Overpopulation and the right to have children

[GEddie]

it has before, when the teachings were prone to fallibility.

That’s because it is a slippery slope. As far as I can tell, conception is just as arbitrary as any other point. We have no way of knowing when life begins. It could begin later, or it could begin earlier. We just don’t know.

now, if the Catholic church stipulated that we can know that a fetus is a person from conception on by devine revelation, I could accept that. Devine revelation is a valid means of knowledge. But under those conditions, we could no longer argue that there are secular reasons to ban abortion.

How could human life begin any earlier than conception???

Conception is the most sensible time-zero for human life, because it is the earliest that new physical entity exists.

ICXC NIKA

 

[zro_x]

How could human life begin any earlier than conception???

Conception is the most sensible time-zero for human life, because it is the earliest that new physical entity exists.

ICXC NIKA

As I said before, it might begin when a parent Gamete undergoes meiosis and creates individual, unique sex cells.

Another possibility is that human life begins during the conjugal act. That would make sense, since the love between a man and woman to produce a baby is supposed to mimic the love between the father and Son to produce the holy spirit. I’m not really clear on how this sort of thing works, but my guess is there is a slight delay between the time when the conjugal act ends and when the DNA from the sperm and the egg are fully integrated into a new molecule.

 

[ericc]

As I said before, it might begin when a parent Gamete undergoes meiosis and creates individual, unique sex cells.

Another possibility is that human life begins during the conjugal act. That would make sense, since the love between a man and woman to produce a baby is supposed to mimic the love between the father and Son to produce the holy spirit. I’m not really clear on how this sort of thing works, but my guess is there is a slight delay between the time when the conjugal act ends and when the DNA from the sperm and the egg are fully integrated into a new molecule.

Please, not all conjugal act ends with pregnancy. Conception ie knitting is when egg meets sperm and there is a successful fusion etc. I don’t know much about gametes and chromosones but for biblical understanding it is sufficient to know that God knit us while in our mothers’ wombs and that our soul was created at the point of conception. You won’t get more details than that from the Bible. God knew us when we were still in the womb, period. There is no need to attempt to scientifically measure exactly when ensoulment took place because you can’t measure it. There was no knowledge of genomes/chromosomes/microscopes etc when the Psalms were written and definitely Psalm 139:13 clearly does not mean “knitting began when the first self-replicating molecule billions of years ago formed” as you so stated. I have no idea what you are talking about and how you tangent off to that conclusion. If God didn’t knit us in our mother’s womb despite multiple conjugal acts, there is no US. And I sincerely hope you won’t resort to displaying of your scientific knowledge to proof/disproof any Biblical events because the Bible is not a biology/science/physics/chemistry textbook. It is God’s word about our relationship with him through thousands of years.

 

[zro_x]

Please, not all conjugal act ends with pregnancy.

Doesn’t matter. God knows if a particular act will end in pregnancy, so he can ensoul the egg before it is fertilized.

Conception ie knitting is when egg meets sperm and there is a successful fusion etc. I don’t know much about gametes and chromosones but for biblical understanding it is sufficient to know that God knit us while in our mothers’ wombs and that our soul was created at the point of conception. You won’t get more details than that from the Bible.

you don’t even get those details! As I said before, “knitting” makes ensoulment sound like a gradual process, rather than an instantaneous event. And nowhere does it even say that knitting begins at conception.

God knew us when we were still in the womb, period.

Yes, but like most Bible quotes, this is open to interpretation, which is exactly why I’m looking for infallible church teaching on this subject, so that I’ll know the correct one. I believe the exact quote is something more along the lines of “*before *I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” but we are being formed in the womb from our conception onward, so this passage actually indicates that God knew us before we were concieved, which further indicates that God isn’t talking about when life begins in this passage, but rather of the timelessness of his nature.

There is no need to attempt to scientifically measure exactly when ensoulment took place because you can’t measure it. There was no knowledge of genomes/chromosomes/microscopes etc when the Psalms were written and definitely Psalm 139:13 clearly does not mean “knitting began when the first self-replicating molecule billions of years ago formed” as you so stated. I have no idea what you are talking about and how you tangent off to that conclusion. If God didn’t knit us in our mother’s womb despite multiple conjugal acts, there is no US.

So you think that when one becomes a distinct individual that one then has a unique soul, and that one is a distinct individual when one has unique DNA. This is by no means obviously the case. some might say that your individuality comes into being when you develop the ability to think at any rudimetary level, or later, when your have a body independent of any other person(birth), and some would argue that it is even later, when you develop a unique personality.

But let’s suppose that DNA is what makes a person a unique individual, and that ensoulment occurs precisely at conception. If that’s the case, then my uncle and my dad, who are identical twins, are not really different people, since they have the same soul. In addition, our mitochondria have unique human DNA. Your definition of unique humanity would mean that each mitochondrion has its own human immortal human soul, with all the atributes of such a soul. Are you willing to accept this view?

And I sincerely hope you won’t resort to displaying of your scientific knowledge to proof/disproof any Biblical events because the Bible is not a biology/science/physics/chemistry textbook. It is God’s word about our relationship with him through thousands of years.

And I didn’t. I used scientific knowledge, yes, but not to disprove or prove any particular part of the bible.

 

[epan]

But let’s suppose that DNA is what makes a person a unique individual, and that ensoulment occurs precisely at conception. If that’s the case, then my uncle and my dad, who are identical twins, are not really different people, since they have the same soul. In addition, our mitochondria have unique human DNA. Your definition of unique humanity would mean that each mitochondrion has its own human immortal human soul, with all the atributes of such a soul. Are you willing to accept this view?

I’m not sure why you bring up mitochondrial DNA, but on the topic of genetics, yes… if your dad and his brother are identical twins, then their DNA was identical at birth.

But as unique people, they started to diverge in their personalities at that point in time. The brain is very plastic. However, this is a very complex topic, and beyond the scope of this forum.

As for ensoulment, and uniqueness there. That is a topic WAY above my pay grade.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I could very well be completely wrong about this, but I thought that at one point, Limbo was actually taught by the church, not just St. Augustine. I have no idea how widespread the teaching was or how long it lasted, so I’ll take your word for it that it wasn’t much of either.

What about the chain of being? St. Anslem wrote a book on natural hiearchies, and I belive it was widely accepted and taught by the church at the time.

hmm, I had forgotten this, but I think you’re right. In that case, does anybody know of any infallible teachings from the magisterium which back the pro-life movement?

I don’t know whether I’m right or not. As I’ve said before, I’m probably wrong, and I’ll follow the teachings of the Church in my actions until I have reason to doubt church authority. But I won’t stop questioning the reasons behind my religious practices. If I’m wrong, I’ll find out exactly why. And if not, then maybe I can help straighten the ship.

As far as I can see, natural moral law has nothing whatsoever to say on this subject.

the Sunday obligation is an action. I will follow the Catholic teaching in all things, but I will only believe Catholic teaching if the teaching is infallible or I have good reason to believe it. In the case of Jesus being married, I take the church’s word for it that he wasn’t, because it doesn’t really matter in the long run, and because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Thanks for the responses, ZRO X.

With regards to Limbo, it was always a dicey idea and while influential, it was never a universal teaching of the Church. For instance, the Council at Carthage in 418 rejected the idea and while popular in the Middle Ages with some theologians (like Abelard and Aquinas), others did not. More recently, of course, not only during the Second Vatican Council but with the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Limbo has gone on the backburner. In all this, it was never a doctrine of the Church, more a popular theological idea, akin to how many angels fell. Good evidence for this is that the Eastern Church never accepted nor really entertained the idea of Limbo, and yet remained (and still remain) fully Catholic - (similarly, the Orthodox Church don’t either).

I’d say the Chain of Being falls into the same category too. Again, it’s like the geocentric theory, more a scientific or cosmic hypothesis than a matter of doctrine. No one ever had to go to confession because they did not believe in the Chain of Being!

As for infallible teachings that support the pro-life movement, do you mean that support it in a political or social way? I’m sure John Paul II must have said something in some form, other than Evangelium Vitae of course, which is pretty clear on the point.

I think you’re wise to question the reasons behind your religious practices - it keeps us attuned to what we’re doing and why.

As for Jesus being married - you shouldn’t just take the Church’s word on it that he wasn’t. That’s my point: the evidence clearly points to the fact that he was not married. Similarly, I believe, not only do you have the Church’s teaching but also the scientific evidence and natural law to show that committing abortion is an evil act.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

There’s lots of places here on earth that could first be considered and are not as harsh as the moon and would be more hospitable to human life, such as the Siberian desert, Antarctica, the Sahara, and many others.

People live on Tantooine and Hoth without too much trouble

More seriously, necessity is the mother of invention. It could be possible that the need to live in the deserts or tundra would result in successful habitats being built there.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

People live on Tantooine and Hoth without too much trouble

More seriously, necessity is the mother of invention. It could be possible that the need to live in the deserts or tundra would result in successful habitats being built there.

I get the feeling my comments may have been taken as a joke; I’m not sure. Just in case they were I want to state that I was being quite serious. Step outside into Siberia or the Sahara desert and you’ll find that your ability to sustain your own life isn’t assaulted as brutally or as promptly as it is stepping out onto the moon. Both of these terrestrial environments already have breathable air. Antarctica already has ice which can become drinkable water with a sufficient fuel source. These areas are also a lot more reachable; if you needed an emergency drop on the earth it’s possible to perform a delivery within 24 hours. If you’ve got a problem on the moon then considerably more time would be needed to get prepared to send help, for the next time window to come for a minimal-thrust transfer orbit, plus three days of travel time.

Also on earth you have the protection of the ionosphere to shield you from solar and cosmic radiation. Not so on the moon.

 

[tonyrey]

Why? How old are you if you don’t mind me asking?

1. Old enough not to mind your asking!

2.Old enough to know that to claim to be wise is to be foolish - and to claim to be foolish is false modesty!

1. Old enough to know my biological age is irrelevant to whether I am a sage - or in my dotage!
2. Old enough to realise it’s a miracle I’m still alive after so many close shaves!
3. Old enough to understand King Lear extremely well…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I get the feeling my comments may have been taken as a joke; I’m not sure. Just in case they were I want to state that I was being quite serious. Step outside into Siberia or the Sahara desert and you’ll find that your ability to sustain your own life isn’t assaulted as brutally or as promptly as it is stepping out onto the moon. Both of these terrestrial environments already have breathable air. Antarctica already has ice which can become drinkable water with a sufficient fuel source. These areas are also a lot more reachable; if you needed an emergency drop on the earth it’s possible to perform a delivery within 24 hours. If you’ve got a problem on the moon then considerably more time would be needed to get prepared to send help, for the next time window to come for a minimal-thrust transfer orbit, plus three days of travel time.

Also on earth you have the protection of the ionosphere to shield you from solar and cosmic radiation. Not so on the moon.

While I did make a joke with my first line, I was being serious about the second. I think it is conceivable that we are capable of designing a habitat that allows us to survive in the harsh climates, more so here on earth than on the moon or Mars. The question to ask is is living in these harsh climates necessar? I think, at this point, the answer is no.

 

[zro_x]

Thanks for the responses, ZRO X.

With regards to Limbo, it was always a dicey idea and while influential, it was never a universal teaching of the Church. For instance, the Council at Carthage in 418 rejected the idea and while popular in the Middle Ages with some theologians (like Abelard and Aquinas), others did not. More recently, of course, not only during the Second Vatican Council but with the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Limbo has gone on the backburner. In all this, it was never a doctrine of the Church, more a popular theological idea, akin to how many angels fell. Good evidence for this is that the Eastern Church never accepted nor really entertained the idea of Limbo, and yet remained (and still remain) fully Catholic - (similarly, the Orthodox Church don’t either).

I’d say the Chain of Being falls into the same category too. Again, it’s like the geocentric theory, more a scientific or cosmic hypothesis than a matter of doctrine. No one ever had to go to confession because they did not believe in the Chain of Being!

As for infallible teachings that support the pro-life movement, do you mean that support it in a political or social way? I’m sure John Paul II must have said something in some form, other than Evangelium Vitae of course, which is pretty clear on the point.

I think you’re wise to question the reasons behind your religious practices - it keeps us attuned to what we’re doing and why.

As for Jesus being married - you shouldn’t just take the Church’s word on it that he wasn’t. That’s my point: the evidence clearly points to the fact that he was not married. Similarly, I believe, not only do you have the Church’s teaching but also the scientific evidence and natural law to show that committing abortion is an evil act.

Hmm, interesting history on limbo. I’m not quite so convinced about the chain of being, though. It was very influential in medieval Europe, which, If I’m not mistaken, was where the majority of the Catholics were during that time period. Ambition/Avarice, Or trying to change your station, was second only to pride in the origianal seven deadly sins. So People may have very well have had to confess doubt in the chain of being! In comparison, I don’t think we must confess doubt in the tennents of a pro-life philosophy, but rather only when we violate these tennents with our actions. another thing to remember is that The chain of being is a theological concept, unlike geocentrism, which was scientific in nature.

I’m really more intersested in some infallible doctrine that stipulates that humans are ensouled from conception onward, and that all means of artificial contraception are evil. The philosophical basis behind the pro-life movement, if you will, not our social-political involvement in it. It would also be nice to know whether the basis for such a teaching comes from devine revelation or scientific and natural laws. Many have claimed that this can form an acceptable basis for such doctrines, but I still have yet to see why or how.

As to the marriage of Jesus, you are probably right, but it just isn’t a subject that I care about much or one that would have major implications on the way I live my life. The pro-life philosophy, however, is. Granted, One should investigate the teachings of the faith, but I think we have to prioritize or investigations in order of importance.

 

[zro_x]

I get the feeling my comments may have been taken as a joke; I’m not sure. Just in case they were I want to state that I was being quite serious. Step outside into Siberia or the Sahara desert and you’ll find that your ability to sustain your own life isn’t assaulted as brutally or as promptly as it is stepping out onto the moon. Both of these terrestrial environments already have breathable air. Antarctica already has ice which can become drinkable water with a sufficient fuel source. These areas are also a lot more reachable; if you needed an emergency drop on the earth it’s possible to perform a delivery within 24 hours. If you’ve got a problem on the moon then considerably more time would be needed to get prepared to send help, for the next time window to come for a minimal-thrust transfer orbit, plus three days of travel time.

Also on earth you have the protection of the ionosphere to shield you from solar and cosmic radiation. Not so on the moon.

this is mostly true, but in general, space colonization has two main benefits that can’t be reproduced by spreading to other areas on the Earth. The first is that if some natural, cataclysmic disaster were to befall the Earth (virus, astronomical events, supervalcano eruption, etc.), the space colony would be immune and be preserve the human race. This benefit, though, has very litle to do with overpopulation.

The other benefit is one of protection against human caused problems (effects of global warming, global nuclear warfare, etc.) which do have increased chances of occuring with increased numbers of people. In the event of overpopulation, a space colony would be protected from such problems, while people in the artic, ocean, or sahara would not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

the space colony would be immune and be preserve the human race.

Not yet. As of yet there’s no known artificial shield against galactic cosmic rays. Long term exposure to radiation tends to have an impact on the ability to produce viable offspring.

The other benefit is one of protection against human caused problems (effects of global warming, global nuclear warfare, etc.) which do have increased chances of occuring with increased numbers of people. In the event of overpopulation, a space colony would be protected from such problems, while people in the artic, ocean, or sahara would not.

It provides a layer of separation, but not total immunity. Otherwise they still have a dependency on earth and are tethered to it by their needs. They can only take a finite amount of resources with them (ex: so many liters of water) and if the colony were to expect to grow then their resource availability (water, living space, so on) would also need to grow.

Now if there could be found a viable resource stream other than the earth then protection from earthly problems might start to look achievable.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

this is mostly true, but in general, space colonization has two main benefits that can’t be reproduced by spreading to other areas on the Earth. The first is that if some natural, cataclysmic disaster were to befall the Earth (virus, astronomical events, supervalcano eruption, etc.), the space colony would be immune and be preserve the human race. This benefit, though, has very litle to do with overpopulation.

The other benefit is one of protection against human caused problems (effects of global warming, global nuclear warfare, etc.) which do have increased chances of occuring with increased numbers of people. In the event of overpopulation, a space colony would be protected from such problems, while people in the artic, ocean, or sahara would not.

i don’t think you need worry about an ever increasing pop. soon enough we will enter another little ice-age, many millions will be lost to disease/famine. later on but not far away we will enter a major ice-age with most of northern europe, asia and north america under 2 kilometers of ice and for many thousands of miles south of the ice the climate will be as the siberian steppes are today, not conducive to growing crops or livestock. so major pop wipeout for a hundred thousand years.
then there will be a new spring once again for humans for about 8,000 years and they will gradually grow back and populate the north again.
eventually in about 100 million years after the age of ice-ages the continents will have shifted about again and the mountains eroded away and we can look forward to global tropical swampy/deserty conditions further reducing any excess of population. the future dinosaurs will largely keep the human pop under control for another 65 million years perhaps until we start to gain the upper hand again…

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hmm, interesting history on limbo. I’m not quite so convinced about the chain of being, though. It was very influential in medieval Europe, which, If I’m not mistaken, was where the majority of the Catholics were during that time period. Ambition/Avarice, Or trying to change your station, was second only to pride in the origianal seven deadly sins. So People may have very well have had to confess doubt in the chain of being! In comparison, I don’t think we must confess doubt in the tennents of a pro-life philosophy, but rather only when we violate these tennents with our actions. another thing to remember is that The chain of being is a theological concept, unlike geocentrism, which was scientific in nature.

I’m really more intersested in some infallible doctrine that stipulates that humans are ensouled from conception onward, and that all means of artificial contraception are evil. The philosophical basis behind the pro-life movement, if you will, not our social-political involvement in it. It would also be nice to know whether the basis for such a teaching comes from devine revelation or scientific and natural laws. Many have claimed that this can form an acceptable basis for such doctrines, but I still have yet to see why or how.

As to the marriage of Jesus, you are probably right, but it just isn’t a subject that I care about much or one that would have major implications on the way I live my life. The pro-life philosophy, however, is. Granted, One should investigate the teachings of the faith, but I think we have to prioritize or investigations in order of importance.

Hmm you’ve got me thinking about the Chain of Being now, but even though I take your point that it is a theological concept (even though, when I said scientific and compared it to geocentrism I meant something like “worldview”), it is not a theological doctrine nor a matter of morality, and so isn’t a province over which the Church has jurisdiction in the same sense as abortion or the divinity of Christ.

I’m not sure if there has even been a clear, dogmatic stipulation that a person is ensouled from conception but there has been clear, dogmatic stipulation that all humans are ensouled. Now, what’s a soul? It isn’t something I have, like a heart or liver, but is rather the inextricable, non-material, life-giving and organising element of a living thing, as Aristotle wisely put it, the form of the body, and being human, we have human or rational souls. The conclusion is that any human being must, by definition, be ensouled. You cannot have an un-ensouled human being, or else they wouldn’t be human (e.g. a zombie). So we can ask: is the unborn a human being? Scientifically, though only in the early stages of development, the unborn, whether a foetus or zygote or whatever, is a human being. Therefore, the unborn must have soul.

However, I don’t even think we need to go that far. The Church clearly and dogmatically teaches that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being. Whether, for the same of argument, that human being is ensouled or not is by the by, it is still a human being, and so would be immoral to kill. Again, is the unborn a human being? Yes. Therefore, it would be immoral to kill him or her.

Does that make sense?

The philosophical basis behind the pro-life movement is different from the theological one, so not something the Church directly influences. I’d say the philosophical basis is one that recognises the inherent dignity and worth of human beings and contends that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. I’d say this basis is mostly from natural law, which is, after all the natural moral law. Science can give us facts about biology but not morality. Certainly, it’s connected with Church teaching but only in an indirect way. The pro-life movement is broader than simply Catholics (obviously meaning that it also involves non-Catholics and even non-Christians).

 

[zro_x]

Not yet. As of yet there’s no known artificial shield against galactic cosmic rays. Long term exposure to radiation tends to have an impact on the ability to produce viable offspring.

yes… I suppose that is a rather big issue, isn’t it?

it provides a layer of separation, but not total immunity. Otherwise they still have a dependency on earth and are tethered to it by their needs. They can only take a finite amount of resources with them (ex: so many liters of water) and if the colony were to expect to grow then their resource availability (water, living space, so on) would also need to grow.

Now if there could be found a viable resource stream other than the earth then protection from earthly problems might start to look achievable.

true. I meant to specify that I was talking about a self-sustaining space colony… which is course very difficult to produce without extremely efficient recycling or outside resources. But I think that by the time, or if, we have a population problem, this might be possible.

 

[zro_x]

i don’t think you need worry about an ever increasing pop. soon enough we will enter another little ice-age, many millions will be lost to disease/famine. later on but not far away we will enter a major ice-age with most of northern europe, asia and north america under 2 kilometers of ice and for many thousands of miles south of the ice the climate will be as the siberian steppes are today, not conducive to growing crops or livestock. so major pop wipeout for a hundred thousand years.
then there will be a new spring once again for humans for about 8,000 years and they will gradually grow back and populate the north again.
eventually in about 100 million years after the age of ice-ages the continents will have shifted about again and the mountains eroded away and we can look forward to global tropical swampy/deserty conditions further reducing any excess of population. the future dinosaurs will largely keep the human pop under control for another 65 million years perhaps until we start to gain the upper hand again…

I’m not really sure if you are joking or not. In any case, by one hundred thousand years, we will have survived through multiple catyclysmic events, from supervolcanoes, to epidemics, to asteroids. Any changes in climate would be the least of our worries. Not to mention he possibility that we’ll blow our selves up long before then, or the very likely possibility that the judgement day will have already occured.

Even if we survive all these events, the bodies of the human race, if we haven’t bonded with, been taken over, or been replaced by robots, would be almost completely unrecogniseable due to evolution. We will have long since started colonizing other worlds anyway, and perhpas become immortal, doue to either advances in medicine or uploading our brains onto computers.

In fact, I predict that some of these advancements will occur within this milenium–possibly in the next 500 years! so unless the little ice age you speak of happens within that time frame, it won’t be much of a problem either.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

I’m not really sure if you are joking or not. In any case, by one hundred thousand years, we will have survived through multiple catyclysmic events, from supervolcanoes, to epidemics, to asteroids. Any changes in climate would be the least of our worries. Not to mention he possibility that we’ll blow our selves up long before then, or the very likely possibility that the judgement day will have already occured.

Even if we survive all these events, the bodies of the human race, if we haven’t bonded with, been taken over, or been replaced by robots, would be almost completely unrecogniseable due to evolution. We will have long since started colonizing other worlds anyway, and perhpas become immortal, doue to either advances in medicine or uploading our brains onto computers.

In fact, I predict that some of these advancements will occur within this milenium–possibly in the next 500 years! so unless the little ice age you speak of happens within that time frame, it won’t be much of a problem either.

well its true but is also joking. populations of anything have always, i feel, been controlled by climate, famine and disease, or also war in humans case.
we are due a large ice-age now, but to get there we probably will descend at the start in steps of cooling or little ice-ages which cooling can happen in the space of 5 to 40 years.

 

[zro_x]

Hmm you’ve got me thinking about the Chain of Being now, but even though I take your point that it is a theological concept (even though, when I said scientific and compared it to geocentrism I meant something like “worldview”), it is not a theological doctrine nor a matter of morality, and so isn’t a province over which the Church has jurisdiction in the same sense as abortion or the divinity of Christ.

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?

I’m not sure if there has even been a clear, dogmatic stipulation that a person is ensouled from conception but there has been clear, dogmatic stipulation that all humans are ensouled. Now, what’s a soul? It isn’t something I have, like a heart or liver, but is rather the inextricable, non-material, life-giving and organising element of a living thing, as Aristotle wisely put it, the form of the body, and being human, we have human or rational souls. The conclusion is that any human being must, by definition, be ensouled. You cannot have an un-ensouled human being, or else they wouldn’t be human (e.g. a zombie). So we can ask: is the unborn a human being? Scientifically, though only in the early stages of development, the unborn, whether a foetus or zygote or whatever, is a human being. Therefore, the unborn must have soul.

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.

Of course, If you assume that conception is the earliest possible point at which a person can be ensouled, then conception certainly stands out from the other points I mentioned. But this is by no means the case. A person could very well be ensouled before conception. As I’ve mentioned, conception is thought of as when there comes into existence a distinct biological human being, with his own set of unique DNA. But DNA does not, by itself, make for a distinct human being. As I’ve mentioned, my father and his brother are identical twins. At the moment of their conception, they were the same person, If you think that unique DNA is what causes God to bring about ensoulment. But when they split, their DNA ceased to be unique. Does this mean that that their soul cease to exist? Or does it mean that, at some basic level, They are still the same person?

However, I don’t even think we need to go that far. The Church clearly and dogmatically teaches that it is immoral to kill an innocent human being. Whether, for the same of argument, that human being is ensouled or not is by the by, it is still a human being, and so would be immoral to kill. Again, is the unborn a human being? Yes. Therefore, it would be immoral to kill him or her.

But the church obviously means here that it is wrong to kill an ensouled human being.
After all, our omponent cells have human DNA. Some of them (certain stem cells) have the potential to become other human beings with the right conditions and sufficiently advanced technologies (cloning). And yet, we bear absolutely no moral culpability for killing them.

I might also add that if you specify unique DNA, our mitochondria have a separate DNA code from us, but it is still human DNA.

Does that make sense?

I think I understood your argument, but I’m not convinced that your conclusions are valid just yet.

The philosophical basis behind the pro-life movement is different from the theological one, so not something the Church directly influences. I’d say the philosophical basis is one that recognises the inherent dignity and worth of human beings and contends that it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being. I’d say this basis is mostly from natural law, which is, after all the natural moral law. Science can give us facts about biology but not morality. Certainly, it’s connected with Church teaching but only in an indirect way. The pro-life movement is broader than simply Catholics (obviously meaning that it also involves non-Catholics and even non-Christians).

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?

 

[GEddie]

well its true but is also joking. populations of anything have always, i feel, been controlled by climate, famine and disease, or also war in humans case.
we are due a large ice-age now, but to get there we probably will descend at the start in steps of cooling or little ice-ages which cooling can happen in the space of 5 to 40 years.

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

ICXC NIKA