I might have ejected fertilized eggs. In my case it wasn’t possible, but it’s still a sad reality, all the same.

The Church does not use the word “ensoulment” in Her Catechism or say when a soul becomes part of a person, because we cannot possibly know that. The Church errs on the side of the sanctity of life and insists an embryo be treated as a person.

The Church doesn’t have to use the specific word “ensoulment” in order to tell us that a human life begins at conception. Since the Church clearly says: 2319 “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.” We must assume a person exists not just a “fertilized egg”–as if that term negates the presence of a human being.

 

[adrift]

Originally Posted by Della
In that case, it is a miscarriage, as is an ectopic pregnancy. A life was created, but could not live longer due to circumstances. The length of a person’s life is not as important as the fact that it is a life. It’s a sad thing, of course, to lose a child in such ways, as it would be if s/he had come to full term.

No, it isn’t. First, the woman wouldn’t know there was a fertilized egg to lose. (I find this idea that so many fertilized eggs are expelled without attaching fairly specious scientifically, but I suppose that’s another thread.) Second, when you have carried a pregnancy and your baby moves and has personality and you attach to your child, I guarantee you it’s certainly much sadder than theorizing that you’ve probably lost a few fertilized eggs.

The Church does not use the word “ensoulment” in Her Catechism or say when a soul becomes part of a person, because we cannot possibly know that. The Church errs on the side of the sanctity of life and insists an embryo be treated as a person.

I am quite confused by your response. What are you saying “No, it isn’t” to?

1. That it isn’t a miscarriage. Also called a Spontaneous abortion.
2. A life was created
3. That is sad to loose a child this way.

I must disagree with you. I had three spontaneous abortions(miscarriages) and they were devastating. It wasn’t a therory that I lost a few"fertilized eggs" it was I lost a child. It is insensitive to those who have lost children to call them just fertilized eggs.

What the Catechism states

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.71

It is obvious that the Church believe that life begins at conception. You cannot have life without a soul.

I don’t know about other women but I knew of conception within two weeks after conception occurred.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The Church doesn’t have to use the specific word “ensoulment” in order to tell us that a human life begins at conception. Since the Church clearly says: 2319 “Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.” We must assume a person exists not just a “fertilized egg”–as if that term negates the presence of a human being.

No, we “must” not assume anything of the sort. We must treat every life as sacred. The presence or absence of soul, or the problematic issue of what constitutes a humaness in some possibly non-viable collection of chromosomes or partial chromosomes is forever beyond the scope of our ability to know.

Science now estimates that billions of zygotes have been expelled from human mothers before implantation. If that were correct, and I see no reason to believe it is, I wonder what possible point or purpose could be served by feeling sad about it? It would be, certainly, part of God’s design. It would be unknown to either parent.

 

[devoutchristian]

No, we “must” not assume anything of the sort. We must treat every life as sacred. The presence or absence of soul, or the problematic issue of what constitutes a humaness in some possibly non-viable collection of chromosomes or partial chromosomes is forever beyond the scope of our ability to know.

A human person is an ensouled being. An ensouled being is a human person.

 

[Della]

No, we “must” not assume anything of the sort. We must treat every life as sacred. The presence or absence of soul, or the problematic issue of what constitutes a humaness in some possibly non-viable collection of chromosomes or partial chromosomes is forever beyond the scope of our ability to know.

In all honesty, I haven’t any idea what you’re trying to say. As I read your words, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Truly, I’m confused.

Science can “estimate” all it wants. That says nothing whatsoever about what should or shouldn’t make us sad. All of us die at some point–should we not have the right to feel sad just because everyone dies? I don’t follow your logic.

[/QUOTE]

 

[JackieMom]

Julia Mae;10435767:

No, we “must” not assume anything of the sort. We must treat every life as sacred. The presence or absence of soul, or the problematic issue of what constitutes a humaness in some possibly non-viable collection of chromosomes or partial chromosomes is forever beyond the scope of our ability to know.

In all honesty, I haven’t any idea what you’re trying to say. As I read your words, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Truly, I’m confused.

I think what she’s saying is that because this is an extremely common natural occurence, and always happens before a pregnancy is confirmed ((name removed by moderator)lantation must take place to diagnose a pregnancy) it can’t really be compared to losing an established pregnancy or a born child. I mean, we can never even know if this has happened to us.

 

[Della]

I think what she’s saying is that because this is an extremely common natural occurence, and always happens before a pregnancy is confirmed ((name removed by moderator)lantation must take place to diagnose a pregnancy) it can’t really be compared to losing an established pregnancy or a born child. I mean, we can never even know if this has happened to us.

I think you’re right–that that’s what she’s trying to say. I understand, truly I do. I just think that we have the right to be sad about it, if we wish, if we know this occurs. But, for the needs of the OP, it’s neither here nor there.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

There’s no reason to believe this. One reason an ovum united with a sperm would not attach is that it’s genetic component is so abnormal the surface of the egg and the placental wall do not “recognize” one another and so no implantation occurs.

But the fertilized egg was still made of 100% human DNA therefore the person, however unrecognizable was human.

 

[Presence]

Thanks for the responses. I think viewing it as a type of miscarriage is sound (actual human life with soul), but personally don’t feel it is something to be sad about. I guess you can just view it as God’s will.

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks for the responses. I think viewing it as a type of miscarriage is sound (actual human life with soul), but personally don’t feel it is something to be sad about. I guess you can just view it as God’s will.

early miscarriages occur usually without the person realizing that it has happened

but it commonly happens at three months when the couple have known for two-and-a-half these days
so it is very, very sad
and quite an unpleasant experience when the doctor tells you “all the products of conception were expelled”.
yeah, i kind of sticks with you

 

[Bobby_Jim]

No, it isn’t. First, the woman wouldn’t know there was a fertilized egg to lose. (I find this idea that so many fertilized eggs are expelled without attaching fairly specious scientifically, but I suppose that’s another thread.) Second, when you have carried a pregnancy and your baby moves and has personality and you attach to your child, I guarantee you it’s certainly much sadder than theorizing that you’ve probably lost a few fertilized eggs.

I’m guessing there is evidence based on studies with animals? It would probably be nearly impossible and totally unethical to do such studies in humans.

My wife & I had the experience of having a positive home pregnancy test, and then my wife’s period started that same day (~1 week late). If I understand correctly this would be an example of a miscarriage before implantation occured. At the time I was not sure what to think or feel - my wife told me when I got home from work, so I had the surprise (and it was a surprise, based on charting…) and the let-down simultaneously. I think of that child occasionally - not with great sorrow, but a little tinge - we’ve gone on to have 3 kids since then, and I wonder who that child would have been, and how would our family be different. Certainly it would be different because our eldest was conceived just a few months later, which couldn’t have happened if the first pregancy “took”. And I can’t imagine life with a different child from her; she is the child God intended us to have. But what of the first one? Most likely something went wrong very early on with development - perhaps genetics, who knows. But I wonder, will I meet or recognize that child in heaven? Will our other children find out someday (far in the future) that they had an older sibling? (Not something we have felt the need to share with them thus far, and not sure when/if we ever will…)

 

[levinas12]

We must treat every life as sacred. The presence or absence of soul, or the problematic issue of what constitutes a humaness in some possibly non-viable collection of chromosomes or partial chromosomes is forever beyond the scope of our ability to know.

You must be careful here.

There’s a long and involved philosophical history in the question of ensoulment.

First, we need to clarify the meaning of “soul”. In Aristotle, “soul” is the “form” of “human being”. As such, the “soul” is the same in every human being.

“Soul” is not “person”. In fact, Aristotle did not have an adequate notion of “person”. In Aristotle, what constitutes individuality is the matter, not the person.

Now “person” denotes a singularity, a uniqueness. Whereas “soul” is the same for every human being, each “person” is radically different from every other “person”.

Later on, in Christianity, “soul” became much more closely identified with “person”. But we can ignore this for now.

Second, Aristotle proposed a theory of successive ensoulments to explain the development of a human being. These stages were vegetative soul, non-rational animal soul and finally rational animal soul. Aristotle argued that the “rational animal soul”, as a “principle of operation”, could not be present if the requisite organs were not also present.

I think Aristotle was wrong about this, even in terms of his own philosophy. The “soul” is not only a formal cause, it is also a final cause, a principle which guides changes to their natural end (in today’s science, “soul” would be closely associated with the DNA but, philosophically, it is not the DNA).

So the “rational animal soul” is present at conception as the “final cause”.

Now why is all this important?

I don’t think the person can be present at the moment of conception unless the “rational animal soul” is also present. Under the theory of successive ensoulment, this is impossible. Ergo, the “person” is not present at the moment of conception.

But if the “person” is not there, then why isn’t direct abortion up to a certain stage of pregnancy permissible?

If you don’t address the question of ensoulment, you weaken the pro-life position.