Who would you save - 1000 Blastocysts or 1 Baby?

[Quackers]

Such questions are like asking which of your children you would allow to die.

Silly logic.

:clapping:

 

[Sabda]

I’m sorry, that simply is not true. In addition to St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. we have Papal authority. For example, Pope Innocent III ruled in a case involving a monk and his lover. At that time, the term “animated” seems to have been adopted. At the beginning of the 13th century, he reiterated the distinction and set the time of ensoulment at “quickening”.

Pope Gregory XIV reaffirmed the “quickening” test in 1591, adding a hard deadline of just over 16 weeks.

Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between “fetus animutus” and “fetus inanimatus” in 1869. But, he did not remove the prior teaching on delayed ensoulment. Quite the opposite, he stated that early in development, the fetus almost certainly was not animated, but that it did not matter because before then it was “anticipated murder”. The Catechism actually continued to carry the “animated” distinction until around 1913 (I’d have to check that date, but it was definately the 20th century)…

Sorry to go on an on. I became interested in the subject when it struck close to home and have now been studying it for a number of years. It seems to upset some Catholics, but I actually think that, in context, our history enhances our ‘pro-life’ credentials.

I had someone in a debate on another board state that the Church had changed it’s teachings on this so I did a little digging. What I found was, like you said, they were not sure when a baby received it’s soul from God. Abortion was always considered wrong but the degree of sin varied depending on what stage of pregnancy the woman was in. If the baby had not received his/her soul than the abortion was not considered mortal but venial. Unfortunately they did not have the wonderful inventions such as the ultrasound that we have today.

As the saying goes the devil is in the details.

 

[timotheos]

A hospital has caught on fire. You have a choice between saving one seven-day-old baby or a 1000 blastocysts. Who do you save?

Terrible question, as others have pointed out. You create a situation based on a pre-existing evil, then add another evil (fire) and an innocent (baby), and then allow for one mutually exclusive choice, to trip up Catholics in the moral dilemma. Reminds me of stories of certain Pharisees and their “questions”. Why not get right to the point, with an apples-to-apples choice? How about, a hospital has caught on fire. You have a choice between saving a woman and her seven-day-old baby, and a woman whose pregnancy test has just turned positive. Who do you save?

A: To h*ll with choice. You do your best to save all of them, even if you may die in the process.

-Tim

 

[Loren_1of6]

This is an absurd question

.

So the question ought to be, What in the name of all that is sacred are one thousand miniature babies doing outside their mothers’ wombs?!

Research.

I want to know what kind of research these babies are doing, and how their parents managed to get blessed with such precocious offspring. My oldest is 14 and he’s not anywhere near doing research in a hospital setting.

 

[D317]

Shouldn’t the question be…

[sign]
True of False: do you still beat your spouse?
[/sign]

Or perhaps some other ludicrous proposition.

 

[Daddums]

I would be careful using that as sarcasm, since it matches Jewish abortion beliefs at the time of Jesus. Abortion was mostly prohibited, because the fetus was a ‘potential human person’, but you did not become a Nefesh, a human, until birth. Basically, first breath. We see this theme in the Old Testament (God breathing life into Adam).

Our Catholic beliefs are not that much different. For about 1400 years we accepted a concept of delayed ensoulment, generally around the ‘quickening’, first movement. Prior to that, abortion was wrong, but not murder, since no soul was believed present.

In extending our understanding of “right to life” we did not formally reject this teaching. We still hold that each of us receives a soul, uniquely created by God, and that the soul is not mutable or divisable. Since fertlized zygotes sometimes do things like divide into two people or become uterine cysts, it seems unlikely that ensoulment occurs at fertilization.

I know that this can make people angry, but it is our teaching. See the Church’s Declaration on Procurred Abortion, footnote 19. We do not argue that ensoulment inarguably occurs at fertilization, we argue that it is irrelevant, since the fertilized zygote still represents a potential human person.

In other words, we don’t dispute that the line between a mother’s tissue and a baby’s is blurry, we argue that we must error on the side of life and that fertilization is the clearest first hurdle towards full personhood.

Did my post come off sarcastic? I’m dissapointed. I was going for out and out mockery. There is very little danger that a pro-choicer will try to defend a position on when human life begins no less try to do so on religious grounds. The truth is that the pro-choice side does not have a position on the subject or at least one they have the guts to come out and defend. Thirty-four years ago Bill Baird, one of the founding fathers of the pro-choice movement told me his position on when life begins (after a long anti-Catholic tirade). It was, “When the mother decides.” If anyone wants to come here and try to defend that position, they are welcome to do so.

You make a good point about erring on the side of life. It was making that point to Mr. Baird that set him off at me.

Daddums

 

[mschrank]

I’d save the baby because the blastocysts are just parts of their mothers’ bodies and there is no reason to save body parts.

Daddums

You might want to read a biology textbook. LOL.

 

[Daddums]

You might want to read a biology textbook. LOL.

Not if I wanted to avoid backing up my statement with any factual information.

Daddums

 

[CuriousInIL]

A hospital has caught on fire. You have a choice between saving one seven-day-old baby or a 1000 blastocysts. Who do you save?

Well if it is a Catholic hospital then the 1000 are safely within the wombs of their 1000 (or so–a few fewer becuase some are probably twins) mothers so I would start ushering the 1000 mothers and their unborn babies out of the hospital and have one of them grab the seven-day-old on her way out. So, 2002 safe (1000 unborn babies, 1000 mothers, 1 seven-day-old and me). Oh, I would try to get other patients, doctors, nurses and other staff out as well.

 

[deb1]

Well if it is a Catholic hospital then the 1000 are safely within the wombs of their 1000 (or so–a few fewer becuase some are probably twins) mothers so I would start ushering the 1000 mothers and their unborn babies out of the hospital and have one of them grab the seven-day-old on her way out. So, 2002 safe (1000 unborn babies, 1000 mothers, 1 seven-day-old and me). Oh, I would try to get other patients, doctors, nurses and other staff out as well.

:doh2: This is so obvious. Why didn’t I think of this.

 

[surfinpure]

Well if it is a Catholic hospital then the 1000 are safely within the wombs of their 1000 (or so–a few fewer becuase some are probably twins) mothers so I would start ushering the 1000 mothers and their unborn babies out of the hospital and have one of them grab the seven-day-old on her way out. So, 2002 safe (1000 unborn babies, 1000 mothers, 1 seven-day-old and me). Oh, I would try to get other patients, doctors, nurses and other staff out as well.

Exactly! Problem solved. :clapping:

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

Burning hospital…1000 blastocysts…1 baby…burning hospital…



That’s easy!
I’d use the 1,000 *cold, liquid * blastocysts to put out the fire!

sorry…sorry…it sort of just came out…sorry…

*but, *it is a statement of where I stand…even if a very crude one.

 

[KathleenElsie]

A hospital has caught on fire. You have a choice between saving one seven-day-old baby or a 1000 blastocysts. Who do you save?

My answer:

Since I would expect blastocysts to be inside the mothers where they belong then the mothers would be the ones to care for them and remove them from harms way. (This sure would be a busy hospital under these circumstances).

The seven day old baby would only be in the hospital because of birth complications since babies generally go home within 48 hours. So as this is the only child that needs rescued so I would choose the born child.

 

[surfinpure]

In nearly three years, this is the most offensive post I have ever seen on CAF, bar none.

Burning hospital…1000 blastocysts…1 baby…burning hospital…



That’s easy!
I’d use the 1,000 *cold, liquid *blastocysts to put out the fire!

sorry…sorry…it sort of just came out…sorry…

*but, *it is a statement of where I stand…even if a very crude one.

 

[mapleoak]

I had someone in a debate on another board state that the Church had changed it’s teachings on this so I did a little digging. What I found was, like you said, they were not sure when a baby received it’s soul from God.

Be careful not to be misled though. Delayed ensoulment was NEVER a teaching of the Church.

 

[SoCalRC]

Be careful not to be misled though. Delayed ensoulment was NEVER a teaching of the Church.

So Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV were only kidding? It was in the Catechism until 1913.

Even when Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction he noted that the teaching was “inarguably” true, but not morally relevant. This is the same stance that the Church took when it released the Decree on Procurred Abortions in 1973.

 

[mapleoak]

So Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV were only kidding? It was in the Catechism until 1913.

Can you quote the teaching that says that the soul is NOT created at the time of conception. I am not looking for whether a disagreement or lack of understanding existed, but the teaching that definitevly states that the soul is not infused at the moment of conception and held as a Church teaching binding on the faithful.

Even when Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction he noted that the teaching was “inarguably” true, but not morally relevant.

what distinction? My reply was that the Church never taught delayed ensoulment.

 

[SoCalRC]

Can you quote the teaching that says that the soul is NOT created at the time of conception. I am not looking for whether a disagreement or lack of understanding existed, but the teaching that definitevly states that the soul is not infused at the moment of conception and held as a Church teaching binding on the faithful.

I’m not looking to argue either. From a Catholic point of view, it is a matter of our beliefs about our souls that is the issue. A good place to get a start would be to read the Catechism, CCC 362-368.

The crux is that we accept both CCC 364 and CCC 366. CCC 364 indicates that our bodies are “animated” by our souls. CCC 366 makes reference to our souls each being a unique creation by God. The footnote then takes us to HUMANI GENERIS, which explains in much greater detail.

In brief, we are Creationists, not Traducianists or Generationalists. We are not created by our parents and our soul does not somehow flow or divide from them. Each of us has a soul that is a unique creation by God, which is immortal and indivisable (see also CCC 1005).

Since we each receive a soul, uniquely created by God, we have always reasoned that we must be ensouled at some point. The most commonly held belief was that was at quickening, first movement felt by the mother. Part of this was observation. We are clearly human when we are moving and an obvious human shape. When we die, we lose human form. Also, we have lots of natural miscarriages now (some estimate that about 50% of all fertilized zygotes are naturally aborted), and in ancient times, early miscarriages were even higher. So the thinking was that something was wrong with the vessel, so God did not ensoul it.

As we first learned of the sperm and ovum, and sperm appeared to exhibit movement. In early microscopes some people claimed to even see tiny human forms. This led to more theologians embracing a concept of simultaneous animation. However, the Church never formally embraced it. Pope Pius IX tightened our prohibitions on early abortion, but explained that he was just being prudent.

The current Church position is that we know we are ensouled, but we just do not know when. For example, here is the Church’s declaration on Procurred Abortion:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

(Which seems to be from 1974, I don’t know why I recalled it as being 1973)

Let’s look at footnote 19:

1. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.

So, as of 1974, there is no specific prohibtion about believing in simultaneous animation - BUT, that belief cannot abridge our belief as creationists. That is, it would be heretical to believe that, say, part of a soul splits off from each parent and somehow combines and grows. Or that one soul is created along with a fertilized zygote, but then somehow divides when the zygote divides into twins.

As we learn more about human development the theological shift appears to be somewhat away from simultaneous animation, for basically similiar reasons as the Catholics that came before us. As mentioned, lots and lots of fertlized zygotes fail to implant, or abort very early in fetal development. Some also wind up as things like uterine cysts, complete with DNA that is unique from the mother. The idea that every single cell organism expelled from a mother’s body, or every cancerous cyst or mole with alternate DNA ever removed will either rise and be reuinited with it’s soul (CCC 366, 1005), or suffer for the lack of Baptism is, I think, a little disturbing.

Still, CCC 997 talks about our souls being reunited with our “glorified” bodies, so my squimishness could well be misplaced.

I hope that helps.
Peace

 

[ribozyme]

Did my post come off sarcastic? I’m dissapointed. I was going for out and out mockery. There is very little danger that a pro-choicer will try to defend a position on when human life begins no less try to do so on religious grounds. The truth is that the pro-choice side does not have a position on the subject or at least one they have the guts to come out and defend. Thirty-four years ago Bill Baird, one of the founding fathers of the pro-choice movement told me his position on when life begins (after a long anti-Catholic tirade). It was, “When the mother decides.” If anyone wants to come here and try to defend that position, they are welcome to do so.

Human life unequivocally begins at conception, but embryos and blastocysts are obviously not a “person” using a utilitarian framework, so dispose of them or to use them in research. According to Singer, an important question regarding the blastocysts is whether they have interests or one can use the classic invokation of Bentham and ask whether they can suffer.

 

[mapleoak]

Human life unequivocally begins at conception, but embryos and blastocysts are obviously not a “person” using a utilitarian framework, so dispose of them or to use them in research. According to Singer, an important question regarding the blastocysts is whether they have interests or one can use the classic invokation of Bentham and ask whether they can suffer.

Now when you are submersed deep in the nocturnal abode the question may be pondered whether you have interests.