Zygote is a Human Being - Scientific Fact

[raikou]

I’m amazed that some people say that there’s no scientific concensus on when human beings begin. I’d say that there are just people who ignore scientific facts, conjuring unscientific reasons to deny that a zygote (the product of the human sperm and the egg at fertization) is a human being.

No biologist would deny that the zygote is living, or human, or would say that it is not an entire organism. If the zygote is an entire living human organism, then it follows that it is already a living human being. If it’s not, then what is it?

Those who approve of abortion either claim that some innocent living human beings can be killed or they are entirely ignorant/in denial of scientific facts.

Do you agree?

 

[Spider42]

Well, the Church teaches that a zygote is human life and incredibly precious because it is a potential human being. The precise moment of ensoulment is not known:

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

See footnote 19.

This limit of or understanding of God’s miraculous gift of a soul was reaffirmed here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

The scientific view is basically the same. It is living human tissue, but not always and forever a seperate living organism. Take one example, some zygote end up as uterine cysts. This cell structure has DNA unique from the woman, but is not remotely a human person or even clearly a seperate organism.

Using the Church’s position and biologies position on the zygote, it would be completely licit for the uterine cyst to be removed. In fact, since they are generally removed for either cancer or fertility problems, the removal would be generally considered a promotion of Catholic values.

But if we go farther than the Church or biology and argue that every zygote is a full fledged human being, the situation becomes morally murkier. At best, removing the cyst would be murder absolved by double or ‘unintended’ effect. But those arguments, which many Catholics mistakenly take for doctrine, are morally slippery and seldom promoted by the Church.

 

[Della]

Well, the Church teaches that a zygote is human life and incredibly precious because it is a potential human being. The precise moment of ensoulment is not known:

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

See footnote 19.

This limit of or understanding of God’s miraculous gift of a soul was reaffirmed here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

The scientific view is basically the same. It is living human tissue, but not always and forever a seperate living organism. Take one example, some zygote end up as uterine cysts. This cell structure has DNA unique from the woman, but is not remotely a human person or even clearly a seperate organism.

Using the Church’s position and biologies position on the zygote, it would be completely licit for the uterine cyst to be removed. In fact, since they are generally removed for either cancer or fertility problems, the removal would be generally considered a promotion of Catholic values.

But if we go farther than the Church or biology and argue that every zygote is a full fledged human being, the situation becomes morally murkier. At best, removing the cyst would be murder absolved by double or ‘unintended’ effect. But those arguments, which many Catholics mistakenly take for doctrine, are morally slippery and seldom promoted by the Church.

If a cyst must be removed, and therefore an unintended abortion is the result, it is allowable because the intention was not to end a life but to save a life. It’s then up to the woman, her family and her doctors to decide what is the best course for her. It’s not that the zygote is not human, it’s a question of why the cyst is removed.

The latest agrument coming from the pro-abortion side is to concede that the zygote is a human being but the woman’s “right to choose” is trumps the child’s right to life. So, they admit it’s murder, but justifiable. Now, if that isn’t a despicable position to hold I don’t know what is.

 

[JimG]

Ensoulment has nothing to do with it. It always amuses me to hear pro-abortionists use ensoulment as an argument.

A zygote is a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species. It’s how we all had our beginning. Human beings do have a beginning, and this is it. After that, it’s just development and growth.

 

[Giants]

Ensoulment has nothing to do with it. It always amuses me to hear pro-abortionists use ensoulment as an argument.

A zygote is a new and genetically distinct individual of the human species. It’s how we all had our beginning. Human beings do have a beginning, and this is it. After that, it’s just development and growth.

Unless you’re arguing that the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception, I don’t understand on what grounds you claim an abortion at this early state is a moral wrong. There’s no nervous system, so no capacity for suffering. A 3-5 day old embryo contains roughly 150 cells. For the sake of comparison, there are about 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly you’d kill without a second thought.

 

[raikou]

Well, the Church teaches that a zygote is human life and incredibly precious because it is a potential human being. The precise moment of ensoulment is not known:

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

See footnote 19.

This limit of or understanding of God’s miraculous gift of a soul was reaffirmed here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

The scientific view is basically the same. It is living human tissue, but not always and forever a seperate living organism. Take one example, some zygote end up as uterine cysts. This cell structure has DNA unique from the woman, but is not remotely a human person or even clearly a seperate organism.

Using the Church’s position and biologies position on the zygote, it would be completely licit for the uterine cyst to be removed. In fact, since they are generally removed for either cancer or fertility problems, the removal would be generally considered a promotion of Catholic values.

But if we go farther than the Church or biology and argue that every zygote is a full fledged human being, the situation becomes morally murkier. At best, removing the cyst would be murder absolved by double or ‘unintended’ effect. But those arguments, which many Catholics mistakenly take for doctrine, are morally slippery and seldom promoted by the Church.

Thanks for the links. So in the eyes of the Church, what is uncertain is whether the zygote is a complete human being in terms of having body and soul. Nonetheless, she argues that it be recognized as a person because 1) it already has a real potential to become a human and 2) the probability that it is human is reasonable and cannot be proven otherwise, and it is immoral to risk to murder a person (example: given the choice to bomb a building when there’s a good possibility that innocent people are inside, it is immoral to proceed)

But scientifically, the zygote is already a separate living human organism (at least in terms of the body). It is not a “part” of the mother genetically.

When you say cyst, is it an ectopic pregnancy or a hydatidiform mole? Component wise, the first is consistently human, the second is not.

 

[raikou]

Unless you’re arguing that the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception, I don’t understand on what grounds you claim an abortion at this early state is a moral wrong.

There’s no nervous system, so no capacity for suffering.
Do you mean it’s ok to kill anencephalic babies who were born without a brain? (they live for a few hours or days after birth) A comatose patient? A patient under anesthesia?

A 3-5 day old embryo contains roughly 150 cells. For the sake of comparison, there are about 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly you’d kill without a second thought.
You can’t compare a human to a fly. Even an animal as large as a mammoth can be killed for lunch. Cell number wasn’t the issue in this case.

 

[Giants]

Do you mean it’s ok to kill anencephalic babies who were born without a brain? (they live for a few hours or days after birth) A comatose patient? A patient under anesthesia?

A baby born “without a brain” is already dead. A patient under anesthesia has a working nervous system, as evidenced by the fact that the anesthesia is actually doing its job.

It isn’t just a question of the potential suffering of the patient. The sufferings of parents, friends, and those with emotional attachments must be considered. Not to mention the person who would be doing the killing.

You can’t compare a human to a fly. Even if an animal as large as a mammoth can be killed for lunch. Cell number wasn’t the issue in this case.

Well, I agree that you can’t compare a human zygote to a fly. That’s because, unless you’re arguing that the zygote as a soul worth caring about, you often visit more suffering on the world in killing a fly than you do by agreeing to terminate a week-old pregnancy.

 

[Della]

A baby born “without a brain” is already dead.

No, they do not have higher brain function, but they are alive–maybe not for long, but alive.

A patient under anesthesia has a working nervous system, as evidenced by the fact that the anesthesia is actually doing its job.

It isn’t just a question of the potential suffering of the patient. The sufferings of parents, friends, and those with emotional attachments must be considered. Not to mention the person who would be doing the killing.

None of these issues have anything to do with the identity of a zygote as a human being.

Well, I agree that you can’t compare a human zygote to a fly. That’s because, unless you’re arguing that the zygote as a soul worth caring about, you often visit more suffering on the world in killing a fly than you do by agreeing to terminate a week-old pregnancy.

You can’t be serious. Really? Whoa.

 

[JimG]

Unless you’re arguing that the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception, I don’t understand on what grounds you claim an abortion at this early state is a moral wrong. There’s no nervous system, so no capacity for suffering. A 3-5 day old embryo contains roughly 150 cells. For the sake of comparison, there are about 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly you’d kill without a second thought.

Of course a zygote is ensouled immediately. I simply find it irrelevant to the abortion debate, particularly if made by those who do not even believe in the existence of souls.

The key is, when does a new human being begin? And we all know from biology that is at conception. At human being is a human being, regardless of stage of development.

For the record, Catholic philosophy defines a soul as the animating principle of a body. Without a soul, the body cannot live. By definition, any human being is ensouled from the first moment of its existence. A body without a soul is dead.

But the Catholic Church makes no claims to embryological doctrine; that’s the business of embryology. The only reason there was ever a debate about “ensoulment” is because theologians were unsure about the facts of embryology. There is no longer a reason for uncertainty. Embryology has solved the problem of when a new human being begins. Catholic philosophy merely states that any human being has a soul. And that it is wrong to kill any innocent human being.

 

[Giants]

No, they do not have higher brain function, but they are alive–maybe not for long, but alive.

Then they have a brain. Thanks.

None of these issues have anything to do with the identity of a zygote as a human being.

I agree. I wasn’t addressing that question.

You can’t be serious. Really? Whoa.

Of course I’m serious. If you disagree, you need to explain on what basis an unsouled, 1-week old human zygote can suffer more than a fly with an actual, working nervous system.

 

[Giants]

Of course a zygote is ensouled immediately. I simply find it irrelevant to the abortion debate, particularly if made by those who do not even believe in the existence of souls.

The key is, when does a new human being begin? And we all know from biology that is at conception. At human being is a human being, regardless of stage of development.

For the record, Catholic philosophy defines a soul as the animating principle of a body. Without a soul, the body cannot live. By definition, any human being is ensouled from the first moment of its existence. A body without a soul is dead.

But the Catholic Church makes no claims to embryological doctrine; that’s the business of embryology. The only reason there was ever a debate about “ensoulment” is because theologians were unsure about the facts of embryology. There is no longer a reason for uncertainty. Embryology has solved the problem of when a new human being begins. Catholic philosophy merely states that any human being has a soul. And that it is wrong to kill any innocent human being.

It’s fine if you think the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception. But what puzzles me is your assertion that the presence of the soul is not relevant to the moral question of abortion. If the zygote has no consciousness or nervous, it has no capacity to experience anything, including suffering. If the soul is not operative here, then I don’t understand on what basis the consensual termination of a pregnancy at the zygote stage is immoral?

 

[JimG]

It’s fine if you think the zygote is ensouled immediately upon conception. But what puzzles me is your assertion that the presence of the soul is not relevant to the moral question of abortion. If the zygote has no consciousness or nervous, it has no capacity to experience anything, including suffering. If the soul is not operative here, then I don’t understand on what basis the consensual termination of a pregnancy at the zygote stage is immoral?

It’s immoral because it is the deliberate destruction of a new human being, a new individual of the human species distinct from its mother and father. Philosophically speaking, the soul is operative, because it is the animating principle of the body. But as a debating point it’s irrevelant because no one can show physically the presence of a soul (except by the fact that the body is alive.) So what’s the point of mentioning it?

We know when a new human being begins. Are we merely debating the point at which it’s okay to kill them? I say from conception onward. Any other point is purely arbitrary.

 

[Della]

Then they have a brain. Thanks.

They have a brain stem–you may want to read up on this a bit more. The higher brain is not necessary for automatic functions, but it is necessary for sustained life.

I agree. I wasn’t addressing that question.

Okay, So we can rule out these issues from the topic.

Of course I’m serious. If you disagree, you need to explain on what basis an unsouled, 1-week old human zygote can suffer more than a fly with an actual, working nervous system.

A person isn’t defined by what s/he may be able to suffer, but by the fact that s/he is biologically human. A zygote is a person from the instant of conception not when s/he can feel anything. So, yes, killing a zygote is far and away worse than killing a fly.

 

[Spider42]

If a cyst must be removed, and therefore an unintended abortion is the result, it is allowable because the intention was not to end a life but to save a life. It’s then up to the woman, her family and her doctors to decide what is the best course for her. It’s not that the zygote is not human, it’s a question of why the cyst is removed.

It’s actually a bit more complicated. See the second document from the CDF that I posted above.

Many Catholics assume that certain specific examples of double effect are actually Church doctrine, but that is generally not the case. For example, even now students at Catholic high schools often are taught that there is a moral difference in ectopic pregancies between a salpingostomy and salpingectomy. But that distinction has never been promoted by the Church iteself and has always had many critics.

Medicine has also long passed it by. If you look to the CHA or the National Catholic Bioethics Center you will see that the issue has become theologically murky indeed. Ectopic pregnancies are now detected and terminated before the mother is in any imminent danger, and modern medicine makes the likelihood of maternal death lower in general.

The problem is that for double effect to be licit, the consequences must either carry the same moral weight, or be reasonably unforeseen.

If we take the position that every zygote is a human person, not just human life, then removal for, say, the purposes of fertility, would generally not be licit. The procedure is not because the mother’s life is in danger, the procedure is because the mother desires children, but the procedure means death to the zygote, even though there is no existing mortal peril.

These sorts of cysts are often removed pre-emptively because they have a higher probability of becoming cancerous. Again, if the cyst is a human being, not simply human life, where is the moral symmetry? I’m killing you because there is an elevated chance you could put my health at risk some time in the future?

To be clear. I am in agreement with the Church’s position on the Human Embryo. That said, I would never presume to pass judgement on other Catholics who find themselves in difficult situations. My obligation is simply to try my best to love them all as I love myself.

My only point is that the Church’s position is nuanced (see the doctrinal instruction above) and that this nuance serves some important purposes. It keeps Church teaching from falling at odds with modern biology and it leaves some latitude for the individual moral conscience (a gift we each receive from God) in some of the most difficult moral and ethical situations that human beings can face.

 

[edwest2]

I’m amazed that some people say that there’s no scientific concensus on when human beings begin. I’d say that there are just people who ignore scientific facts, conjuring unscientific reasons to deny that a zygote (the product of the human sperm and the egg at fertization) is a human being.

No biologist would deny that the zygote is living, or human, or would say that it is not an entire organism. If the zygote is an entire living human organism, then it follows that it is already a living human being. If it’s not, then what is it?

Those who approve of abortion either claim that some innocent living human beings can be killed or they are entirely ignorant/in denial of scientific facts.

Do you agree?

It’s very simple.

1. Certain self-proclaimed elitists claim that there are too many people in the world so it’s OK to kill the unborn.
2. Certain elitists have proclaimed that allowing babies to be born to unwed mothers would increase the crime rate and add to the cost of incarceration.
3. Some radicals don’t believe in “facts.” They state that, “It’s my body” and so she can dispose of the (lie) “blob of tissue” or “it doesn’t look anything like a baby” when she feels like it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Giants]

It’s immoral because it is the deliberate destruction of a new human being, a new individual of the human species distinct from its mother and father. Philosophically speaking, the soul is operative, because it is the animating principle of the body. But as a debating point it’s irrevelant because no one can show physically the presence of a soul (except by the fact that the body is alive.) So what’s the point of mentioning it?

But philosophically, why is the deliberate destruction of a new human being, but one with no capacity to experience or suffer in any way, an immoral act? I understand you probably assume this is self-evidently the case, but even if it were, it would not preclude there being an objective basis for this view.

Most people in your position argue that the presence of the soul is what makes abortion immoral. I just find it curious that you disagree.

We know when a new human being begins. Are we merely debating the point at which it’s okay to kill them? I say from conception onward. Any other point is purely arbitrary.

Except that Catholic theology makes somewhat tortured use of language in order justify the taking of human life in certain circumstances. Taking another life for no good reason is considered “murder.” But taking another human life in defense of your own life is generally considered to be “killing,” and morally permissible.

 

[Giants]

They have a brain stem–you may want to read up on this a bit more. The higher brain is not necessary for automatic functions, but it is necessary for sustained life.

If I take away your brain stem, you’re dead. Even if you still have most of your brain left. There’s nothing I need to read up on here. If you’re alive, that means you have a brain, or enough of one to keep you alive.

A person isn’t defined by what s/he may be able to suffer, but by the fact that s/he is biologically human. A zygote is a person from the instant of conception not when s/he can feel anything. So, yes, killing a zygote is far and away worse than killing a fly.

Again, I’m not talking about what defines a person. I’m talking about the moral calculus of abortion. For a moral question to have any weight, it has to matter to at least one conscious system, In this case, either the fetus/embryo, or the mother, or the father, or anyone else with a credible emotional investment in the situation. The problem is, it can’t matter to the embryo, because the embryo is not (yet) a conscious system.

Asserting that abortion is immoral because a zygote is already a person doesn’t progress the argument at all.

 

[Spider42]

Ensoulment has nothing to do with it. It always amuses me to hear pro-abortionists use ensoulment as an argument.

I must admit, I’m bit startled by this remark. If you look carefully you will see that I pointed to two doctrinal notes from the Vatican. Are you seriously asserting that the Catholic church is pro-abortion?

I have benefited from an extensive education at several Catholic Universities and have never encounted any evidence that this is remotely true.

Of course a zygote is ensouled immediately.

This remark puzzles me even more. See the doctrinal notes above. The Church explicitly teaches that this mystery is not known. In dropping the distinction of the animated fetus in the papal bull “Apostolicae Sedis moderationi” in 1869, Pope Pius IX argued exactly the opposite, that the fetus was clearly not ensouled at conception.

The Magesterium has since pointed out the wisdom of this view. If ensoulment occurs at conception, then how would twins be addressed? We dogmatically hold that the soul is indivisible.

Are you really asserting that the Magisterium is incorrect and/or that you are privy to specific divine revelation for which the apostles are not privy? Or are you simply expressing your opinion that several popes and much of the modern Magisterium are wrong?

If it is the former, I am unable to discuss the matter with you. If it is the latter, I can only humbly suggest that you consider the Church’s instructions for licitly presenting alternate theological thought:

“Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.” - #27

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

 

[raikou]

The Magesterium has since pointed out the wisdom of this view. If ensoulment occurs at conception, then how would twins be addressed? We dogmatically hold that the soul is indivisible.

How about: One zygote has one soul. If the embryo divides, the other half will be ensouled by another soul. Conjoined twins have two souls whose body parts are conjoined.

If I read your link correctly, the Vatican also states that there’s a reasonable probability that the zygote is ensouled at conception and cannot be proven otherwise.