The Soul of an Embryonic Stem Cell

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

averheyen

Guest
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/03/obama_the_baby_killer.html?hpid=topnews

Ok, I’m pretty sure this guy is off in left field with what he’s talking about, can anybody confirm that for me,

Specifically his remarks about the comparison between theologically and biologically what conception is, and how the Catholic Church’s teaching is the quote “safer” method.

I was also troubled at how he claims that Barak Obama’s stance falls within the scope of Catholic teaching, which I’m almost one hundred ten percent certain it most certainly does not. Any takers? It seems as though the author is trying to find a middle ground where there isn’t one.
 
Psalm 139:13-16 (New International Version)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
 
Yes, I know that silly, my question is with what the gentleman said in the article.
 
I don’t know where you want to go with this. There is no value in anything this author states and he clearly does not stand with the Church on abortion or value of human life.
Likewise, BO has no respect for life, as he has demonstrated by funding abortion and ESR with our tax dollars. He is shameful. Pray for his conversion and don’t expect truth where Truth is not respected.
 
bellesjoy said:
I don’t know where you want to go with this. There is no value in anything this author states and he clearly does not stand with the Church on abortion or value of human life.
Likewise, BO has no respect for life, as he has demonstrated by funding abortion and ESR with our tax dollars. He is shameful. Pray for his conversion and don’t expect truth where Truth is not respected.
Click to expand...
thank you, that’s what I was wondering.
 
Conception is a term used to describe fertilization. It’s actually the correct term for fertilization in humans.

Notice how he fails to cite ANY actual medical opinion, instead stating what he believes to be a majority opinion. I’ve never heard such descriptions before (that conception occurs at implantation).

I can’t think of any biologically relevant terms as to why one would hold the opinion that implantation somehow equals conception. At fertilization, or conception, new DNA has been formed. The cell has already started cleavage, or cell division, before the conceptus is implanted in the uterus.

He’d have been wiser to make the theological argument as to when the child has a soul, but then he couldn’t even attempt to make a smoke screen on the Catholic teaching, as it is quite clear.
 
A human embryo must first exist before it can become implanted in the uterus. Conception first, then implantation. Implantation does nothing to make the embryo human; that occurs when the sperm and egg unite to form a new and genetically distinct individual.

The pro-death camp has no qualms about trying to muddy the biological waters in order to sow confusion.

Further, in funding embryonic stem cell research and neglecting to fund adult stem cell research, the pro-death camp, which includes the president, is following the least promising of scientific avenues of stem cell research.
 
CatholicCid said:
CI’ve never heard such descriptions before (that conception occurs at implantation).

r.
Click to expand...
This manipulation of scientific language is something that has been promoted by pro-choice groups and pharmaceutical manufacturers since the mid-70’s when research started to show how the pill acts as an abortifacient.
 
This is a no brainer. There are thousands of pregnancies that take place within the tubes, not in the uterus. The person is truly pregnant; therefore, there is true conception.

JR 🙂
 
JR and the others before all have the right idea. This author, Arroyo, has turned me off the the Washington Post. Scientists have concluded that human life begins with conception – not implantation. That’s been settled. As for the soul, Fr. Pavone says that the theological question of soul doesn’t pertain to the debate. The embryo is human and it’s life is ended. That is murder pure and simple.
 
The issues strike me as ever complicating.
I first existed upon fertilization. Go back in time from my 50+ years and the first time I’m me is fertilization. That applies to all of us. That’s the easy one.

What of cells that are never in a medium where they can develop? We agree: Adult stem cells are NOT persons today. Why? They are not developing into distinct humans.

We agree: Non-stem cells are not persons. Why? because they do not develop into distinct humans.

What of the artificially “harvested” eggs and sperm that are in the petri dish? In a petri dish they cannot develop into distinct humans. They have all the DNA and are capable of same in the right environment, but in a dish, it cannot happen. In addition there is scientific evidence that additional factors are needed for development. But, you say, those zygotes CAN develop if replaced in a womb.

We know the zygotes in the petri dish MIGHT develop if replaced in the womb. But many do not. Was that because they simply died naturally, or were they deprived or lacking some necessay pre-requisite? If lacking a pre-requisite then they may not be persons in the first place - like an egg or sperm is not because it lacks something, n’est-ce pas?

Technology MAY develop until we don’t need wombs and fetal stem cells could be “grown”. Does that change the analysis? Is each fetal stem cell then a whole human being?

What about engineered adult stem cells that might be turned on into developing cells that could lead to adults? Would all Adult stem cells thus have to be treated as persons?

What if technology develops further so that all living cells could be manipulated to grow and become adults? Would all cells be separate persons at that point? So much for surgery!!

The list goes on and the complications multiply. The suggestions as to technological developments are hardly pure fancy, either. Thank God the Church is struggling with these variations and questions today - since tomorrow they will have to be answered. Right now the Church’s position is clear and, IMHO, right. However, at the limits of technology confusing and disturbing questions await us - with possibly unclear answers.
 
Sperm plus egg equals person.
It doesn’t matter if it happens in the mother’s womb, a petri dish or on Mars.
When they come together biochemical change occurs which makes a distinct person.
Whether that person dies at one day after conception or 100 years is simply a matter of time. Your age does not change whether or not you are a human.
 
MariaTheresa said:
Sperm plus egg equals person.
It doesn’t matter if it happens in the mother’s womb, a petri dish or on Mars.
When they come together biochemical change occurs which makes a distinct person.
Whether that person dies at one day after conception or 100 years is simply a matter of time. Your age does not change whether or not you are a human.
Click to expand...
And if it’s not a sperm and egg? What if it’s an adult stem cell that technology can cause to develop into an adult? At what point is that a human? At what point ISN"T it a human? What of non-stem cells that technology can get turned into developing stem cells? What if it’s a fetal stem cell broken off from the blastocyst without killing the other cells - how is that different from amputation? No 'sperm and egg" there. Cells other than zygotes are soon to have the capability through artificial means of growing into adults - what are the implications of that?

And IF it becomes clear - as it seems to be happening - that mere fertilization (egg + sperm) is NOT enough to make a “distinct person” but only part of one or a non-developing one - that is other chemicals are needed that are not naturally outside the body - then what?

The implications are all swirling. The answer may seem clear now - but that’s because cutting edge biology is not well known. As I said above, I believe the Church has it right - but changing information and technology will push it greatly.
 
Journeying_Jude said:
JR and the others before all have the right idea. This author, Arroyo, has turned me off the the Washington Post. Scientists have concluded that human life begins with conception – not implantation. That’s been settled. As for the soul, Fr. Pavone says that the theological question of soul doesn’t pertain to the debate. The embryo is human and it’s life is ended. That is murder pure and simple.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
johnnykins said:
And if it’s not a sperm and egg? What if it’s an adult stem cell that technology can cause to develop into an adult? At what point is that a human? At what point ISN"T it a human? What of non-stem cells that technology can get turned into developing stem cells? What if it’s a fetal stem cell broken off from the blastocyst without killing the other cells - how is that different from amputation? No 'sperm and egg" there. Cells other than zygotes are soon to have the capability through artificial means of growing into adults - what are the implications of that?
Click to expand...
Creating a human being in that fasion is beyond immoral. To a “God help us all” degree.
And IF it becomes clear - as it seems to be happening - that mere fertilization (egg + sperm) is NOT enough to make a “distinct person” but only part of one or a non-developing one - that is other chemicals are needed that are not naturally outside the body - then what?
Click to expand...
Well, that’s more than likely the case, that more chemicals not found outside the body are needed in the process, but that doesn’t change much. I would imagine that would strenghten the Catholic viewpoint more than anything. Certainly does not negate the child being a distinct person.
 
averheyen said:
Creating a human being in that fasion is beyond immoral. To a “God help us all” degree.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but it’s happening. It is indeed “A Brave New World” world we’re living in. And evil or not, we’re going to have to deal with the consequences.
Well, that’s more than likely the case, that more chemicals not found outside the body are needed in the process, but that doesn’t change much. I would imagine that would strenghten the Catholic viewpoint more than anything. Certainly does not negate the child being a distinct person.
Click to expand...
It potentially changes a great deal because it does impact the issue of when one becomes oneself. That is it calls into question in a very real way whether mere fertilization is sufficient, much in the same way that years ago questions surrounding heart development and function, movement or other milestones are the defining point. My god, what if they are ever successful with parthenogenesis of human beings? The implications are staggering. It impacts the issue of exactly when does one become a distinct person. Agreed it has nothing to do with whether a person is a person. It’s critical, however, to determining when one becomes a person.

As to whether it would strengthen the Catholic viewpoint or not, I’m unsure. I hope it would, but I fear it will undermine the Catholic position.
 
johnnykins said:
As to whether it would strengthen the Catholic viewpoint or not, I’m unsure. I hope it would, but I fear it will undermine the Catholic position.
Click to expand...
The Catholic position is clear because it is Truth. It can’t be undermined. Secular society has hedged its bets by making “personhood” a seemingly viable argument, but really personhood is irrelevant. Truth is becoming irrelevant these days too. 😦
 
Jennifer123 said:
This manipulation of scientific language is something that has been promoted by pro-choice groups and pharmaceutical manufacturers since the mid-70’s when research started to show how the pill acts as an abortifacient.
Click to expand...
The argument is advanced because so many embryos do not implant themselves. .Sothe analogy is drawn with the man ova and sperm that are “fruitless.” In my opinion, however, the newly conceived child is more and more regarded as a “thing” because scientists are allow to treat it as a thing to be manipulated. When sperm and ova can be mixed in a petri dish to produce a embryo, it is hard to think of the embryo as a human person. It is like mixing chemicals. Indeed, that is how the cell is regarded. we think of living beings as reducible to chemical combinations. Never mind the underlying complexity of things like DNA or even the overarching “laws.” that essentially take the matter out of the hands of the scientists. Itis hubris," Big time," as Cheny used to say.
 
Jennifer123 said:
The Catholic position is clear because it is Truth. It can’t be undermined. Secular society has hedged its bets by making “personhood” a seemingly viable argument, but really personhood is irrelevant. Truth is becoming irrelevant these days too. 😦
Click to expand...
Well, it starts by dealing with “legal personhood,” which is a flexible term. For instance, under “international laws,” gnerally speaking, only “states” are persons. Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of their legal personality in orderr to subject them to the willing of their female parent, at least until birth.

The basic meaning of “person,” however, is “human being.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top