Question for Religious Anti-Choicers: “When Does Human Life End?”

[crowonsnow]

Personal question for Crowonsnow: From interacting with you on other threads, I know you are intelligent. On this thread, however, you appear to be either: (1) honestly confused, or (2) trying to confuse others by clouding the issues involved.

So my question is, which is it?

I’ll go with Johann Goethe on that one and reiterate that even dirt glitters so long as the sun shines.

 

[cpayne]

I’ll go with Johann Goethe on that one and reiterate that even dirt glitters so long as the sun shines.

Ah, yes. Just what I was saying the other day.

 

[Leela]

After fertilization / conception, the fertilized egg will normally grow into what even anti-life people have to admit is a human being.

At the other end - when our cells start to die, they do not normally grow into human beings, even though the DNA is all there.

They could be grown into people (at least in theory) with medical intervention. And the church supports medical intervention to support life.

In general, don’t you think it wise at both the beginning and the end to give the benefit of the doubt to life? If someone gave you a gun and told you to shoot at a “shadowy figure that sort of looks like it might be human”, would you feel justified pulling the trigger based on the assumption that it might not be human?

There isn’t any doubt in my mind that a single cell is not a person. At later stages it become more of an issue where doubt could come into it, but then there are a lot of tough moral choices we have to make every day that do not have any clear answers.

Best,
Leela

 

[cpayne]

They could be grown into people (at least in theory) with medical intervention. And the church supports medical intervention to support life.

There isn’t any doubt in my mind that a single cell is not a person. At later stages it become more of an issue where doubt could come into it, but then there are a lot of tough moral choices we have to make every day that do not have any clear answers.

First paragraph: No, they couldn’t, unless the “medical intervention” means fertilization.

Second paragraph: What is at stake here in this discussion is not whether or not we have any doubts in our mind as to what a zygote is (I myself have no doubt it is a person), but what scientifically it actually is. We find out its personhood by what it grows into, under normal circumstances.

 

[crowonsnow]

The definition of conception was recently changed in the medical community to be synonymous with implantation. The Church uses the classsic understanding that fertilization and conception are the same thing. This is not implied. It is clear. What is implied is that ensoulment and conception happen at the same time.

So science defines implantation and fertilization, which makes sense. The classic understanding is scientifically flawed because it did not account for the female ovum. It held that sperm was “seed” that simply implanted and then grew.

Can you direct me to a credible source that equates conception with implantation? I just don’t know why conception would even be included if what is being discussed is implantation.

Nope. Because human life is not dependant on ensoulment. Human life, from conception to natural death, is what us “antichoicers” are committed to protect. It is not because of ensoulment. We are not, strictly speaking, protecting the soul but protecting the physical human life.

That would mean the official Catholic position on abortion discounts modern scientific knowledge.

Anyway, the next time I’m discussing this issue I’ll be sure to ask the person or persons what they mean by “conception.”

 

[cpayne]

That would mean the official Catholic position on abortion discounts modern scientific knowledge.

I am really just not getting why you are saying this. (Honestly, I’m not being sarcastic.) It seems obvious that the Catholic understanding incorporates modern scientific knowledge; it is the pro-choice position that tries to drag in some additional philosophical notion of “personhood” or somesuch.

 

[Corki]

So science defines implantation and fertilization, which makes sense. The classic understanding is scientifically flawed because it did not account for the female ovum. It held that sperm was “seed” that simply implanted and then grew.

Not that far back! By classical, I mean up until about 10 years ago when contraceptive companies were tired of defending the fact that since birth control pills can allow conception but stop implantation that they were actually early abortions.

Can you direct me to a credible source that equates conception with implantation? I just don’t know why conception would even be included if what is being discussed is implantation.

Will a medical dictionary do? The first definition is the “classical” one, the second is the one used to define contraceptive actions.

Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.

medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31242

That would mean the official Catholic position on abortion discounts modern scientific knowledge.

I don’t see how. Modern science does not take a position on ensoulment. The Church does not define life based on ensoulment. Science and the Church are in absolute agreement on when life begins.

 

[crowonsnow]

I am really just not getting why you are saying this. (Honestly, I’m not being sarcastic.) It seems obvious that the Catholic understanding incorporates modern scientific knowledge; it is the pro-choice position that tries to drag in some additional philosophical notion of “personhood” or somesuch.

I’m just going on what Corki said, that the church’s position is based on an outdated understanding or what constitutes human reproduction. I don’t know why Catholic Authorities would do this either. There are no Galileos or Brunos to burn anymore.

 

[JDaniel]

When Does Human Life End?

I thought it appropriate to ask this question as it will help me understand the religious anti-choice position. If I can understand the basis of the religious belief of when human life ends, maybe it will shed some light on the belief that human life begins at fertilization.

Is the end of human life primarily a de-ensoulment issue? Is the end of human life de-ensoulment based on biology? Is de-ensoulment not involved, leaving it a biological issue entirely with de-ensoulment just tagging along?

Or is it just not a big deal? And if it’s not a big deal, why is it not a big deal? Are there any official teachings that Catholics, for example, adhere to concerning the end of human life?

All:

I am going to ask all of you to do me a favor. I have come to know Crowonsnow much better, over the past few days, and he is a worthy human being. I am going to ask that everyone please just answer his questions. Try to be as charitable as possible. I like him. He really wants to know where and why theists believe as they do, and he has been wholly charitable towards me - and I’m essentially a theist. Also, bringing up issues that tend to derail will derail the intent of the thread. And, this is a thread that I am very interested in as well.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. That said, I gave you my answer in another thread on Post # 190, I believe.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4918229#post4918229

But, I think you may be alluding to something more. You may be alluding to whether or not, since we believe in an afterlife, there is a real sense by which we can describe “death”, as a real exigency. Am I right, or way off base here?

jd

 

[Ender]

Yes, fertilization and conception are the same thing. Not only for Catholics, it was always the same thing scientifically too until very recently. The definition of conception was recently changed in the medical community to be synonymous with implantation.

You make a point in a later post of quoting the current definition of pregnancy, which may well have changed in the last few years, but I do not believe that there is a distinction between fertilization and conception; I think both terms refer to the merging of a sperm and egg. Implantation of the blastocyst may be the onset of pregnancy but it does not mark the beginning of life; that occurred at fertilization/conception.

Ender

 

[Corki]

You make a point in a later post of quoting the current definition of pregnancy, which may well have changed in the last few years, but I do not believe that there is a distinction between fertilization and conception; I think both terms refer to the merging of a sperm and egg. Implantation of the blastocyst may be the onset of pregnancy but it does not mark the beginning of life; that occurred at fertilization/conception.

Ender

This is one of those frustrating things. In science, biology and genetics, the two words would be considered synonymous and to mean the initial joining of the genetic material (I leave it open whether it is sperm and egg or the DNA strands). The same can be said for all discussions of reproduction in mammels.

But in medicine, it’s different. I got the date wrong, it was actually in the 60s and the definition was “changed” by way of a memorandum by the ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists). Here is a link with a good article about this. The site is blatantly pro-life (which is a good thing) but the citations are solid.

noroomforcontraception.com/pregnancy/Change-meaning-of-pregnancy-conception.htm

This is the basis for people trying to argue that the Pill, especially the morning after pill, is not abortifacient even when it does not prevent ovulation and fertilization still occurs. It wasn’t just redefining pregnancy, it was a specific re-definition of the word ‘conception.’

So you have this weird situation where most of the world would define conception as the moment of fertilization but for OBs and drug manufacturers its not until implantation.

 

[Ender]

It wasn’t just redefining pregnancy, it was a specific re-definition of the word ‘conception.’

So you have this weird situation where most of the world would define conception as the moment of fertilization but for OBs and drug manufacturers its not until implantation.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. This reminds me of a story about Lincoln who once was supposed to have asked: “If you called a tail a leg, would a dog have five legs?” He answered his own question with: “No. Calling it something else doesn’t make it something else.” The pro-abortion crowd obviously disagrees - apparently truth is just another choice.

Ender

 

[crowonsnow]

I am really just not getting why you are saying this. (Honestly, I’m not being sarcastic.) It seems obvious that the Catholic understanding incorporates modern scientific knowledge; it is the pro-choice position that tries to drag in some additional philosophical notion of “personhood” or somesuch.

No. I’m honestly trying to get a clear - or at least clearer - understanding of the abortion discussion and how people understand terms. I don’t think the average Joe has much of an understanding of embryology. The mindset is that once fertilization occurs now here’s a “little baby,” which of course there isn’t. So I thought that looking at the other end of the spectrum might help me understand the anti-choicer’s position better.

I certainly think that if all the participants had a working knowledge of how the process works it would be helpful in discussions. There is definitely a subjective component overlying all the scientific knowledge to the degree that any discussions seems to become overly charged.

My personal position is certainly that a zygote is not a “baby” or a “person,” and I see no reason to change that opinion. I also feel that the religious idea that we all have these invisible things in our bodies called souls and that we’re all immortal that way doesn’t help the discussion.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No. I’m honestly trying to get a clear - or at least clearer - understanding of the abortion discussion and how people understand terms. I don’t think the average Joe has much of an understanding of embryology. The mindset is that once fertilization occurs now here’s a “little baby,” which of course there isn’t. So I thought that looking at the other end of the spectrum might help me understand the anti-choicer’s position better.

I certainly think that if all the participants had a working knowledge of how the process works it would be helpful in discussions. There is definitely a subjective component overlying all the scientific knowledge to the degree that any discussions seems to become overly charged.

My personal position is certainly that a zygote is not a “baby” or a “person,” and I see no reason to change that opinion. I also feel that the religious idea that we all have these invisible things in our bodies called souls and that we’re all immortal that way doesn’t help the discussion.

When do you think your soul entered your body? Or don’t you think you have a soul?

 

[crowonsnow]

When do you think your soul entered your body? Or don’t you think you have a soul?

Hello CHRISTINE77,

I think the idea that we have souls is an understated part of the abortion debate, at least for people with strong religious convictions.

I do not hold with the idea that we have separate souls. Soul is just another word for person.

 

[JDaniel]

Hello CHRISTINE77,

I think the idea that we have souls is an understated part of the abortion debate, at least for people with strong religious convictions.

I do not hold with the idea that we have separate souls. Soul is just another word for person.

Crow:

That’s fine; go ahead and substitute “person” for “soul”. Just remember, that the instant when the two cells, 1/2 Dad and 1/2 Mom, become one person with all 46 chromosomes in place, we no longer have just a piece of Mom and a piece of Dad. It is at that precise point that we have a Boy or a Girl.

How many kids do you have? I have three, but they’re grown up now. My daughter likes to remind me that she was once an embryo. She was almost aborted, but, I wouldn’t let it happen. She is my raison d’etra, and my youngest.

jd

 

[Leela]

Hello CHRISTINE77,

I think the idea that we have souls is an understated part of the abortion debate, at least for people with strong religious convictions.

I do not hold with the idea that we have separate souls. Soul is just another word for person.

It is generally used to refer to the self at the deepest level.

 

[ricmat]

They could be grown into people (at least in theory) with medical intervention. And the church supports medical intervention to support life.

You are correct that the church supports medical intervention - degree depending on circumstances - to support life. But growing another person (even if cloned) doesn’t really help the original person.

There isn’t any doubt in my mind that a single cell is not a person. At later stages it become more of an issue where doubt could come into it, but then there are a lot of tough moral choices we have to make every day that do not have any clear answers.

Best,
Leela

Even if you believe that a single cell is not a “person”, I think you believe that it will grow into a person under normal circumstances. There is no chance that it will grow into a duck or a turnip. It will grow into a human person. You were a single cell at one time, and so was I

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Hello CHRISTINE77,

I think the idea that we have souls is an understated part of the abortion debate, at least for people with strong religious convictions.

I do not hold with the idea that we have separate souls. Soul is just another word for person.

What are your feelings about a World Soul? Where all our deepest memories come from.

 

[Ender]

My personal position is certainly that a zygote is not a “baby” or a “person,” and I see no reason to change that opinion.

A zygote is not a baby, nor is it a toddler, a teenager, or even a fetus. It is, however, human. The different terms simply define different stages in its life. It is unique, human, and alive. It would seem that science has little doubt about any of this; it’s not really open to personal opinion. Do you doubt the science involved or do you draw a distinction between “human entity” and “human being”?

I also feel that the religious idea that we all have these invisible things in our bodies called souls and that we’re all immortal that way doesn’t help the discussion.

I agree with this. I think it is better all around to limit this part of the discussion to the scientific understanding of when life begins and when it ends. Those are not religious concerns. Actually, doing so might help people understand that the definition of life is not being distorted by the religious “anti-choice” side but by the side that wishes to destroy life and that understands the necessity of first redefining the terms to mislead people about what is actually being destroyed.

Ender