If life begins at fertilization

[Aloysium]

in today’s science, “soul” would be closely associated with the DNA

soul is not a concept in the lexicon of science

the statement above mystifies DNA, and is beyond science fiction - pure science fantasy

DNA is a complex molecule, and
while it has a particular structure related to a particular organism (the genotype),
it is not the sole cause responsible to the organism (the phenotype)
it is a molecule which acts when it is in its cellular environment
let’s just call it what it is - very, very fancy dust

While materialistic knowledge will lead to better television sets, it does little to bring us closer to understanding the person God knows when He loves us, from the moment we are conceived.

 

[frjohnmaryt]

Life is begins at fertilization. If by means of accidental miscarriage, that is understandably a miscarriage for no intention of abortion. The action is justified accidental and thus the person is not responsible. Excuses are not accepted within the Catholic teaching regarding abortion. Abortion is morally evil. We Catholics must uphold what the Church teaches that human life is sacred because he/she is made in the image of God.
Human life is God’s given gift to all and must be safeguarded at all times right from the beginning at fertilization to its natural end. :angel1:

 

[levinas12]

soul is not a concept in the lexicon of science

the statement above mystifies DNA, and is beyond science fiction - pure science fantasy

DNA is a complex molecule, and
while it has a particular structure related to a particular organism (the genotype),
it is not the sole cause responsible to the organism (the phenotype)
it is a molecule which acts when it is in its cellular environment
let’s just call it what it is - very, very fancy dust

While materialistic knowledge will lead to better television sets, it does little to bring us closer to understanding the person God knows when He loves us, from the moment we are conceived.

The “soul” as final cause guides the process. I agree that “soul” is not DNA. But one could say that the DNA is the material programming by means of which the process is guided. Remember that, in Aristotle’s lexicon, “soul” is not the “person” but the “principle of operation” of the living human body. Your “soul” and my “soul”, for Aristotle, are the same “form”. But you and I are different persons.

Again, this is all Aristotle - because “soul” is a technical term from ancient Greek philosophy.

 

[Aloysium]

The “soul” as final cause guides the process. I agree that “soul” is not DNA. But one could say that the DNA is the material programming by means of which the process is guided. Remember that, in Aristotle’s lexicon, “soul” is not the “person” but the “principle of operation” of the living human body. Your “soul” and my “soul”, for Aristotle, are the same “form”. But you and I are different persons.

Again, this is all Aristotle - because “soul” is a technical term from ancient Greek philosophy.

i can’t say i know much about Aristotelian philosophy, but i believe he (and St. Thomas) wrote about a vegetative soul that was behind physical processes including growth, development and reproduction that are now scientifically understood in terms of biochemical processes (DNA etc)

my issue is with reductionism (which you weren’t talking about) whereby the round peg of man is forced into the square hole of pseudoscience (sorry if i sounded like i was going after you)

clearly our existence, and how we have come to be in this life, with all its joys and suffering, remains a mystery, which only deepens the more we know

if we view the world through the lens of physical models, that is all we will ever see
but we are a unique, whole expression of His word: the matter, consciousness, beauty, and goodness - the universe, emerging through God’s eternal act of being, through His love
we have a value from conception that cannot be seen if we are not looking for it

science today has broken from its place within the larger field of human knowledge of which religion is the summit
science can be subsumed in understandings of God and His creation; the converse is not true
unfortunately, modern society has given it the role of deciding what is true; this has dire consequences, including the holocaust of abortion

 

[Marc]

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?

This actually happens with such high frequency (73% of fertilized embryos will not survive to 6 weeks). This is based on a higher rate of detected fertilization among women than clinical pregnancies. Some people do in fact use it as evidence to argue against the moral status of conceived embryos.

Is this basically the same thing as a miscarriage?

In medical parlance, a miscarriage assumes a pregnancy has occurred. In the scenario you’ve described, the pregnancy never happened, so this would not be called a miscarriage. Does/should it have the spiritual, moral, or emotional weight of a miscarriage? I am not a position to say, unfortunately.

Was a soul created for that fertilized egg?

In my humble, long-considered opinion, no. Because for every human being born, there would be 3 souls that may not have even developed organs. This does not, I don’t believe, diminish the moral status of conceived embryos. We have no right to deprive anyone a right to life especially if we find life is this much more precious.

I guess it’s not necessarily absurd or illogical to imagine that heaven is full of human beings that never grew beyond microscopic size. I don’t dare imagine limits to the resurrected body.

Is there any teaching by the Church on this?

An earlier post said the church has been careful not to use the word “ensoulment” when it speaks of life beginning at conception. This is for good reason and we should not assume that ensoulment is implied by such language. There is a theological basis for delayed ensoulment. Thomas Aquinas believed, based on his observations of miscarried fetuses, that ensoulment did not occur for at least 40 days. But it would be absurd to think Thomas Aquinas would have condoned abortion even hours after conception.

Basic Catholic teaching is that human life belongs to God and so do its mysteries. It’s naive of us to presume that a person must be a fully rational and privileged adult with simple choices facing him or her. This is how I think enlightenment failed in its quest to liberate man. Whereas the church teaches that God himself could be contained in an embryo; then so can an image of God. And that’s what truly endows the unique embryo a right to life.

 

[devoutchristian]

In my humble, long-considered opinion, no.

Well you’re wrong. The Church teaches that life begins at conception. There’s no room for doubt about this matter.

 

[levinas12]

There is a theological basis for delayed ensoulment. Thomas Aquinas believed, based on his observations of miscarried fetuses, that ensoulment did not occur for at least 40 days. But it would be absurd to think Thomas Aquinas would have condoned abortion even hours after conception.

The question of delayed ensoulment is philosophical, not theological.

And “delayed” is not entirely accurate. “Successive” is closer to Aristotle’s position - first, there is vegetative soul, then non-rational animal soul and finally rational animal soul. The rational animal soul is the principle of operation of vegetative, animal and rational activities - with the final arrival of the rational animal soul, all the previous activites are subsumed (like a Hegelian aufhebung) into it.

As I mentioned in previous posting, I think Aristotle’s theory of successive ensoulments is wrong because it ignores the role which the rational animal soul plays as a final cause (from the moment of conception).

And Aquinas is also wrong that the rational animal soul is “delayed”.

If the rational animal soul is not present (as a final cause) from the moment of conception, then the “person” is not present.

And if the “person” is not present, then the case against direct abortion in the early stages of pregnancy is greatly weakened.

 

[Marc]

Well you’re wrong. The Church teaches that life begins at conception. There’s no room for doubt about this matter.

I was talking about ensoulment. And I tried very hard to demonstrate that that is a separate question from the beginning of life at conception. And I’ve also said this has never dampened the Church’s condemnation of abortion.

Declaration on Procured Abortion - CDF

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation(implantation). It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent”

Again, I’m willing to concede that ensoulment occurs at the moment of fertilization. Then you have to consider that 3/4 of humanity never made it outside the womb nor even alerted their mother of their existence. This question shouldn’t mitigate our duty to protect human life from the moment of conception. But I think it should affect what it means to be human.

levinas, I accept your argument from final cause. Final cause must be tied to the soul and hence the person. There is definitely a mysterious connection between the three. We can’t deny uniqueness is present at conception. I recently had to reconsider the chances of identical dna occurring twice from 2^46 to an almost unfathomable number because of chiasmata. This is just for the same two parents. I just don’t like the idea of human life being defined according to the pro-life cause. I refuse to make the meaning of human life beholden to whether pro-life rights can be won in court or public debate. For me, it should always have been the other way around. Please forgive me if I’ve reduced your concept of the pro-life cause.

 

[levinas12]

Again, I’m willing to concede that ensoulment occurs at the moment of fertilization. Then you have to consider that 3/4 of humanity never made it outside the womb nor even alerted their mother of their existence. This question shouldn’t mitigate our duty to protect human life from the moment of conception. But I think it should affect what it means to be human.

levinas, I accept your argument from final cause. Final cause must be tied to the soul and hence the person. There is definitely a mysterious connection between the three. We can’t deny uniqueness is present at conception. I recently had to reconsider the chances of identical dna occurring twice from 2^46 to an almost unfathomable number because of chiasmata. This is just for the same two parents. I just don’t like the idea of human life being defined according to the pro-life cause. I refuse to make the meaning of human life beholden to whether pro-life rights can be won in court or public debate. For me, it should always have been the other way around. Please forgive me if I’ve reduced your concept of the pro-life cause.

This issue is both dialectical and rhetorical. Not many people follow the nuances of Aristotle or the complex philosophical history of “person”. So when Nancy Pelosi starts opining on successive ensoulments, politics (rhetoric) may overwhelm dialectics.

Plato himself was very sensitive to this (see Leo Strauss).

That said, I was speaking dialectically when I talked about “weakening” the pro-life argument. This argument is dialectical, not rhetorical. If there’s a person there, the zygote, embryo, fetus, is inviolable. But if there’s no “form” of human being, then there’s no person. If there’s no person, then the abortion is OK. Nancy’s no fool.

P.S. Aristotle and Aquinas did not know what we know. Successive ensoulment may itself be a relic of a biology that, at least in part, is as obsolete as the concentric spheres of quintessence.

 

[jimcintosh]

Great discussion. The Church preaches that human life should be protected from the moment of conception – and therefore abortion is wrong – but not that every conceived fetus has a soul. The Church has never taught when the evolving fetus receives a soul, because She says that She does not know. She teaches that, whether the fetus has a soul or not, it is to be protected as human life worthy of dignity.

I think the confusion may come from the rhetoric used by some pro-life activists who deliberately use misleading terms (e.g., “baby”) in order to try and heighten the emotional response to abortion. We all know what a baby is, and we should all know what a fetus is – just as we know what an adolescent is and what an adult is. Using the correct biological term for a developing human does not lessen their humanity nor the protection and dignity that the Church teaches we should give it, regardless of whether or not it has a soul.

 

[mangy_dog]

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?

Some people on this thread are going off into a tangent about “intention of the mother” and so on.

The answer to the question is what you already know and believe-life begins at conception. How ever long or short the life span of the human person, it is still a life endowed with a soul.

 

[devoutchristian]

The answer to the question is what you already know and believe-life begins at conception. How ever long or short the life span of the human person, it is still a life endowed with a soul.

This. It amazes me how some Catholics try to get around the Church’s teaching on this matter by citing pagan philosophers.