Is the church's teaching that "life begins at conception" scientific and not a matter of faith/morals?

[LeafByNiggle]

The initial cell is not “destined” to become twins. While twins can come about in a number of ways I believe “identical twins” can only come about in one way as follows:…

I did not mean to imply that we could tell if a fertilized ovum was going to develop into twins. I used the word “destined” in the sense that God knows if it will turn out so. My point was that any theory of ensoulment at conception, when applied to the case of identical twins, is quite problematic, besides being unnecessary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m actually curious when human life ends. When is someone dead?
I know the rote answer is “when the soul leaves the body,” so when does that happen?

If I suffer head trauma, but my heart is beating, my liver filtering, and my lungs breathing I am still alive, yes?
But if the head trauma is severe enough that they take me to be an organ donor… my organs are all still functioning. The geographic distribution is a bit broader, by my heart is still beating, my liver filtering, and my lungs breathing. Am I dead now?

What exactly makes the difference? After which organ was removed did my soul leave?

Also, if all living things have souls, and single-celled organisms are living, does that mean all my cells have their own souls?

LJH
What extra assistance does “soul talk” actually provide in answering this difficult scientific/philosophic question? I think you will find the answer is “none.” In this context talk of a soul is a word game that provides no extra scientific knowledge whatsoever.

It does however make us feel there is order and purpose in the universe by relating painful earthly realities to God’s care and providence. This however is the realm of Faith not Science. Your question is about Science.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I did not mean to imply that we could tell if a fertilized ovum was going to develop into twins. I used the word “destined” in the sense that God knows if it will turn out so. My point was that any theory of ensoulment at conception, when applied to the case of identical twins, is quite problematic, besides being unnecessary.

Ah … now your comments make sense, and I agree with you.

There is also the further problem of “chimeras”. This is the rare case when two separately fertilised ova can apparantly fuse together … eventually resulting in only one embryo.
Which “human soul” won - or did both die and God created a new one?

Such cases militate against “human soul at conception” theorists (because it blunts Ockham’s razor!) and re-inforces traditional “vegetative soul at conception” theology (even though medieval theologians new nothing of such cellular findings).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Also, if all living things have souls, and single-celled organisms are living, does that mean all my cells have their own souls?

LJH
While “soul talk” isn’t going to help you any better to understand when “human life” begins and ends it is interesting, from a purely speculative philosophical point of view, to see if this ancient greek philosophic principle on which “soul talk” stands (the principle of hylomorphism which is meant to explain change) can accomodate the findings of modern cellular biology.

The answer to your above question is yes or no - depending on whether your allegedly ruggedly independent “single-celled organisms” (lets call them SCOs) are to be considered substantially unified and coordinated towards a higher organic unity.

If the allegedly independent and differentiated SCOs are in anyway harminising with one another … then they are de facto witnessing to a higher “coordinating” life form are they not? This is in fact what happens in an animal body. Some SCOs form one type of flesh or organ material, while others another. Even within a single organ there is a multitude of differentiated cells/structures forming an integrated whole with a higher overall purpose. An “organic” and whole purpose … culminating in, not surprisingly, an “organ.”

And all the organs and other bodily structures coordinate naturally and most harmoniously together to form a body. This body feeds, maintains/heals and reproduces itself as a wonderfully miraculous self coordinated whole.

So no, your ruggedly independent single celled organisms are not in fact islands only unto themselves. they do not have individual souls because it is the single body/animal that vivifies both the smallest cells and the teleology of the animal as a single whole.

This is the mainstream philosophical view of Aquinas which the Catholic Church adopted to comprehensively understand the universe (both seen and unseen) in the 13th centuary.

There are a variety of lesser but acceptable variations on this theme originating from Aquinas’s Catholic opponents. One such theory would accept that the human life may have multiple extant souls but the lesser souls (both vegetative and animal) are subservient to (and harmonised by) still by a single eternal human soul.

So take your pick of explanations.

For myself I am coming to the conclusion that the discovery of DNA has made the medieval use of the principle of hylomorphism to explain development of human life and morphological change from the apparantly unhuman to the human largely unnecessary and redundant.

This may make me a “materialist.” It may not if we still have to posit non-material causality for the coming to be of DNA (or sperm and ova) and the activity of human consciousness

It still amazes me how a female child is born with all the ova she will ever produce already maturely formed. How can such an infinte regression without significant “photocopy error” be? Such perfection over 100s of 1000s of years seems to deny the principle of entropy so obvious and widespread elsewhere in the universe. While I am aware of natural selection and harsh environments which “cleanse” the gene pool of defects over time … I am not altogether convinced of it.

 

[opus101]

Does anyone really belief that life does NOT start at conception?

Unfortunately, yes. Some do not consider a women “pregnant” until implantation, which is several days later. IMO, this is the problem behind the HHS mandate’s denial of religious exemption for faith-based institutions (and individuals). The President and HHS need to do a little research into the conviction of Catholics (and most others) that life begins at fertilization (conception), and that providing or paying for contraceptives for others would be considered a grave offense and compromise consciences. This is because many oral contraceptives, and of course drugs such as Ella, can impede implantation, resulting in termination of the pregnancy (abortion).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77
Does anyone really belief that life does NOT start at conception?

Unfortunately, yes. Some do not consider a women “pregnant” until implantation, which is several days later. IMO, this is the problem behind the HHS mandate’s denial of religious exemption for faith-based institutions (and individuals). The President and HHS need to do a little research into the conviction of Catholics (and most others) that life begins at fertilization (conception) …

Opus101
Yes, and the ambiguity spreads to the use of the word “conception” as well. I thought this was the time that the ovum is fertilised. But no. Most state funded health institutions either implicitly or explictly seem to define this as the time of implantation.

Christine77
I know what you mean but I heard what you said!
The words you use are ambiguous. “Conception”, as above, does not mean what you think it means for many health professionals.
Also, your use of “life” is perhaps a little vague. I believe you mean “human life.”

So now let me paraphrase what I think you really are asking: **“Does anyone really believe that human life does not start at fertilisation of the ovum?” **To which the answer is clearly “yes” - and that includes the Catholic Church until around 200 years ago (there are probably many scholastic theologians today who would still say “yes.”)

I believe the point that is now becoming clear in this thread is that the Church’s moral teaching regarding the grave wrong of abortion (from fertilisation to birth) has not primarily been justified by looking at when “true human life” begins.

Ther Church’s moral teaching accords full human rights to whatever “creature”, at whatever stage, results from the procreative union of “its” human parents. Very pragmatic and simple, based on the consistent piety and practice of the christian community from year 33.

So no, I do not think this moral teaching forces us to accept that **human life **(as understood by church scholastic philosophy and “soul talk”) begins at conception… how could it, the Church did not believe this for a very long time.

Nor is the assertion “human life begins at fertilisation” capable of scientific “proof.”
It is a matter of philosphic reasoning and as there are many different philosophic systems we get many different answers. Who knows which is right, even the Churchs favourite philosophic system doesn’t seem to fit with our modern day sensibilities.

 

[Ender]

So no, I do not think this moral teaching forces us to accept that **human life **(as understood by church scholastic philosophy and “soul talk”) begins at conception… how could it, the Church did not believe this for a very long time.

First, the idea that life begins at conception is not a matter of Catholic faith but of scientific fact. Nor is it true that the Church ever taught otherwise. She never held that an early fetus was not human; what she taught was that, since there was no way of being able to accurately categorize the fetus, she could not claim that an early stage abortion - unlike late term abortions - was a homicide. That is, she recognized what was unknown and acted accordingly. She couldn’t say a fetus was human but she never claimed that it wasn’t.

Nor is the assertion “human life begins at fertilisation” capable of scientific “proof.”

What an astonishing statement. That life begins at fertilization is noted in probably every textbook on embryology. Any attempt to distinguish between the life of a human entity and “human” life is to leave the world of science entirely and places the definition of who is or is not human up to the vagaries of politicians. Blacks, Indians, Chinese, Jews, Gypsies and a whole lot of other groups have first hand experience with the effects of being classed as something less than fully human. One would like to think we had learned from those experiences … but apparently not.

Ender

 

[CHRISTINE77]

All this nit-picking science talk is really boring and misleading. Most women, if they are the least bit sensitive, will tell you that they KNEW they were going to have a baby at he MOMENT of conception. Conception is the miracle of ensoulment of a new human being. Science has a way of sneering at the beauty and magic of God.

 

[LJH_80]

All this nit-picking science talk is really boring and misleading. Most women, if they are the least bit sensitive, will tell you that they KNEW they were going to have a baby at he MOMENT of conception. Conception is the miracle of ensoulment of a new human being. Science has a way of sneering at the beauty and magic of God.

Please provide some proof of this.

I have seen no evidence, scholarly or in my personal interactions, that would imply this.

 

[mytruepower2]

It seems like this is turning into a philosophical debate, where really, there is no philosophical debate to be had.

If you’re saying that “life” doesn’t begin at conception, you’re equivocating on the word “life.” “Life” in this context, means “a new, unique, individual life-form,” not “the essence of what it means to be alive.” There is simply no denying the scientific fact that when the sperm hits the egg, an entirely distinct pattern of DNA is formed, and a unique, individual human being comes into existence. This is scientifically provable, proven, and indisputable on purely logical and scientific grounds.

Furthermore, you can’t say that life-forms aren’t distinct from one another without challenging the very notions of “you-ness” or “me-ness,” and these are not a part of any nebulous force. The human body and human soul are both entirely distinct from all other human bodies and souls, and are therefore unique to each person. Therefore, personhood exists, and individuality flows from that. From that comes the most basic understanding of the nature of human life, and only once all of this is understood can accurate determinations be made about when and where life begins.

Still, there seems to have been some confusion, so let me more strongly phrase the truth about this matter, philosophically.

“The lifespan of each individual human begins at their own, individual conception, when their unique DNA pattern forms, and they become a measurably separate individual from their individual parents.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

She never held that an early fetus was not human; what she taught was that, since there was no way of being able to accurately categorize the fetus, she could not claim that an early stage abortion - unlike late term abortions - was a homicide. That is, she recognized what was unknown and acted accordingly. She couldn’t say a fetus was human but she never claimed that it wasn’t.

Ender
If you say that “the Church could not claim that an early stage abortion was a homicide *” then we are in agreement. I have simply attempted to explain the “Catholic” philosophy/science of the day that underpinned such Magisterial caution.

As I have tried to stress above I do not believe the Magisterium means, in its moral teaching, to also wholeheartedly endorse any particular scientific or philosophic system or point of view - however it must be cogniscant of such as you point out.

Having said that, the Church’s leading theologians/philosophers (scientists of the day if you will) certainly taught “Delayed Hominisation” as I have outlined above. A very readable article can be found here: catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/thomas-aquinas-on-ensoulment/

That life begins at fertilization is noted in probably every textbook on embryology. Any attempt to distinguish between the life of a human entity and “human” life is to leave the world of science entirely and places the definition of who is or is not human up to the vagaries of politicians.

Yes, life obviously begins at fertilisation. But does “every textbook on embryology” say it is actual **“human” **life … I do not think so. There are major differing philosophic schools of thought on this question of “what does it mean to be human” - and those same justifying philosophic frameworks carry their arguments all the way through to anencephalic newborns, hi functioning chimpanzees with language ability, brain-dead patients, euthenasia and intelligent life on other planets.

When such textbooks opine that something is or isn’t human are they not in fact philosophising - and being a good embryologist (secular or christian) does not for that reason make one a good thinker. It appears fanciful to say that someone is bad-willed if they disagree that an inchoate blob of protoplasm is not at this moment human.

The question raised above is not whether life begins at fertilisation but whether actual “human life” is reasonably judged present at that moment. It is very reassuring that Christians are outraged at such a “foreign” concept because it witnesses to deep faith and wholesome sentiments.

However, I am raising the strong likelihood that this judegement, in Christians, is born of a sentiment that derives more from Faith than Science. I and others have explained solid historical reasons why.

A lot of this strong sentiment appears to derive from the unspoken fear that if a fertilised ovum cannot be “proven” to have a human soul (equivalent to judging that it is human) then according it full human right to life cannot be justified.

History shows that the Church fully defended the right of the unborn at its early stages without this linkage. The present Catholic Catechism, if I haven’t overlooked something, still sidesteps such a direct “scientific” linkage. The closest it gets is “…it must be treated from conception as a person.” It doesn’t say it IS a (human) person, it says it must be TREATED as a (human) person.

I believe it is important that Christian pro-lifers be aware of their Catholic history, philosophy and theology (especially the limitations of “ensoulment” talk) and avoid too narrowly defending a pro-life position ( a position I which I whole-heartedly agree with).*

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It seems like this is turning into a philosophical debate, where really, there is no philosophical debate to be had.

If you’re saying that “life” doesn’t begin at conception, you’re equivocating on the word “life.” “Life” in this context, means “a new, unique, individual life-form,” not “the essence of what it means to be alive.” There is simply no denying the scientific fact that when the sperm hits the egg, an entirely distinct pattern of DNA is formed, and a unique, individual human being comes into existence. This is scientifically provable, proven, and indisputable on purely logical and scientific grounds.

Furthermore, you can’t say that life-forms aren’t distinct from one another without challenging the very notions of “you-ness” or “me-ness,” and these are not a part of any nebulous force. The human body and human soul are both entirely distinct from all other human bodies and souls, and are therefore unique to each person. Therefore, personhood exists, and individuality flows from that. From that comes the most basic understanding of the nature of human life, and only once all of this is understood can accurate determinations be made about when and where life begins.

Still, there seems to have been some confusion, so let me more strongly phrase the truth about this matter, philosophically.

“The lifespan of each individual human begins at their own, individual conception, when their unique DNA pattern forms, and they become a measurably separate individual from their individual parents.”

I raised the issue of identical twins before with regard to the question of ensoulment. But I would like to consider identical twins in light of what you have said here. Your last sentence, for example (The lifespan of each individual human begins at their own, individual conception, when their unique DNA pattern forms, and they become a measurably separate individual from their individual parents) doesn’t seem to make sense when identical twins are involved. If the lifespan of each individual begins at their own indivudual conception, then whose lifespan is beginning when a conception produces twins? Are both of their lifespans beginning at the same time? If so, then it is not an individual lifespan. It is a shared lifespan. Nor is it the time when each individual is “measurably separate” because at the time of conception, the twins are not yet measurably separate. And I would not make too much of the uniqueness of the DNA because it is not unique in the case of identical twins.

The same problem exists with your statement: " “Life” in this context, means “a new, unique, individual life-form”. With identical twins the unique individual state has not yet been reached. In fact, go back and read all of your post in the light of identical twins and you will see that the language you choose to use just doesn’t ring true for them.

Now I realize that identical twins are extremely rare, but the principles you are espousing are so universal in nature that any failure of applicability to a small set of cases casts doubt on the whole premise.

 

[mytruepower2]

I raised the issue of identical twins before with regard to the question of ensoulment. But I would like to consider identical twins in light of what you have said here. Your last sentence, for example (The lifespan of each individual human begins at their own, individual conception, when their unique DNA pattern forms, and they become a measurably separate individual from their individual parents) doesn’t seem to make sense when identical twins are involved. If the lifespan of each individual begins at their own indivudual conception, then whose lifespan is beginning when a conception produces twins? Are both of their lifespans beginning at the same time? If so, then it is not an individual lifespan. It is a shared lifespan. Nor is it the time when each individual is “measurably separate” because at the time of conception, the twins are not yet measurably separate. And I would not make too much of the uniqueness of the DNA because it is not unique in the case of identical twins.

The same problem exists with your statement: " “Life” in this context, means “a new, unique, individual life-form”. With identical twins the unique individual state has not yet been reached. In fact, go back and read all of your post in the light of identical twins and you will see that the language you choose to use just doesn’t ring true for them.

Now I realize that identical twins are extremely rare, but the principles you are espousing are so universal in nature that any failure of applicability to a small set of cases casts doubt on the whole premise.

Identical twins don’t have identical DNA. There are differences in the copy number variation when the DNA forms.

However, even if their DNA was identical, it wouldn’t make them the same life form, simply because each would be distinguishable from the other. They don’t refer to one another as “me,” or “I,” and more importantly, neither does the mother or the father.

If you want to begin discussing souls, we can begin discussing souls, but it’s not relevant to this issue. Life doesn’t begin when the soul is added. It’s the other way around.

 

[Tigress]

Scientifically speaking the zygote-embryo shows no signs of “life” in our sense (thought processes, etc), though the heart beat starts early, until around 23 weeks (if my Child Development classes have taught me anything )

 

[mytruepower2]

Ender
If you say that “the Church could not claim that an early stage abortion was a homicide *” then we are in agreement. I have simply attempted to explain the “Catholic” philosophy/science of the day that underpinned such Magisterial caution.

As I have tried to stress above I do not believe the Magisterium means, in its moral teaching, to also wholeheartedly endorse any particular scientific or philosophic system or point of view - however it must be cogniscant of such as you point out.

Having said that, the Church’s leading theologians/philosophers (scientists of the day if you will) certainly taught “Delayed Hominisation” as I have outlined above. A very readable article can be found here: catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/thomas-aquinas-on-ensoulment/*

Yes, life obviously begins at fertilisation. But does “every textbook on embryology” say it is actual **“human” **life … I do not think so. There are major differing philosophic schools of thought on this question of “what does it mean to be human” - and those same justifying philosophic frameworks carry their arguments all the way through to anencephalic newborns, hi functioning chimpanzees with language ability, brain-dead patients, euthenasia and intelligent life on other planets.

When such textbooks opine that something is or isn’t human are they not in fact philosophising - and being a good embryologist (secular or christian) does not for that reason make one a good thinker. It appears fanciful to say that someone is bad-willed if they disagree that an inchoate blob of protoplasm is not at this moment human.

The question raised above is not whether life begins at fertilisation but whether actual “human life” is reasonably judged present at that moment. It is very reassuring that Christians are outraged at such a “foreign” concept because it witnesses to deep faith and wholesome sentiments.

However, I am raising the strong likelihood that this judegement, in Christians, is born of a sentiment that derives more from Faith than Science. I and others have explained solid historical reasons why.

A lot of this strong sentiment appears to derive from the unspoken fear that if a fertilised ovum cannot be “proven” to have a human soul (equivalent to judging that it is human) then according it full human right to life cannot be justified.

History shows that the Church fully defended the right of the unborn at its early stages without this linkage. The present Catholic Catechism, if I haven’t overlooked something, still sidesteps such a direct “scientific” linkage. The closest it gets is “…it must be treated from conception as a person.” It doesn’t say it IS a (human) person, it says it must be TREATED as a (human) person.

I believe it is important that Christian pro-lifers be aware of their Catholic history, philosophy and theology (especially the limitations of “ensoulment” talk) and avoid too narrowly defending a pro-life position ( a position I which I whole-heartedly agree with).

The issue of “soul” is irrelivent to discussion of the life issue. You only need to prove four things.

1. The unborn is alive.
2. The unborn is human.
3. The unborn is a distinct individual.
4. It is wrong to murder people.
5. The unborn is made of living cells.
6. Those cells are human cells. Furthermore, the most basic principles of science (such as the principal of biogenesis) clearly dictate that no creature can reproduce after anything other than its own kind (except by creative expression within the intellect.) Therefore, the unborn is human.
7. The unborn’s pattern of DNA is -always- distinct from that of the mother.
8. I don’t think anyone here seriously questions the wrongness of cold-blooded murder. Otherwise, these attempts wouldn’t be made to rationalize it away.

Therefore, the pro-life cause is most definitely correct.

You can take issue with some people being more motivated by their feelings than by their intellect, but this is far more common in the case of sin, since sin has no intellectually-honest basis behind it. Furthermore, disagreeing with a person’s reasons for believing something doesn’t disprove their position. For example, if I think slavery is wrong because I have a grudge against whip manufacturers. Well, my reason is not valid, but my conclusion is certainly correct, in that case.

If you mean to strengthen the reasoning on this thread by challenging us to improve our arguments, well, mission accomplished, but if you mean to say, instead, that these arguments aren’t valid because of our motives for positing them, that’s what’s know as a logical fallacy; specifically, a textbook example of the argument ad hominem; where one attacks a person instead of their claim.

 

[Nate13]

Scientifically speaking the zygote-embryo shows no signs of “life” in our sense (thought processes, etc), though the heart beat starts early, until around 23 weeks (if my Child Development classes have taught me anything )

A single cell is alive. Amoeba’s are considered organisms.

Organism - An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

The sperm and egg themselves are actually alive but they aren’t human lives. Only when the two meet do you have a human life.

All human lives have been created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Pretty simple.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Identical twins don’t have identical DNA. There are differences in the copy number variation when the DNA forms.

However, even if their DNA was identical, it wouldn’t make them the same life form, simply because each would be distinguishable from the other. They don’t refer to one another as “me,” or “I,” and more importantly, neither does the mother or the father.

If you want to begin discussing souls, we can begin discussing souls, but it’s not relevant to this issue. Life doesn’t begin when the soul is added. It’s the other way around.

I agree with all this except for the first sentence, which I just don’t understand. Also note that I am not denying that the fertilized ovum is sacred life. I just don’t see how your emphasis on the uniqueness of the cell is needed or even helpful in supporting that claim.

 

[mytruepower2]

I agree with all this except for the first sentence, which I just don’t understand. Also note that I am not denying that the fertilized ovum is sacred life. I just don’t see how your emphasis on the uniqueness of the cell is needed or even helpful in supporting that claim.

Copy number variations are to do with the way the genetic code is formed in twins. Specifically, certain parts of the genome occur more or less often in one than they do in the other. These are variances in the genetic code of each twin, which clearly…

You know what? Look up “copy number variation” on wikipedia. It explains it all there. This applies, not merely to clones, but to identical twins. In identical twins, there are always variations in the way the genome is built.

As for the uniqueness of the cell not being important, it is pre-eminently important, because if the cell weren’t unique, it would just be like all the other cells in the body, and therefore, would not be a distinct, human being. 3 things are needed.

1. The unborn must be alive.
2. The unborn must be human.
3. The unborn must be an individual.

I was defending number 3 with the point I made.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As for the uniqueness of the cell not being important, it is pre-eminently important, because if the cell weren’t unique, it would just be like all the other cells in the body, and therefore, would not be a distinct, human being. 3 things are needed.

1. The unborn must be alive.
2. The unborn must be human.
3. The unborn must be an individual.

I was defending number 3 with the point I made.

If cellular uniqueness were essential to the concept of an individual then moral theologians before 1953 could not possibly have understood the concept of the individual. But it is clear then could and did understand this, even without the benefit of DNA. An individual is an entity that occupies a separate place in space from all other individuals, and has the potential to exhibit different properties from other individuals (such as size, weight, behavior). DNA adds very little to this philosophical understanding of what it means to be an individual. It just explains some of the natural mechanism by which an individual’s traits are determined.

If you are asserting that cellular uniqueness is the per-eminent means of recognizing an individual inside a woman’s body, then you would have to say that every skin cell that undergoes mutation from cosmic rays is also an individual because it now has a unique DNA structure that is different from the majority of cells in the woman’s body. But we clearly don’t do this. We recognize the individual nature of a fertilized ovum from the observation that the natural course of events is for this fertilized ovum to develop into an obviously separate mature person that we could bump into and talk with. It is this potential for development more than anything else that identifies the fertilized ovum as an individual. Again, DNA plays a very small role in this understanding.

 

[Tigress]

A single cell is alive. Amoeba’s are considered organisms.

Organism - An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

The sperm and egg themselves are actually alive but they aren’t human lives. Only when the two meet do you have a human life.

All human lives have been created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Pretty simple.

.-.
That’s not what I was talking about?