Overpopulation and the right to have children

[Paddy_Walker]

Ironic beyond belief if our CO2 is what heads off the next ice age!!!

ICXC NIKA

i think that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour, you know when you hear the weather forecast and it gives the relative humidity, i reckon thats the water vapour - and it keeps us nice and warm. co2 from industry etc. is i think, may be wrong, about 0.23% of all co2 produced, probably more than 75% of co2 in natural, comes from marine creatures and volcanos mostly.
we really need to up our production of co2 to head off that little ice-age at the pass…

 

[jonathan_hili]

Could you enlighten me on the difference between a theological concept that has been taught by the church and theological doctrine? If there is a difference at all, is it a difference in kind or only degree?

Sure, it’s certain a difference in kind. A theological concept would not be a matter of belief required for salvation, although to be fair, theological doctrines are theological concepts. But I guess a doctrine is an article of faith, whereas a concept is not. So, doctrines would include: the Incarnation, the assumption of Mary, the Trinity, etc., whereas concepts would include: how many angels there are, what is meant by Jesus’ atoning death, perhaps even some specific interpretation of Scripture. The first category, I suggest, entails belief in something, whereas the second is more explanatory, understanding how something is. Therefore, belief in the sanctity of human life and moral law would imply that abortion is wrong, whereas the Chain of Being is more a belief about how the universe is structured. I think the point can be made most clearly in considering Jesus’ death on the cross. As Catholics, we need to believe that Jesus died on the cross and through his death achieved our salvation. How he achieved this - that is, what precisely is meant by atonement - is a matter of debate and not of doctrine.

I agree that the church makes a clear stipulation that people are ensouled, but I’m not so sure they’ve made a definitive statement about what exactly the soul is–and I’m even less certain that the function of the soul you and aristotle describe apply in this situation.

Don’t get me wrong, that quality of the soul–the animating principle, the organizing element–is certainly one of its qualities. However, That aspect of the soul is share by all living creatures, and is entirely physical. When I speak of attaining personhood when flesh is ensouled, I’m speaking strictly about when the flesh gains the spiritual, supernatural nature of the soul. Actually, a human’s “spirit” is probably a better word for what I’m considering here. I would say that it is when a person recieves his “spirit” that he truly becomes a person, distinct from any other living thing.

Now then, this spirit is not necessarily tied to humanity. God has the ability to put a human spirit into anything, or withold it from humans if he so chooses. it is not necessarily tied to biological humanity. Thus, our spirits, the supernatural aspects of our souls, can come into existence at any arbitrary point in the development of a biological human being, from sentience, to birth, to baptism, to the development of a distinct personality.

The soul exists inextricably with the materiality of the person: you can’t have one without the other. Any person, no matter at what stage of development, is ensouled. You don’t become ensouled at any particular point and this is where Aquinas went wrong, because he believed - due primarily to a poorer understanding of biology - that the foetus went through developmental phases, so that at one point it gained a rational or human soul, before which it had a different kind of soul. However, he did believe a human always had a soul, just not always a rational soul.

I see what you’re saying but I don’t think there is a stage where this happens: it always is the case. I think the “en-spiriting” of a person can only come at two stages: either with conception - since there is no dramatic change in substance of the human after this point; a foetus is only a developing human, after all, not different species - or with baptism - since baptism does effect substantial change in the person.

I’m not sure that God can put the human spirit into anything. If you mean “personality” well, sure, because angels are persons, as is God. Also, I don’t see how a person could be ensouled before conception - there is nothing to conceive. We are not spiritual substances that gain a body, but we are body and spirit/soul.

As for our DNA, which could be engineered to create other human beings, well, as it stands, DNA is just DNA. If it were ever used to create another human being, at that point where another human being was created (in whatever primitive stage of development), then it would be immoral to kill it.

Let me quickly stipulate that I think it is a natural moral law not to kill any person, not necessarily a human being. The big sticky points in this whole issue are:

Under what conditions can you classify an organism as a distinct biological human being, without those classifications being arbitrary?

and

Does ensoulment occur when there exists a distinct biological human being, or at some later (or earlier!) date?

I know what you’re saying. Yes, it is immoral to kill an innocent person, be they human, a member of another species, an angel (if that were possible), etc. However, I’m not sure there are any conditions under which a human being is not a person.

Since ensoulment is the form of the body, it would certainly occur with a distinct biological human being, provided, of course, it is a human being, not merely a human organism, like a foot, DNA, etc. To be honest, my biology isn’t really good enough to answer your question - about the classification of a distinct biological human being - very well. I’ll have to do some more research and get back to you.

 

[GEddie]

There is no “human organism” without “human being”.

A foot is not a human organism, it is a human limb. Without the rest of the body, it is a dead limb (no soul).

DNA is not a human organism, it is a molecule. By itself, it is no more alive (=ensouled) than the oxygen in your nose.

The “human organism” is the live human body or soma (or human being, since soul is life).

ICXC NIKA

 

[zro_x]

Sure, it’s certain a difference in kind. A theological concept would not be a matter of belief required for salvation, although to be fair, theological doctrines are theological concepts. But I guess a doctrine is an article of faith, whereas a concept is not. So, doctrines would include: the Incarnation, the assumption of Mary, the Trinity, etc., whereas concepts would include: how many angels there are, what is meant by Jesus’ atoning death, perhaps even some specific interpretation of Scripture. The first category, I suggest, entails belief in something, whereas the second is more explanatory, understanding how something is. Therefore, belief in the sanctity of human life and moral law would imply that abortion is wrong, whereas the Chain of Being is more a belief about how the universe is structured. I think the point can be made most clearly in considering Jesus’ death on the cross. As Catholics, we need to believe that Jesus died on the cross and through his death achieved our salvation. How he achieved this - that is, what precisely is meant by atonement - is a matter of debate and not of doctrine.

I think the chain of being was an article of faith, and that the concept of the chain of being is a belief in something, not an explanation as to how something works. The idea of Limbo falls under the same category, but the difference is that the chain of being was actually taught by the church.

It would seem that theological concepts come in pairs: a belief in something, and an explanation for why that belief is true. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the belief is true, while the explanation may be in error. In the teachings of the church that immediately come to mind, that seems like an accurate stance to take. But the concept of the chain of being is a belief, not an explanation. Explanations come about when the belief already exists, in order to explain the belief. The beliefs come first. and the chain of being was a belief that was taught by the church, not an explanation for some other belief.

The soul exists inextricably with the materiality of the person: you can’t have one without the other. Any person, no matter at what stage of development, is ensouled. You don’t become ensouled at any particular point and this is where Aquinas went wrong, because he believed - due primarily to a poorer understanding of biology - that the foetus went through developmental phases, so that at one point it gained a rational or human soul, before which it had a different kind of soul. However, he did believe a human always had a soul, just not always a rational soul.

Actually, Thomas’s explanation is really a great one, and from my perspective, it is confirmed by biology rather than contradicted by it.

We know that a human being is technically a human at least at conception, and possibly earlier. However, we also know, because of biology, that at first, the fetus isn’t rational, so that can’t be a part of the fetus’s soul, since the soul is the form of the body, and the body has no rational function. Later, the body recieves a rational function when it develops a brain, and at that point, the fetus has a fully human soul and “personhood.”

I’m not sure if this view is correct or not, but it seems to me to have some promise, and it certainly can’t be rejected because of modern biology. If you think it can, you’ll have to tell me what biological principles contradict this view.

I see what you’re saying but I don’t think there is a stage where this happens: it always is the case. I think the “en-spiriting” of a person can only come at two stages: either with conception - since there is no dramatic change in substance of the human after this point; a foetus is only a developing human, after all, not different species - or with baptism - since baptism does effect substantial change in the person.

It seems that you are now offering the opinion that enspiriting (good word) can only occur during an instantaneous change in the human person. In the first place, conception is a gradual process. It happens quickly, but it isn’t instantaneous. But secondly, there is no reason to believe that this is the case. The enspiriting of a person might also occur in some gradual process as well. for example, when the brain contains a “critical mass” of brain cells, or an infant diverges in personality sufficiently from the rest of the world’s population. Consider the fact that Adam and Eve came into existence at a time that was not noticeably distinguishable from any other time in history. in the same way, enspiritment can happen at any point which may(to us) seem arbitrary.

(cont.)

 

[zro_x]

(cont.)

I’m not sure that God can put the human spirit into anything. If you mean “personality” well, sure, because angels are persons, as is God. Also, I don’t see how a person could be ensouled before conception - there is nothing to conceive.

Remember that enspiritment is what matters, and God could enspirit a rock if he so chose. certainly he could enspirit an egg cell before fertilization.

We are not spiritual substances that gain a body, but we are body and spirit/soul.

And yet, for a period of time in the future, our bodies will become separated from our spirit.
We may no longer be human spirits, but we will retain our personhood. So I agree with your first point. When I speak of a human spirit, I’m speaking of the type of personhood we have(or what type of spirit we are), regardless of our temporal shells. our spirits are those which function best in a body, are less intelligent then angels, etc. God has the capability to put that type of spirit into something other than a human body, and he has the capability to withhold that type of spirit from a bilogical human being.

It has occured to me that you might not be aware of the theological basis behind the fifth commandment. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, killing is the separation of a human-type spirit from whatever material it occupies. So, strictly speaking, it is impossible to “kill” a biological human which has no human-type spirit, since there is no separation! It would be immoral to kill, say, a robot that God has endowed with a human-type spirit.

As for our DNA, which could be engineered to create other human beings, well, as it stands, DNA is just DNA.

not according to what scientists consider to be biological human life. A single human DNA molecule,(or the series of molecules that make up our chromosome set) is genetically, and thus biologically, human. This isn’t a problem for genetics, because genetics isn’t concerned with the soul. If something has human DNA, than to the geneticist, it is human. If not, it isn’t. Thus, since a fertilized egg cell has human DNA, it is human, but so is an unfertilized egg cell. Clearly, we need a better explanation than that if we want to discuss the soul.

If it were ever used to create another human being, at that point where another human being was created (in whatever primitive stage of development), then it would be immoral to kill it.

And it seems to me that no one knows when that occurs.

I know what you’re saying. Yes, it is immoral to kill an innocent person, be they human, a member of another species, an angel (if that were possible), etc. However, I’m not sure there are any conditions under which a human being is not a person.

But how do you know that this is the case? Obviously it is true for us after early infancy, but we have no way of knowing beforehand.

Since ensoulment is the form of the body, it would certainly occur with a distinct biological human being, provided, of course, it is a human being, not merely a human organism, like a foot, DNA, etc. To be honest, my biology isn’t really good enough to answer your question - about the classification of a distinct biological human being - very well. I’ll have to do some more research and get back to you.

Ensoulment is, and must be, in the form of the body, yes, but there are no such restrictions on enspiritment, which is the important factor in the fifth commandment.