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

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

MyTruePower
“issue of “soul” is irrelivent to discussion of the life issue.”
Yes I by and large agree. It is not so much that it is irrelevent but rather it is not a solid metaphysical argument for proving cellular life at conception is 'human." (Because traditional “Delayed Hominisation” may be a better explanation in this regard).

“1. The unborn is alive.
2. The unborn is human.
3. The unborn is a distinct individual.
4. It is wrong to murder people.”
I believe your points 2 and 3 here are incapable of scientific demonstration (“scientific proof” if you will). Such a finding looks to sit outside the field of science (based on empirical experiment and observation) to arrive at certain knowledge of the type of truths defined in 2and 3. I agree that the certainty of such truths may be attainable by reason (i.e. philosophy) or by faith (believeing in the authority of the Church).

Whether the certainty of these two truths have actually been pronounced upon by the Church (or whether the Church has even said they can be proven by reason) is by no means clear to me. I would love someone to provide me clear references that She has.

The argument you provide for “2” I agree with - but I do believe it is a philosophical argument and not the scientific one you seem to be suggesting. I have already implied previously this seems to be the implicit philosophy behind the wording of the Catholic Catechism. However it is only one of many different philosophic frameworks being used in this debate today and does not, unfortunately, hold much currency even among Catholics.
I believe it to be far superior to the “ensoulment” philosophy implicitly espoused by the most vocal pro-lifers because I believe it “speaks” to non-believers of good-will far more powerfully.

The argument you provide in 3 appears weak at both a scientific and philosophic level as LeafByNiggle has more than adequately argued.

“You can take issue with some people being more motivated by their feelings than by their intellect…”
While I understand how you may have interpretted me this way it is not actually what I said. I said much pro-life sentiment derives from Faith rather than Science. Faith is still an operation of intellect (at least according to Aquinas and mainstream Catholic theology).

The “problem” with debating to a secular world on the basis of our Faith is that its certain truth derives not from solid philosophic argument but from a credibly judged acceptance of authority. This tends to mean that “scientic” or “philosophic” arguments we might think are objectively crystal to us may not be so in fact - they are really resting on our acceptance of an authority that our more secular “opponents” simply do not accept.

Hence our so called “proofs” largely go nowhere, which is the case. It is fanciful to say it is because all our opponents are ill-willed. I am simply trying to show that some of our lay “pro-life” arguments simply are not robust and do not stand up well without Faith. We can do better than this.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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.

Nate13
The acceptable point Tigress is making is that the zygote over time shows no evidence of the characteristically human activity that easily allows us to recognise, scientifically (ie by observation), that it is indeed human.

Perhaps I am wrong but science seems only able to “prove” something is human if it can show true human morphology (e.g. the hormunculus argument of past times) or functioning only specifically possible in a human being (e.g. reasoning). The latter is getting harder and harder to demonstrate. For example, it was up until recently thought that what clearly separates humans from animals was the use of tools or symbolic language. Both such activities have now been proven of the higher primates.

This is precisely why we need philosophical reasoning (and not science) to identify if this “being” in front of us human or not. This is a difficult problem.

You yourself assume a particular philosophical framework to make this "human connection - though it seems you may not be aware of this as matters appear simple to you. The fact that other good-willed and intelligent Catholics both now and through the centuries have not found this issue so simple should be a caution to too over-zealous a defence of the holy grail of “human life begins at conception.”

There is clearly a deep mystery present here at the early stages of zygote cellular life where a potential community (from 1 to 16) of later irreversibly individual human life forms could be present. This is not “human life” as we know it Jim (Star Trek). That zygote potential (to be 1 or 16 individuals) is soon lost (after 5 days?) Does that loss of ability make us post-partum humans less human or more human?

So I think the Magisterium shows laudable caution and keen scientific/philosophic understanding by not philosophising or pontificating (excuse the pun) too strongly on when “human life” actually begins but instead calls us to recognise that all unborn beings of human parents are equally deserving of life and full human rights.

I believe the near obsessive attempt by some pro-lifers to link human rights to
the above holy grail may go a bridge too far beyond the above wise caution of the Magisterium.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue Horizon:

Nate13
…The fact that other good-willed and intelligent Catholics both now and through the centuries have not found this issue so simple should be a caution to too over-zealous a defence of the holy grail of “human life begins at conception.”

So I think the Magisterium shows laudable caution and keen scientific/philosophic understanding by not philosophising or pontificating (excuse the pun) too strongly on when “human life” actually begins but instead calls us to recognise that all unborn beings of human parents are equally deserving of life and full human rights.

I have finally found some relevant Magisterial documentation that comments on all the points we have been ddiscussing above:

1. Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be.

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide “a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?”.

Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence … is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life." (Evangelium Vitae 1995)

Therefore the Pope does make affirmations regarding the findings of modern science and, with philosophic reasoning (the teleological argument mentioned above) upon them, he concludes that human life begins at conception.

It is, however, also clear that he recognises these philosophic conclusions are his own and while probably representative of many theologians the Magisterium is not prepared to expressly side with such metaphysic arguments definitively. He wisely appears open to the possibility of other contradictory views on the matter having worthy credilibity.

That however doesn’t make any difference to the Magisterium’s strong and constant affirmation that “the result of human procreation” has full human rights. Thus the Church’s constant teaching on the embryo’s right to life is not intrinsically based on “human life at conception” argument necessarily being true.

 

[mytruepower2]

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.

Okay, you’re saying I’m making a claim here that I’m not making.

I said that the uniqueness of the genetic code of the cell proves that it is distinct from its mother. I never said that this was the only means of proving that. The rest of your post rests on this false assumption about my claims.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Okay, you’re saying I’m making a claim here that I’m not making.

I said that the uniqueness of the genetic code of the cell proves that it is distinct from its mother. I never said that this was the only means of proving that. The rest of your post rests on this false assumption about my claims.

Well, I agree with you that DNA helps in understanding the uniqueness of the individual. But all by itself it does not prove individuality because then how would you then avoid concluding that a skin cell mutated by cosmic rays is a separate individual? I guess you could say that a mutated skin cell has only a tiny fraction of different DNA whereas fertilized ovum has many more differences. But I think the case for individuality rests much more on these facts:

1. Where it is: If a cell like that were discovered anywhere except inside a woman’s reproductive organs or known to have come from a woman’s reproductive organs we would be very reluctant to call it an individual human.
2. What other cells like it have been observed to do: After observing thousands of instances of cells like this turning into mature humans that we can bump into, we can reasonably assume that this cell will also turn into a mature human.

 

[mytruepower2]

MyTruePower
“issue of “soul” is irrelivent to discussion of the life issue.”
Yes I by and large agree. It is not so much that it is irrelevent but rather it is not a solid metaphysical argument for proving cellular life at conception is 'human." (Because traditional “Delayed Hominisation” may be a better explanation in this regard).

No, the soul is a very strong metaphysical proof of a lot of things, but not life, because living things can clearly exist without having a human spirit.

I believe your points 2 and 3 here are incapable of scientific demonstration (“scientific proof” if you will). Such a finding looks to sit outside the field of science (based on empirical experiment and observation) to arrive at certain knowledge of the type of truths defined in 2and 3.

Then you believe this based solely on faith, because -all- of the evidence points to the contrary.

I already provided a means of scientifically verifying the humanity of a single cell. Just take a single cell, and study its origins. Everything reproduces after its own kind (scientific observation has taught us this.) Therefore, human beings produce other human beings. The only “faith” required to believe this is a mere willingness to believe what the scientific facts already tell you. If you want to place the definition of “human” as something other than a species, you need to very clearly define just what that definition is, but as long as a human being is a species of creature, we can divine its nature using science, in the same way that we can use genetics to figure out whether a cell comes from a gila monster or a grisley bear without being told what animal produced it.

With regard to point 3, again, in science, organisms are not distinct from one another on the basis of the matter that makes them up, since they can devour each other, but that doesn’t turn a lion into a gazelle. They’re not distinct from one another on the basis of their intellectual identity, because animals don’t have that. They’re not distinct from one another on the relative capabilities they have, or no animal would be distinct from human beings. They’re not distinct from one another on the basis of not being in each other’s bodies, or else tapeworms would not be distinct from the dog they inhabit.

Organisms are distinct from one another on the basis of their unique genetic code. This is the only purely scientific basis that one can draw for telling the difference between the tiger and a tiger cub; each has a different genetic code, and I see no logical reason for not applying the same method of reasoning to human beings.

I agree that the certainty of such truths may be attainable by reason (i.e. philosophy) or by faith (believeing in the authority of the Church).

This, I think, is the crux of the matter. To me, this sounds as if you are using the word “faith” to dismiss arguments that you don’t like or don’t agree with. I never said that these were arguments of faith, and therefore, your statement that you “agree” that these can be arrived at through reason or faith is wrong. You’re actually disagreeing.

However, now that we’ve come to the point, both reason and faith -are- required, not just for these proofs, but for -all knowledge.-

First, reason. More specifically, the basic proofs of deduction and induction. Of the various methods of proof, these are actually the only ones that stand on their own authority, and are therefore -by far- the most important.

-Mathematics can only be judged to be universally true if you’re willing to use a deductive proof to draw a conclusion about it, since mathematics deals in abstractions, which have no real, physical nature. Yet, mathematics is a proof.

-The scientific method is not verifiably valid unless one uses deductive reasoning to analyze its effects, and its chances of arriving at the truth, relative to other methods. Yet, science is a proof.

-Personal experience is not viable as a means of proof unless one can use deduction or induction to prove that there is a real world outside of their minds. Yet, experience is a proof.

In short, the other accepted methods of proof only derive their validity from logic and reason.

Now, for faith.

There are three main types of faith.

1. Loyalty (keeping the faith)
2. Trust (I have faith in my wife)
3. Willingness to believe (there’s every reason for having faith in these proofs)

None of these stand in opposition to reason or science. In fact, definition 3 is required for any natural knowledge. For example, I can tell you that eggs exist, show you an existing egg, and keep repeating to you that eggs exist from dawn until dusk, and it won’t make a difference if you don’t have the willingness to believe that eggs exist. The same is true here. If you lack willingness to believe a conclusion, but fail to challenge any of the proofs for that conclusion, the only reason for this is your lack of faith.

Now, I have to say, I’m really enjoying this discussion, but I hope that your next reply will contain some real objection to one of my proofs, or a serious challenge to one of them. To be honest, I’d like to see the issue addressed, rather than ignored.

 

[mytruepower2]

Well, I agree with you that DNA helps in understanding the uniqueness of the individual. But all by itself it does not prove individuality because then how would you then avoid concluding that a skin cell mutated by cosmic rays is a separate individual? I guess you could say that a mutated skin cell has only a tiny fraction of different DNA whereas fertilized ovum has many more differences. But I think the case for individuality rests much more on these facts:

1. Where it is: If a cell like that were discovered anywhere except inside a woman’s reproductive organs or known to have come from a woman’s reproductive organs we would be very reluctant to call it an individual human.
2. What other cells like it have been observed to do: After observing thousands of instances of cells like this turning into mature humans that we can bump into, we can reasonably assume that this cell will also turn into a mature human.

Point number 2 is another very valid proof. Point 1… not as much. You see, there are other cells in the woman’s reproductive organs, which don’t grow into mature persons. Otherwise, not bad.

Of course, another scientific principle must be brought into this, namely, one type of animal does not metamorph into another over the course of its lifespan. If I am human, then I began my life as a human too. Therefore, I was human, even as a single cell, as long as my genes were distinct from those of my mother.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, the soul is a very strong metaphysical proof of a lot of things, but not life, because living things can clearly exist without having a human spirit.
…
With regard to point 3, again, in science, organisms are not distinct from one another on the basis of the matter that makes them up, since they can devour each other, but that doesn’t turn a lion into a gazelle. They’re not distinct from one another on the basis of their intellectual identity, because animals don’t have that. They’re not distinct from one another on the relative capabilities they have, or no animal would be distinct from human beings. They’re not distinct from one another on the basis of not being in each other’s bodies, or else tapeworms would not be distinct from the dog they inhabit.

Organisms are distinct from one another on the basis of their unique genetic code.
…

There are three main types of faith.

1. Loyalty (keeping the faith)
2. Trust (I have faith in my wife)
3. Willingness to believe (there’s every reason for having faith in these proofs)

MyTruePower
I don’t think I can closely debate your responses further because you seem to have an uncanny knack of not getting the gist of what I am saying - possibly because you apply a your own unique philosophic blinker/filter too quickly to my words (e.g. you have really gone off on a tangent re “faith” even unto Augustine’s three Credos!).

Anyhow, let me just make a few generic comments.

(1) LeafByNiggle in his talk implicitly appears to define “individuality” on the basis of the church’s standard Thomist/Aristotelian philosophic principle where “matter is the principle of individuation.” You clearly use another philosophic framework and hence see things differently (is it materialist or personal?). To assert someone’s conclusions are wrong simply because you operate from different definitions/philosophic-framework is surely an exercise in futility - it may display a comprehensive grasp of the terrain but are you enabling anybody to walk over it with you?

(2) The main problem in this debate, it seems to me, is that different people, in limit situations (eg biginning of life, end of life), define the word “human” differently. We cannot simply say “my definition is right and yours is wrong” as that goes nowhere.

(3) This may be the fundamental stumbling block that even reason (whether science or philosophic frameworks) cannot overcome because such a definition may be inseparably linked to personal/subjective value systems and not objective scientific/philosophic findings/conclusions.

(4) For this reason I believe the Magisterium’s approach still seems to me the wisest. That is, regardless of science and philosphy, we Christians pragmaticly treat all life procreated of human parents as worthy of possessing, by that fact, the same dignity and rights as those of us outside the womb. In this way we Christians de facto define “human” as any being conceived of human parents. If this definition is not objectively verifiable/proveable it doesn’t presently worry me - or the Magisterium.

 

[mytruepower2]

MyTruePower
I don’t think I can closely debate your responses further because you seem to have an uncanny knack of not getting the gist of what I am saying - possibly because you apply a your own unique philosophic blinker/filter too quickly to my words (e.g. you have really gone off on a tangent re “faith” even unto Augustine’s three Credos!).

Any form of philosophical discussion (which seems to be what you want this to become) must be grounded in concrete, solidly-defined terms. In fact, that’s the first rule of philosophy; define your terms. Therefore, if you would like for this discussion to become philosophical in nature, you need to take a step back, and define what you mean by “life,” “begins,” and “ends.” Then, make your statement, and if it’s consistent and coherent, I’m sure we’d all be happy to listen to it.

Anyhow, let me just make a few generic comments.

(1) LeafByNiggle in his talk implicitly appears to define “individuality” on the basis of the church’s standard Thomist/Aristotelian philosophic principle where “matter is the principle of individuation.” You clearly use another philosophic framework and hence see things differently (is it materialist or personal?). To assert someone’s conclusions are wrong simply because you operate from different definitions/philosophic-framework is surely an exercise in futility - it may display a comprehensive grasp of the terrain but are you enabling anybody to walk over it with you?

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that there are problems with matter defining the individual. For example, what about cannibals? When they eat someone, who does that matter belong to; to them, or to the person they ate? He gave the best answer he could, but this issue is complex enough to require much greater clarification than simply “matter determines who you are.” It doesn’t.

However, worse yet, this claim rests on outdated scientific data. It has been proven that every last cell in the human body completely changes every seven years at least, meaning that there is no “core matter” of which the body is composed. This, therefore, is merely another accident of the human person, and not his proper nature.

Also, if you wish to take this discussion into Thomism, and it strays back into the area of soul-body relations, I will expect the subject of the difference between the soul and spirit to come up. Saint Thomas and the other old philosophers meant two separate things with those words.

(2) The main problem in this debate, it seems to me, is that different people, in limit situations (eg biginning of life, end of life), define the word “human” differently. We cannot simply say “my definition is right and yours is wrong” as that goes nowhere.

Wrong. Just because people are divided on what a term means does not mean that there is no correct answer. This is the road to skepticism, where nothing can ever be known, and if nothing can be known, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.

However, if you agree with me that all of these questions have objective answers, and that God created the human intellect for the purpose of discovering them, you must acknowledge that “our definitions” don’t matter. What matters is getting at the truth.

(3) This may be the fundamental stumbling block that even reason (whether science or philosophic frameworks) cannot overcome because such a definition may be inseparably linked to personal/subjective value systems and not objective scientific/philosophic findings/conclusions.

It’s only a stumbling block if you’re a relativism, but relativism is provable false in several key ways.

However, the discussion isn’t about that.

(4) For this reason I believe the Magisterium’s approach still seems to me the wisest. That is, regardless of science and philosphy, we Christians pragmaticly treat all life procreated of human parents as worthy of possessing, by that fact, the same dignity and rights as those of us outside the womb. In this way we Christians de facto define “human” as any being conceived of human parents. If this definition is not objectively verifiable/proveable it doesn’t presently worry me - or the Magisterium.

You’ve cited Saint Thomas, and now, so will I. He didn’t know whether the human being was human before it was born. Back then, science hadn’t advanced as far as it has now, and the popular opinion was that at first, you started out as a non-human or something, and then became human later, but regardless of the beliefs of the day, no one tried to push abortion. It was universally-forbidden, because the church has a reason for forbidding it that goes beyond mere scientific proofs.

Namely, abortion interrupts the human life process. God created this process to produce future citizens of Heaven, and we have no right to interrupt it once it’s been begun; certainly not for such insubstantial reasons as “pleasure” or “I can’t control myself.”

Am I arguing that this reason is invalid? No. Given the proofs for the existence of God, it would be intellectually-dishonest to do so. What I am saying is that a case for the life, humanity and individuality of a person can be made very strongly on purely secular grounds, provided that those listening are not arrogant enough to try to redefine “life,” foolish enough to misunderstand the proofs, or biased or selfish enough to just discard all arguments that go against their preconceived notions.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Any form of philosophical discussion (which seems to be what you want this to become) must be grounded in concrete, solidly-defined terms.
…
Even Saint Thomas Aquinas acknowledged that there are problems with matter defining the individual. For example, what about cannibals? When they eat someone, who does that matter belong to; to them, or to the person they ate? He gave the best answer he could, but this issue is complex enough to require much greater clarification than simply “matter determines who you are.” It doesn’t.
…

MTP
You are a keen debater with a great philosophic/scientific understanding (though when you say “matter determines who you are” I see that your understanding of Aristotelian/Thomistic “matter and form” may need brushing up as that misunderstanding may well be the cause of some of your difficulties with it) which I find helpful and invogorating.

While I would love to discuss this further with you this is probably not the place to induldge philosophic hormones thus ostracising more general readers and monopolising this topic down a particular avenue (though that may be the only place to attempt to solve these question). Philosphic types usually need to keep working on often weak social/contextual skills. You may like to start a thread on specific issues here in the Philosophy sub-forum.

While I have injected some philosophical considerations (both current and historical) to this topic my intent was simply to show less-philosophically inclined readers that this topic is far from simple, straight-forward or easy to solve - and there is a long Catholic history to it that many appear completely unaware of.

Finally, I believe the OP’s question has prob been answered as well as it can be. Allow me to summarise what I believe that answer is:

"Is the church’s teaching that “[human] life begins at conception [fertilisation]” scientific and not a matter of faith/morals?

(a) The Magisterium does not actually appear to proclaim that human life begins at conception. Indeed it has stated it has expressly avoided doing so (1995). However it is certainly the clearly taught, personal position of some recent pope’s and no doubt many theologians and Catholics.

(b) What is a matter of faith and morals is that Catholics must TREAT all life resulting from human procreation, at whatever stage, as human (regardless of scientific/philosophic debate) - i.e. accord it the same dignity, respect and right to life as we would any human person.

(c) “That human life begins at conception” seemsl far from objectively established/agreed at a scientific level. It may not be fully answerable by science alone (ie the scientific method).

(d) “That human life begins at conception” seems to also require an accepted philosophic framework as well. There appears to be intense debate at this level as well with no final winner. See carm.org/is-an-embryo-human

With 60-70% of the public believing human life does not begin at conception it does seem difficult to conclude that all such persons are ill-willed, uneducated or less than intelligent.
It seems by no means a simple issue.

Readers may be interested in the following:

(i) The different views about when human personhood begins: religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

(ii) How best to communicate the pro life message
catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0001.html

(iii) Statistics wrt Belief that human life begins at fertilisation.
www.international-survey.org/Oz_EmbryoHuman_2page_c.pdf
newscientist.com/article/dn15062-when-does-human-life-begin.html

 

[mytruepower2]

MTP
You are a keen debater with a great philosophic/scientific understanding (though when you say “matter determines who you are” I see that your understanding of Aristotelian/Thomistic “matter and form” may need brushing up as that misunderstanding may well be the cause of some of your difficulties with it) which I find helpful and invogorating.

While I would love to discuss this further with you this is probably not the place to induldge philosophic hormones thus ostracising more general readers and monopolising this topic down a particular avenue (though that may be the only place to attempt to solve these question). Philosphic types usually need to keep working on often weak social/contextual skills. You may like to start a thread on specific issues here in the Philosophy sub-forum.

While I have injected some philosophical considerations (both current and historical) to this topic my intent was simply to show less-philosophically inclined readers that this topic is far from simple, straight-forward or easy to solve - and there is a long Catholic history to it that many appear completely unaware of.

Finally, I believe the OP’s question has prob been answered as well as it can be. Allow me to summarise what I believe that answer is:

"Is the church’s teaching that “[human] life begins at conception [fertilisation]” scientific and not a matter of faith/morals?

(a) The Magisterium does not actually appear to proclaim that human life begins at conception. Indeed it has stated it has expressly avoided doing so (1995). However it is certainly the clearly taught, personal position of some recent pope’s and no doubt many theologians and Catholics.

(b) What is a matter of faith and morals is that Catholics must TREAT all life resulting from human procreation, at whatever stage, as human (regardless of scientific/philosophic debate) - i.e. accord it the same dignity, respect and right to life as we would any human person.

(c) “That human life begins at conception” seemsl far from objectively established/agreed at a scientific level. It may not be fully answerable by science alone (ie the scientific method).

(d) “That human life begins at conception” seems to also require an accepted philosophic framework as well. There appears to be intense debate at this level as well with no final winner. See carm.org/is-an-embryo-human

With 60-70% of the public believing human life does not begin at conception it does seem difficult to conclude that all such persons are ill-willed, uneducated or less than intelligent.
It seems by no means a simple issue.

Readers may be interested in the following:

(i) The different views about when human personhood begins: religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htm

(ii) How best to communicate the pro life message
catholiceducation.org/articles/abortion/ab0001.html

(iii) Statistics wrt Belief that human life begins at fertilisation.
www.international-survey.org/Oz_EmbryoHuman_2page_c.pdf
newscientist.com/article/dn15062-when-does-human-life-begin.html

I agree with most of this (especially the part about not wanting to turn this into a discussion of philosophy, since I don’t think it is.) Every conclusion you draw requires an accepted philosophical framework. If you don’t hold to a sensible philosophy of some kind, there’s nothing to ground your world view, and therefore, all subsequent conclusions become entirely arbitrary.

But prior to the last 50 years or so, none of this really came up, because you could afford to take it for granted that people had a coherent philosophy that they accepted en masse.

You have pointed out, quite correctly, that this is no longer the case, and that 60-70% of the general public have arrived at a conclusion contrary to the available evidence.

However, I’m afraid this is an example of an argument ad populum. You are appealing to -many people- or -most people- to try to sway the outcome of the argument, rather than to the evidence.

I’m also a little shocked that you assume that the majority of the public can’t possibly by uninformed on these matters, and yet, in the very same post, you admit that these basic philosophical terms would be utterly beyond the majority of people. Is it really so much of a stretch to suppose that the majority of people are as badly informed in biology as they are in solid philosophy?

I’m going to cite personal experience here, so don’t take it as a philosophical claim, but in my experience, over 95% of the people who I personally have known over the course of my life showed no interest at all in more advanced studies in biology, philosophy or ethics. The men discuss sports, politics and their jobs. The women talk about tv, office decorations and diets. These are not constants, of course, but they are strong trends, and if one doesn’t allow their interests or fields of study to branch out any further than that, then one might still be able to do their job, but you’d be very, very badly informed on any other subject of any real importance.

Again, this is not a philosophical claim. I only propose it as one possible means of explaining the views of the populace; something I shouldn’t even need to do, since that argument isn’t valid anyway.

The truth is found from looking at the evidence, and avoiding contradictions, fallacies or flaws in your logic. In religious matters, revelation takes precedence, but I’ve never seen divine revelation violate logical coherence either. If God can’t do it, neither can public opinion.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

…yah, what the title of the thread asks

wouldn’t this be a matter of science since it deals when a human is made, etc…thus, not making this teaching infallible?

It is both.

Life begins at conception. It never ceases to amaze me that we would consider bacterial or viral life outside of our earth as a “sign of life”.

But when it comes to the conception of a human being in the womb of the mother…it’s an undetermined thing worthy of abortion.

what a brood of vipers.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is both.

Life begins at conception. It never ceases to amaze me that we would consider bacterial or viral life outside of our earth as a “sign of life”.

But when it comes to the conception of a human being in the womb of the mother…it’s an undetermined thing worthy of abortion.

what a brood of vipers.

Perro
If you are saying that the Magisterium has explicitly stated somewhere that human life begins at fertilisation what documentation are you basing your claim upon?

 

[Ender]

(c) “That human life begins at conception” seems far from objectively established/agreed at a scientific level. It may not be fully answerable by science alone (ie the scientific method).

No. That life begins at conception is established scientific fact. That point is no more under debate than whether the Earth is round.

(d) “That human life begins at conception” seems to also require an accepted philosophic framework as well. There appears to be intense debate at this level as well with no final winner. See carm.org/is-an-embryo-human

This is the “you’re only human if I say you are” position and the “accepted philosophic framework” is one where I arrogate to myself the right to define who is or is not fully human. There are only two possibilities here: a human life at any stage of development is a human being, or one group of humans gets to vote to remove from another group the right to be considered human. Given that the latter approach has not worked out all that well in the past it is a wonder that so many clamor for trying it yet again.

Ender

 

[BrJuniper]

The answer to the question is; The life issue is a matter of faith and morals. The explanation is long and complicated, but in its essence it is as follows.

The annunciation begins the incarnation of The Christ. Inasmuch as God deemed it essential to undergo gestation and birth, childhood etc. all is dignified. Thus, from the moment of conception we are dignified human persons. The only way to deny this is to deny the fullness of the incarnation and its role in God’s creation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No. That life begins at conception is established scientific fact. That point is no more under debate than whether the Earth is round.
Ender

Ender
If 70% of literate respondents surveyed, numerous times, deny your view … that sounds like “debate” to me. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily right…but there is debate.

It seems you are asking readers here to believe that 100% of that 70% are uninformed, of low intelligence or bad-willed. That is starting to sound like the same presumptuousness we accuse pro-choice opponents of exhibiting.

Given that the Church held a view opposite to yours up until 200 years ago (and still reserves its formal opinion wrt such a 'scientific fact")…that may mean that the holding of views different from yours wrt “the scientific facts” may not be in error and therefore acceptable.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is the “you’re only human if I say you are” position and the “accepted philosophic framework” is one where I arrogate to myself the right to define who is or is not fully human. Ender

To know if something is human or not, a horse or not, food or not, legitimate money or not are all examples of the sort of judgements we must make unthinkingly every minute of the day or life would be impossible. 99.9% of the time its easy for an adult.

So yes, in Bioethics as in life, we must define what is human or not. It is even harder here because things do not visibly look or act the same as “normal”. So humanity must be defined on some principle consistent with all possible scenarios presented by science. the following “limit cases” may be helpful in exploring this necessity:

Parthenogensis (a type of cloning)
(1) Parthenogenesis: Is it legitimiate to experiment on a human ovum where the genetic material is replaced with that from the mother herself? Such a “zygote” grows/divides for some time but to date scientists have been unable to bring this “organism” to term. Does this “organism” fail because it wasn’t truly human to start with … or is it truly human but eventually died because of adverse external conditions?

(2) A normal 1-8 Cell Zygote:
At this stage the cells are pluri-potent meaning they are exactly the same and could produce 8 twinned individuals or just 1. Therefore “individuality” (an expected trait of any animal life form let alone human beings) has not yet been established and there is no immanent principle in place to guarantee any such future developmental “trajectory” of a single, unique individual from this whole clump of cells. So, in a certain sense, this “organism” has a right to life even greater than that of an individuated embryo … but is it the same “human” as you and I? That is not how we normally use/define the word “human.”

For the above reasons (and there are more) it seems clear to me that science alone cannot tell us what we should apply the word “human” to. This is because to do so we have to have a coherent and consistent definition of “human” and it must hold when we apply that word to very different “organisms” with very different properties and potentialities. This is the realm of reason/philosophy. It is not something we can see or do experiments about to get an answer.

DNA Defines “human”?
To say any organism with full human DNA is human may not be true. If no “immanent principle” with a trajectory to full adulthood can be proven then this is in doubt (eg the parthengenetic organism above may one day be good for stem cells but may never have the inherent capability of producing a baby).

Thus, by showing the need for a philosophic definition of human (an organism with an immanet principle causing an inbuilt “trajectory”), we have shown that appeal to “scientific fact” (eg DNA) only half resolves the issue.

Necessity of both Science and Philosophic Reason:
If we say that any organism that has an immanent principle/trajectory that will in time become a human being … then that sounds like a very good definition of human to me. BUT this is a conclusion of reason/philosophy NOT a scientific fact. The place of science is to tell us if the “organism” in question meets this philosophic criteria. For example, if it could be demonstrated that a parthogenetic “zygote” never, under any conditions, develops into an embryo … then it is not human (though scientific “facts” are never absolute). If just one case ever developed into an embryo then we would know with absolute certainty that the parthogenetic “zygote” truly is human.

In cases where science cannot decide definitively whether a particular type of organism meets a philosophic definition of “human” then, from a moral point of view, it is of course sound reasoning to **treat **it as human until proven otherwise.

I believe the above is exactly the current position of the Magisterium.

 

[mytruepower2]

To know if something is human or not, a horse or not, food or not, legitimate money or not are all examples of the sort of judgements we must make unthinkingly every minute of the day or life would be impossible. 99.9% of the time its easy for an adult.

So yes, in Bioethics as in life, we must define what is human or not. It is even harder here because things do not visibly look or act the same as “normal”. So humanity must be defined on some principle consistent with all possible scenarios presented by science.

Yes, precise consistency is essential in establishing defintions, but we need to remember that there is a difference between “defining” and “inventing.” We define something in an attempt to understand it, but regardless of what we may define it as, it doesn’t change the nature of what it is.

This is precisely what the relativist denies, and it’s where the line needs to be held. Because so many of these logical rules of thumb are so basic, we often forget to use them, but relativism is simply wrong, and it doesn’t take much effort to explain why.

Parthenogensis (a type of cloning)
(1) Parthenogenesis: Is it legitimiate to experiment on a human ovum where the genetic material is replaced with that from the mother herself? Such a “zygote” grows/divides for some time but to date scientists have been unable to bring this “organism” to term. Does this “organism” fail because it wasn’t truly human to start with … or is it truly human but eventually died because of adverse external conditions?

No, this is not legitimate. Every human being has a right to two, married parents. Even should the person in question survive, you would be violating this right, to say nothing of violating their right to the basic, human dignity of coming into existence in an act of love; not scientific curiosity.

(2) A normal 1-8 Cell Zygote:
At this stage the cells are pluri-potent meaning they are exactly the same and could produce 8 twinned individuals or just 1. Therefore “individuality” (an expected trait of any animal life form let alone human beings) has not yet been established and there is no immanent principle in place to guarantee any such future developmental “trajectory” of a single, unique individual from this whole clump of cells. So, in a certain sense, this “organism” has a right to life even greater than that of an individuated embryo … but is it the same “human” as you and I? That is not how we normally use/define the word “human.”

So long as its DNA pattern is static (which is the case in the zygote,) the individuality of the person is as provably-distinct as in a full-grown adult. This is the best explanation of the evidence, and if you want to advance a different one, I suggest that you present one that’s at least as scientifically-consistent as this.

DNA Defines “human”?
To say any organism with full human DNA is human may not be true. If no “immanent principle” with a trajectory to full adulthood can be proven then this is in doubt (eg the parthengenetic organism above may one day be good for stem cells but may never have the inherent capability of producing a baby).

This simply isn’t an internally-consistent point. After all, no young human being, even in their teenage years can be guaranteed to read adulthood. They could have a heart attack, or a stroke, or drop dead of pneumonia, or contract an aneurism, cancer, ebola, etc, etc, etc… That’s not even getting into environmental hazards like floods and car crashes. There are major flaws in this argument.

 

[mytruepower2]

Ender
If 70% of literate respondents surveyed, numerous times, deny your view … that sounds like “debate” to me. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily right…but there is debate.

It seems you are asking readers here to believe that 100% of that 70% are uninformed, of low intelligence or bad-willed. That is starting to sound like the same presumptuousness we accuse pro-choice opponents of exhibiting.

Given that the Church held a view opposite to yours up until 200 years ago (and still reserves its formal opinion wrt such a 'scientific fact")…that may mean that the holding of views different from yours wrt “the scientific facts” may not be in error and therefore acceptable.

I’m very disappointed. I’d thought you were interested in getting at the truth, but you can’t get at the truth by repeating the same logical fallacies to everyone you meet. I’ve already pointed out that the argument you made in paragraph 2 is logically-invalid because it’s an argument ad populum, and it only hurts your position to use it again.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’m very disappointed. I’d thought you were interested in getting at the truth, but you can’t get at the truth by repeating the same logical fallacies to everyone you meet. I’ve already pointed out that the argument you made in paragraph 2 is logically-invalid because it’s an argument ad populum, and it only hurts your position to use it again.

MTP
Its far too early to be disappointed. Your experience of “disappointment” is not without intelligible meaning if you have the eyes to see it. Understanding others (and how our own personality can get in the way of that) is, in my experience, more art than logic.

What I am suggesting is that you have just experienced a message from your psyche that has bypassed the usual conscious, rational pathways that is actually trying to tell you something different from your conscious mind. Its a classic “Freudian slip.”

In short, if you are disappointed…then thats an internal signal to you that maybe you have misunderstood. Aquinas attempted to argue with his interlocutors by putting the best possible interpretation on what he thought they were trying to say. In that way he avoided paternalism and thus gained considerable respect even amongst those who disagreed with him.