The Soul of an Embryonic Stem Cell

  • Thread starter Thread starter averheyen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In the OP’s link, Arroyo says, "After admitting that there were sound arguments for both moments, they recommended that the Church take the “safer” position of a soul to the embryo, rather than the fetus. But “safer,” tutior in Latin, means that the other position is still “safe.” "

One would notice the wrong logic that this man is treading. Granting that there was really such recommendation, it would not necessarily follow that the other option is “safe”. For example, one is in front of two abysses that one he must have to go into. The other is lighted a little, while the other is not. One would decide that the one which has light is safer than the other. Does it necessarily follow that the other abyss is safe? No, it does not.
 
CatholicCid said:
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).
.
Click to expand...
Conception takes place before implantation. It is because of conception that implantation takes place, not the other way around. The problem with many birth control pills is that they are abortifacts in that they prevent a fertilized egg, the embryo, to properly achieve implantation in the uterus so as to develop into a baby capable of being viable outside the womb.

If anyone tells you otherwise, it is against all scientific information available and against Church teaching. Beware of them.
 
RobbyS said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Although it is true that the person, the human being is precious to God, such preciousness does not limit to persons only, or to those who are, by law, qualified to be called a person. Life itself, that is the human life, is precious to God. That is why Jesus said, I came that you may have life, and have it more abundantly. Jesus is the confirmation of the preciousness of human life in the eyes of God.

And the Church recognized this truth. The Church says, *372 "Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work."247 *
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm#I

It is therefore clear that it is not to be waited that one acquires personality or personhood
in order to be given protection. Protection should be afforded not only to those who have acquired personality in accordance with civil law, but to human life itself. And human life starts to exist the moment the egg and the sperm successfully meet and unite.

But respect for the preciousness of human life is demanded not only to that which already exists, but even also to the process of transmitting it. Man should not perform an act intended to hinder the transmission of life, or an act which would disregard the “oneness of the flesh” of the wife and the husband.
 
RobbyS said:
The basic meaning of “person,” however, is “human being.”
Click to expand...
That is debatable, as in philosophical, which is why as pro-lifers we need to assert it is an irrelevant argument. Jews and slaves were once seen as less than human too.
 
RobbyS said:
The argument is advanced because so many embryos do not implant themselves. .
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand you here. The science has been, and still is, clear. Life begins at conception, not implantation. Many people want us to believe life begins at implantation because of the implications of the pill being an abortifacient. But that is incorrect and unscientific. Human life begins when sperm meets egg, and then at that point a whole unique human being is created.
 
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 check out Wiki - on Parthenogenesis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

HUMAN embryos were created pre-2004 by parthenogenesis. This is a form of asexual reproduction that doesn’t need a male.

The moral and ethical issues are staggering. You can say that it shouldn’t be done - but it has been done, is being done and will be done. So you can’t hide behind a rote recitation of what is TRUTH. Thank God the Church is already aware of these things and trying to deal with them.

Is such an embryo a person? If so, when does she (it’s always female in this process) become a person? Fertilization never occurs as such. There is no sperm - and maybe no “egg” per se.

I tell you we are heading into uncharted ethical and moral territory with major implications to all sorts of things including a change in what we call life. The Church will be pushed harder and harder - legitimately, I might add - to come to grips with these issues as they develop.

And if you don’t think the Church’s position cannot be undermined, I really think you have not been paying attention to morality in society in last few generations. The Church indeed has TRUTH - but society cares little for Truth and even Catholic laymen, nuns, brothers, priests and Bishops have been, are and will be seduced by society.
 
Jennifer123 said:
I’m not sure I understand you here. The science has been, and still is, clear. Life begins at conception, not implantation. Many people want us to believe life begins at implantation because of the implications of the pill being an abortifacient. But that is incorrect and unscientific. Human life begins when sperm meets egg, and then at that point a whole unique human being is created.
Click to expand...
Actually the point is that science is not clear on when a new human life begins. That has been developing for some time now. In the normal process, a new human life begins no earlier than penetration of the egg wall by a sperm. Ignoring the whole other area of non-natural reproduction, science has been learning more and more about early zygote development etc. At the extremes there are issues. As a practical matter in the normal human reproduction system, there is no practical way to separate the time from sperm penetration to a point clearly within the realm of a new human. However, in the laboratory these matters are being measured, understood and tinkered with.

I full agree that the Church has it right, but it will be pushed and it will need to understand the issues and science or it will be ignored and criticized if not turned into a laughing stock.

The world is sailing into some dangerous shoals and the Bark of Peter, while offering safety, still needs to be sailed properly.
 
johnnykins said:
Actually the point is that science is not clear on when a new human life begins. That has been developing for some time now. In the normal process, a new human life begins no earlier than penetration of the egg wall by a sperm. Ignoring the whole other area of non-natural reproduction, science has been learning more and more about early zygote development etc. .
Click to expand...
A zygote is a human being. And yes, science is clear about human life beginning when sperm meets egg - fertilization:
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
 
johnnykins said:
Is such an embryo a person? If so, when does she (it’s always female in this process) become a person? Fertilization never occurs as such. There is no sperm - and maybe no “egg” per se.

.
Click to expand...
An embryo is a human being, as it has the required number of chromosomes (plus or minus) for the human species, regardless of conception. A person is a human being. Have you met a person who wasn’t a human being? What science is doing is enslaving certain members of the human race for scientific research and the sale of their body parts. If they aren’t destroyed due to horrific genetic abnormalities first through these cloning processes.

It is irrelevant whether society wants truth or not, it exists and our dignity as persons is inherent, it is not dependant on the generosity, or lack thereof, of the state. The Church will continue to declare this regardless of scientific “innovation”. And most likely persecuted for it.
 
Does anyone have any info on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment? I’ve heard that since the promise the President made to lift the ban on stem cell research he had this other 1996 HHS amendment go into effect. I think it may state that a human embryo cannot be created, experimented on or destroyed. The President’s hands are tied until Sept. Diana DeGette a Col. (D) Rep. threatens to rescind Dickey-Wicker.:rolleyes: Any comments?
 
PauletteJV0114 said:
Does anyone have any info on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment? I’ve heard that since the promise the President made to lift the ban on stem cell research he had this other 1996 HHS amendment go into effect. I think it may state that a human embryo cannot be created, experimented on or destroyed. The President’s hands are tied until Sept. Diana DeGette a Col. (D) Rep. threatens to rescind Dickey-Wicker.:rolleyes: Any comments?
Click to expand...
I found this article on it:
ncregister.com/daily/obamas_clone-and-kill_plan/

“President Obama’s March 9 statement, ‘we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,’ was a deliberate exercise in misdirection. Obama supports human cloning to create human embryos for the purpose of using them in research that will kill them. When he says ‘for human reproduction,’ he means that he wants legislation to ensure that no human clone is actually allowed to be born. He is opening the door to federal support for a ‘clone-and-kill’ policy on human cloning, which is the same position he took when he was in the U.S. Senate."

There was also a recent thread on Obama’s cloning statements:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=318475&highlight=obama+clone
 
Jennifer123 said:
I found this article on it:
ncregister.com/daily/obamas_clone-and-kill_plan/

“President Obama’s March 9 statement, ‘we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction,’ was a deliberate exercise in misdirection. Obama supports human cloning to create human embryos for the purpose of using them in research that will kill them. When he says ‘for human reproduction,’ he means that he wants legislation to ensure that no human clone is actually allowed to be born. He is opening the door to federal support for a ‘clone-and-kill’ policy on human cloning, which is the same position he took when he was in the U.S. Senate."

There was also a recent thread on Obama’s cloning statements:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=318475&highlight=obama+clone
Click to expand...
Obama’s comments are a beautiful example of Washington double speak. Just like, “95% of you will have no income tax increase”. But watch out for all the others.
 
Jennifer123 said:
A zygote is a human being. And yes, science is clear about human life beginning when sperm meets egg - fertilization:
princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

“Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote.”
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
Click to expand...
Wonderful - except in parthenogenisis there is NO SPERM! Likewise techniques that are generally termed cloning use no sperm. What of them? I guess you are saying any embryo that has not resulted from direct fertilization is NOT a human being. Or are you saying every human cell except gametes are separate human beings? All sort of problems with that

As to the state of developmental science - we’ve learned a great deal since 1996, just as we’ve learned a great deal since Galen.

Further - BY YOUR DEFINITION - does human life begin at penetration or when the DNA merge? I realize that I’m getting down to very early issues - but with technology they will be come more problematic. Sorry.
 
johnnykins said:
Try this: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html

And why not just noodle around the internet yourself - it’s pretty clear that parthenogenisis and other techniques of non-sexual reporduction are well underway so that snide dismissal of what’s happening in science belies a fundamentalist ignorance of stunning proportion.
Click to expand...
Parthogenisis would be ok with non-humans, but not with humans, because the method in procreating humans is specially designed by God, that it should be through the becoming "one flesh" of the man and the woman. Therefore, a being resulting not from “one flesh” (sexual union) could be said to be not human. But then, even animals deserve a degree of “respect” due to them.
 
johnnykins said:
Wonderful - except in parthenogenisis there is NO SPERM! Likewise techniques that are generally termed cloning use no sperm. What of them? I guess you are saying any embryo that has not resulted from direct fertilization is NOT a human being. Or are you saying every human cell except gametes are separate human beings? All sort of problems with that.
Click to expand...
That is not what I’ve said at all. I’ve said that life begins at fertilization and an embryo is a human being.
johnnykins said:
As to the state of developmental science - we’ve learned a great deal since 1996, just as we’ve learned a great deal since Galen.

Further - BY YOUR DEFINITION - does human life begin at penetration or when the DNA merge? I realize that I’m getting down to very early issues - but with technology they will be come more problematic. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It’s not “my definition”, it’s scientific fact. Life begins at conception. Sperm or no sperm it is still a human embryo and should never be killed for the sake of scientific research or for generation of body parts, or for whatever science deems necessary.

My point is, has been and always will be that regardless of scientific development, human beings have inherent dignity which the Church, in its wisdom, has consistently proclaimed throughout the ages.

The problem with these advances is that we are reducing human beings to mere commodities.

Oh, and by the way, I am not a fundamentalist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top