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

[Blue_Horizon]

**When science speaks of life it usually refers to a population of things that has properties including reproduction. Science does not really address the question of when a particular individual life begins as an individual. **
Thats an interesting observation…possibly it follows on from the fact that Science is allegedly not into Ethics (where choice and rights (predicated of individuals) needs to be addressed).

**It is not so much that life is sacred but that individual lives are sacred. That is why we do not mourn the passing of the millions of indistinguishable skin cells that we wash off our bodies regularly. **

Hmmmn. I am not to sure about this one. I don’t mourn the loss of my skin cells (fond of them though I am) probably because they have no self-inherent potential to become my children. That is, although they are called “human” they are not “human” in the same way I am “human” or in the same way that a clump of 32+ cells in a blastocyst is “human.” I would say the word “human” is applied to skin only in an “analogical” sense (as opposed to a fully “univocal” predication).

Actually I wonder what the motivation is for asking the question of this thread. It seems that the purpose is to develop an argument against abortion and contraception that will convince atheists without requiring that they first abandon atheism. But is that really what we should be about? Why are we so reluctant to state that our moral beliefs rest on divine revelation? Are we so insecure in this divine revelation that we feel the need to jump ship to ask science to do what we should be doing with our testimony? I don’t think the first century Christians were so reluctant to proclaim the basis of their life. In this question I think we should follow the example of those first century Christians

I agree this is the “elephant in the room” hidden behind this thread. While it may be argued that a pure, unbiased intelligence would immediately see from nature that human life should be preserved from the very moment of conception … that aint the real world and most people come to this conviction through other means (e.g. motives of faith/revelation as you say). The early christians lived their lives as a “leaven”, attracting and winning people over by the demonstration of their love for each other (not that they cared what people thought of them). They did not appear to directly wrest agreement by force (whether that be physical weapons, political weapons, psychological weapons or “science” weapons).

The attempt to force others share/agree our values because we are “right” (whether that be based on science or philosophy…i.e. if you disagree you are stupid or ill-willed) is not, to me, the Christian way. Science is not the ethical “silver bullet” that this topic question seems to implicitly assume.

 

[mytruepower2]

MTP
Your emotional reaction above is understandable (and was predictable) even though it is misplaced. I am actually trying to help you improve your listening skills which, as is repeatedly evident above, do not match your highly developed analytical skills. I was prepared to risk looking “the big bad wolf” to assist you in that regard. If that’s a journey you feel you do not need to take that is great, be at peace - I have no animosity towards you whatsoever.

No professional philosopher, of whom I am aware, would reply to ad hominem arguments except to point out that they are ad hominem arguments. Had I been emotional on this point, I would have probably started drawing unfounded conclusions, or being needlessly evasive or standoffish with regard to the discussion.

Make no mistake, I have every intention of continuing to talk with others on this subject, and if possible, on this thread, but if we’re not going to have an honest discussion, and just lay our respective cards out on the table, then the least we can do is attempt to avoid attacking one another.

I’m long past the point where I might have felt compelled to try to batter an opponent with relentless words, but based on your debating method up to this point, my impression has not been a positive one. Admitting that you’ve been attempting to manipulate me hardly improves my view of this discussion.

You might have a valid point… Or you might not. However, unless we can discuss this honestly, there’s no discussion to be had. It’s the only kind of discussion that might possibly bear any fruit.

Incidentally, this last post of yours was -also- an ad hominem argument.

Also, in reply to your last post, you’re drawing a conclusion that doesn’t need to be drawn. The issue was not whether science can make ethical determinations for us (I don’t believe that it can.) The issue was whether science could provide us with data on bodily reality, sufficient to allow us to identify a human being. I maintain that it most certainly can, because scientific findings are measurable, and re-producable, and therefore provable.

 

[Seraphinianus]

I started a post dealing with an issue similar to some mentioned in this thread in the philosophy forum. Specifically, what happens when two zygotes fuse to create a tetragametic chimera–a single person with piebald DNA. This matter is very important to me spiritually, and I would deeply appreciate additional (thoughtful, respectful) commentary. I apologize for resurrecting an older thread.

 

[Blue_Cricket]

If they are two non-identical twins, as the Wiki article states, then two individual souls would be present, just as if the bodies had conjoined in the womb at a later date, or not conjoined at all. And, in the case of separating conjoined twins (or not) one can die a natural death while the other lives at least for a little while.

If there is a dominant twin, that is the one that grows up and runs the body, but the real point would be “If the dominant piebald twin is Baptized, does this happen to the sub-dominant as well, since both are physically intermingled at the genetic level?” My hopeful answer would be “Yes”, based on God’s generous plan of Divine Mercy.

Reconciliation would be a matter of who did what, so that would mostly be the dominant twin’s problem – assuming the sub-dominant was in a state of Baptismal innocence, or had not developed spiritually in such a way so that it could sin without a body in the same way some fallen angels did. (Anyone wants my opinions on that, just click my name “Bllue Cricket”, and look through my reply to the Article “Can demons take on human form?” No sense in repeating it here.)

Change and Eng – the male conjoined twins – were married to separate women. (But I am not sure of their religious beliefs)

Weather a male piebald twin could receive Holy Orders would be something else, and I do not have the authority to infallibly comment on it.

Anyway, I hope this answer is somewhat helpful.

 

[Uzziah1]

…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?

Is Ben Sinner’s teaching that HE is “life” not subject to disposal if he is inconvenient scientic and not a matter of faith/morals?

I am not making fun of you. I am making a point. The evidence is the same for both. And, believe me, sometimes society asks that question about EACH of us, quicker than we would suppose.