Zygote is a Human Being - Scientific Fact

[Spider42]

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?

Turn the question around. If I can do so utterly painlessly, why is it immoral for me to kill you?

Presumably you wouldn’t want me to kill you, but what is the moral reasoning?

Now take it a step further, would it be OK to painlessly kill a disabled child whose life expectancy is statistically short (ex. down syndrome)?

The key to understanding the Catholic position is a) we don’t know, b) life is a precious gift, and c) we do not judge.

We are prohibited by Jesus from making moral comparisons (judgements) between ourselves and others. We cannot argue that a person is poor, sick, or whatever and hence has a life that is of lesser value than ourselves or others.

We believe that life is an inalianable right that comes from God and cannot be licitly abridged by anyone except in very rare and difficult circumstances.

And we don’t know precisly when ensoulment occurs and we do not believe the question can be answered by science (see the doctrinal notes above). So we are morally required to error on the side of life.

Most humanists would not approve of infanticide. It is innocent, defensless life. We agree. We also believe that we cannot validly judge whose life is more important than anyone elses, so our teachings on begin/end life are where we typically diverge from many non Catholics.

I hope that helps. If you are really interested in Catholic bioethics, message me and I’ll give you some reading recommendations.

 

[Giants]

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.

What about human chimeras? When two embryos (presumably ensouled) fuse together into a single organism? What happens to the extra soul?

 

[edwest2]

"The Church’s perspective on this matter is sometimes characterized in these terms: “If we don’t know whether the early embryo is a person, we shouldn’t destroy it, in the same way that we shouldn’t shoot into a patch of dark bushes, because it might be a person making the rustling noises. Because there’s a chance the embryo is a person, we can’t risk destroying it.” This is a problematic summary of the Church’s position, however, because she actually embraces a much more forceful line of argumentation, namely: that we know exactly what is in the bushes, and therefore we cannot ever shoot. We know exactly what the embryo is, namely, a human being, a being that is clearly and unmistakably human. It is not a zebra type of being, a plant type of being or some other kind of being. This is a scientific affirmation which does not ultimately depend on religion, value systems, or imposing anything on anyone. It is a matter of simple empirical observation.

"All of us began as embryonic human beings, and such human beings are never to be instrumentalized for stem-cell extraction or other destructive ends. Hence the Church recognizes that we need not worrys about the fine details of the timing of personhood or ensoulment in a misguided attempt to identify a basis for the moral question. We need only recognize that once you are constituted a human being (which always occurs at fertilization or at an event that mimics fertilization like cloning), you are an embryonic member of the human race who is to be protected unconditionally.

“The human zygote, thus, is already a being that is human, and such beings are sacrosanct entities, because that’s what we all directly spring from at the root level. What the human embryo actually is, even at its earliest and most undeveloped stage, makes it the only kind of entity capable of receiving the gift of an immortal soul from God; no other animal embryo can receive this gift. Hence, the early human embryo is never merely biological tissue; at a minimum, it is the privileged sanctuary of someone meant to develop as a human person, and to be treated and respected as such. Once you are a human being, you are a bearer of human rights, even if your person-hood/ensoulment might end up coming further along in the sequence of things. This teaching, I am convinced, may well be one of the strongest declarations of the Church’s belief in the absolute primacy of the value of personhood over all other considerations. The human person, even in its most incipient and precursorial instantiation in the embryonic human being, is to be safeguarded in an absolute way.”

REV. DR. TADEUSZ PACHOLCZYK

As quoted in the National Catholic Register.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Spider42]

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.

I have no idea. Biologically, it is murky. The division is not instantaneous.

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.

In the 1970’s, the possibility for simultaneous ensoulment was entertained by some memebers of the college. But if we look to 1990 and 2000, the judgement of the Magisterium is that delayed ensoulment of some kind is more probable because of biology, but stress that this does not alter or weaken the Church’s teaching on things like abortion. I, personally, actually find this reassuring because it is the longest tradition in the Church and the only position that has ever gotten papal support. To me, it is evidence of the Church’s gift of authority. How else could the Church have anticipated neuroscience by 1800 years?

Anyway, it would also be more accurate to say that the question cannot be answered by science. It can still be answered by divine revelation. The Vicar of Christ could teach ex cathedra on the matter and I would be oblidged to accept it.

 

[Giants]

Turn the question around. If I can do so utterly painlessly, why is it immoral for me to kill you?

Presumably you wouldn’t want me to kill you, but what is the moral reasoning?

Because suffering entails more than just the pain I would feel. It entails your feelings of guilt (if you have any, which you might not). It includes grief, emotional pain, or anger felt by my friends and loved ones.

For actions to have a moral component, they need to matter to conscious systems. Mine is not the only conscious system on the table here.

I can take it even further. Suppose you could kill me painlessly, experience no guilt for yourself, and I have no friends or family to care about my death. Would it be immoral then? Yes, it would. Because there are still others to consider - if you were someone else, would you want to live in a world where your survival only hinged on someone caring about you, and not being unlucky enough to cross paths with a sociopath who’d not hesitate to kill you?

Now take it a step further, would it be OK to painlessly kill a disabled child whose life expectancy is statistically short (ex. down syndrome)?

No, for reasons previously stated.

 

[JimG]

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…

It is not the presence of a soul, but the presence of a human being which makes killing immoral. Of course, the presence of a human being implies the presence of a soul, but it’s not something one can look for and say, ‘hey, I don’t see a soul here, so it’s okay to kill this one!’ Rather, one knows when a human being is present and one does not kill the human being.

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.

Yes, one might argue for killing in self defense, but not for other reasons. Moral theology texts make the distinctions quite eloquently.

 

[JimG]

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.

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:

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

I think you are referencing footnote 19 in this Vatican document. Here is the footnote in its entirety:

“19. 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.”

Note that it merely “leaves aside” the question of the instant of ensoulment. It says nothing about “potential human life.” Rather it says “there is nothing less than a human life” I’m neither a philosopher nor a moral theologian, so I won’t argue. Still, if a human life is present without a soul, that seems a contradiction in terms unless one redefines the meaning of soul as something other than the animating principle of the body.

I certainly accept that there are nuances to moral theology, and theologians are free to debate them, with the magisterium making the final decision as to morality.

But since human souls are by nature spiritual and cannot be detected by physcial means, the issue is of little use in the abortion debate.

Biologically, though, we do know, and have known for a long time, when a new and distinct individual of the human species has its beginning.

 

[balto]

I can take it even further. Suppose you could kill me painlessly, experience no guilt for yourself, and I have no friends or family to care about my death. Would it be immoral then? Yes, it would. Because there are still others to consider - if you were someone else, would you want to live in a world where your survival only hinged on someone caring about you, and not being unlucky enough to cross paths with a sociopath who’d not hesitate to kill you?

So are you saying that it would be wrong to kill you just because other random people don’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world? Well then by that logic you should be against abortion because I and every other pro-lifer don’t want to live in a world where humans are terminated in the womb for the convenience of the parents. That causes us suffering so abortion is therefore immoral.

 

[raikou]

What about human chimeras? When two embryos (presumably ensouled) fuse together into a single organism? What happens to the extra soul?

The other soul may have left (that is, the embryo died, and its parts are assumed by the body of the other embryo). The same happens in organ transplants - what is part if another human being becomes a part of another human being.

I agree with JimG. If the soul is the “animating principle of a body” and the embryo is a “living human organism,” then it seems to me that the embryo already has a soul. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a LIVING separate human entity.

But I also agree that the debate on ensoulment is different from the secular debate on when human life should be protected. It should be protected from its very beginning, and biology states that this happens in conception. Respect for the dignity of human life demands this.

 

[mitex]

I believe a human fetus is human. But as a protestant I do not a consider a “zygote” to be technically human (I can get away with this because I’m not Catholic). However I do believe that within weeks it will become a human therefore it should not be aborted or killed.

I’m pro-life all the way; but I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s definition of a zygote as a human. I’ll stick to Protestant Evangelical definitions instead.

 

[JimG]

I believe a human fetus is human. But as a protestant I do not a consider a “zygote” to be technically human (I can get away with this because I’m not Catholic). However I do believe that within weeks it will become a human therefore it should not be aborted or killed.

I’m pro-life all the way; but I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s definition of a zygote as a human. I’ll stick to Protestant Evangelical definitions instead.

What is the Protestant Evangelical definition of when a new individual of the human species has its beginning? Does it differ from embryology? At what point in the development of a new human being does it become a human being? And what was it before that, if not a human being?

 

[Brendan]

I don’t understand on what grounds you claim an abortion at this early state is a moral wrong. .

Biologically, the zygote is a unique organism of species homo sapiens.

If one hold that there exists such a thing as human rights
and these human rights apply equally to all humans
The zygote is biologically human
Ergo it has human rights.

If one holds that the deliberate, targeted killing of an innocent human is morally wrong, then the deliberate killing of the zygote is morally wrong.

Do you object to any of the premises above?

If so, which one?

If not, then it logically follows that the killing of a zygote is morally wrong.

 

[Brendan]

I believe a human fetus is human. **But as a protestant I do not a consider a “zygote” to be technically human **(I can get away with this because I’m not Catholic)…

Protestants don’t belive in the scientific validity of biology?

What species do you, as a Protestant, believe the zygote is.

Do you believe that it changes species when departing the birth canal,
if so, do you have a medical basis for this change of species, or is it something that is part of your Protestant religion?

 

[Elizabeth502]

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?

Arguing even from an atheistic viewpoint, one would have to devalue human life overall --born or unborn, and at any stage of development-- to agree with the statement of yours I just quoted.

It has to do with unseen development and respect for the community of persons, if nothing else. You, I, the mother, the father, has no insight into the future contribution of that person to society. To destroy it out of convenience is a selfishly utilitarian act, it can be argued. It is arrogant to put a value on an unseen life, first of all, and second of all, on the future of any life (seen or unseen).

Let’s say we rounded up a group of hardened criminals (prisoners), all of whom were, in their behavior, known to be equally vicious. And because apparently they had no fruitful use to society, or to themselves, we decided based on some arbitrary notion of inconvenience or distaste, to kill in some painless way whomever (one or several), based on the premise that eliminating those individuals would bring no harm. (And we did so when they were not conscious of what we were doing.)

It is interfering with the future and with the possible contribution that such individuals can still make while alive.

 

[Giants]

"JimG:

It is not the presence of a soul, but the presence of a human being which makes killing immoral. Of course, the presence of a human being implies the presence of a soul, but it’s not something one can look for and say, ‘hey, I don’t see a soul here, so it’s okay to kill this one!’ Rather, one knows when a human being is present and one does not kill the human being.

I still don’t think you’ve answered my question, quite honestly. Ensouled or not, why is it immoral to destroy a week-old zygote, one made up of several dozen cells, with no consciousness, awareness, or ability to suffer. Even if I grant that this qualifies as a “human being,” that doesn’t advance your argument. If you had to choose between terminating a week old human zygote, and a week old pig zygote, I’d imagine you’d choose the pig. But why? If not for the soul, what makes the human zygote more valuable at that stage?

So are you saying that it would be wrong to kill you just because other random people don’t want to live in a dog-eat-dog world? Well then by that logic you should be against abortion because I and every other pro-lifer don’t want to live in a world where humans are terminated in the womb for the convenience of the parents. That causes us suffering so abortion is therefore immoral.

Except that, by that same logic, I could argue that your intolerance of a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices causes me suffering. And we can got back and forth forever.

Except that it doesn’t. Not really. Nor does the right of complete strangers to make this decision, for themselves, cause you suffering. These are both qualitatively different from my point. In my example, if I could be killed amorally by any sociopath, provided that my death were painless and nobody would miss me, that would mean we’d live in a world where you could potentially suffer the same fate. In other words, there would still be a moral component to the question, because other people with a real stake in the situation would be affected. On the other hand, you can’t credibly claim that a complete stranger terminating her pregnancy causes you any suffering.

Brendan:

Biologically, the zygote is a unique organism of species homo sapiens.

If one hold that there exists such a thing as human rights
and these human rights apply equally to all humans
The zygote is biologically human
Ergo it has human rights.

If one holds that the deliberate, targeted killing of an innocent human is morally wrong, then the deliberate killing of the zygote is morally wrong.

Do you object to any of the premises above?

If so, which one?

I disagree that human rights apply equally to all humans. In this case, I don’t consider it immoral to terminate a pregnancy, even at an advanced stage, if it’s determined that the mother’s life is in danger. I can totally understand a woman not wanting to terminate for that reason, but I wouldn’t hold it against them. Further, and as I stated before, Catholic theology allows for the taking of another human life in defense of one’s own life.

Other than the right to life, what are other human rights?

Elizabeth502:

Arguing even from an atheistic viewpoint, one would have to devalue human life overall --born or unborn, and at any stage of development-- to agree with the statement of yours I just quoted.

No, one wouldn’t. A human at my stage of development is fully capable of experiencing pain, grief, and suffering. Killing me, or someone I care about, would therefore be an immoral act. Destroying a collection of a few dozen cells, with no consciousness, awareness, or nervous system, with the consent of the mother and father, does not create anything like the same moral dilemma.

 

[JimG]

I still don’t think you’ve answered my question, quite honestly. Ensouled or not, why is it immoral to destroy a week-old zygote, one made up of several dozen cells, with no consciousness, awareness, or ability to suffer. Even if I grant that this qualifies as a “human being,” that doesn’t advance your argument. If you had to choose between terminating a week old human zygote, and a week old pig zygote, I’d imagine you’d choose the pig. But why? If not for the soul, what makes the human zygote more valuable at that stage?

You state later in the post that you disagree that human rights apply equally to all human beings, so it’s probably pointless to reply. But human rights do not depend on stage of development or number of cells, or awareness. Human rights depend on being a human being.

Every single one of us began as a human zygote–a new individual of the human species. A zygote has a teleology; it is developing into a particular, unique, irreplaceable human individual, who is already present at the beginning, or else it could not develop.

I don’t accept that we make one’s right to life depend on one’s stage of development. We might, in theory, allow for the termination of human beings at any arbitrary age–say, up to age 12, because they are not yet fully developed, or age 17. Pick any stage of development; it’s purely arbitrary if it makes rights depend on something other than one’s humanity.

If one decides to make rights dependent on outside factors such as age or development or dependency, then all of us are at risk. No doubt when the euthanasia squad knocks on my door, they will inform me that I have passed the point of human utility and optimum consciousness, and am no longer considered sufficiently human to maintain a right to life.

I don’t expect to convince you. You seem to have a purely relativistic view of human beings. If that philosophy persists in society generally, we will all be in danger.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A human at my stage of development is fully capable of experiencing pain, grief, and suffering. Killing me, or someone I care about, would therefore be an immoral act.

except when they’re unconscious, then the human is not experiencing pain, grief, and suffering.

You didn’t read my example fully.

Two human beings, in different stages of development.
Both unconscious of what is happening to them. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that the prisoner has no community of others at the present time who care about him, outside or inside prison walls. (That’s been supposedly determined.)
In both cases, a (painless) act is carried out to pre-empt that life from continuing its development.
In both cases, a value is placed on those lives, born and unborn, by someone arrogating to himself or herself the right to measure the future of that life.

That’s the comparison.

Human beings do not have suffcient information to know whether an unborn life, or a born life, will or will not have a positive impact on the lives of many others.

Therefore, from a societal viewpoint alone it is immoral to end that life.

 

[Giants]

You state later in the post that you disagree that human rights apply equally to all human beings, so it’s probably pointless to reply. But human rights do not depend on stage of development or number of cells, or awareness. Human rights depend on being a human being.

And even under Catholic theology, one’s human right to life can be revoked in specific circumstances, as you’ve already acknowledged.

If one decides to make rights dependent on outside factors such as age or development or dependency, then all of us are at risk. No doubt when the euthanasia squad knocks on my door, they will inform me that I have passed the point of human utility and optimum consciousness, and am no longer considered sufficiently human to maintain a right to life.

I’ve not suggested that we make the human right to life based on any of these things. I’m suggesting that it’s, at worst, amoral to terminate the pregnancy of a week-old zygote, given the full knowledge and consent of the parents. The lack of moral content depends on the fact that there is no one involved would suffer for the act.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m suggesting that it’s, at worst, amoral to terminate the pregnancy of a week-old zygote, given the full knowledge and consent of the parents. The lack of moral content depends on the fact that there is no one involved **[present tense] (who) **would suffer for the act.

But maybe many people, in the future, would suffer for this person’s not being born. And I don’t mean suffer in terms of a void in relationships. I mean in terms of some practical effect that developed person would have had. You don’t know that. I don’t know that. The person consenting to the abortion doesn’t know that.

And yes, naturally, the opposite is also a possibility: that misery on future others will be prevented by such an act. But many atheists would still say that it is still affirmatively immoral, not amoral, to rationalize decisions to terminate any life based on suppositions of harm prevented or lack of good performed, or even the stastistical probability of a net neutral consequence by aborting that life.

 

[Giants]

except when they’re unconscious, then the human is not experiencing pain, grief, and suffering.

You didn’t read my example fully.

Two human beings, in different stages of development.
Both unconscious of what is happening to them. And for the sake of argument, let’s say that the prisoner has no community of others at the present time who care about him, outside or inside prison walls. (That’s been supposedly determined.)
In both cases, a (painless) act is carried out to pre-empt that life from continuing its development.
In both cases, a value is placed on those lives, born and unborn, by someone arrogating to himself or herself the right to measure the future of that life.

That’s the comparison.

Human beings do not have suffcient information to know whether an unborn life, or a born life, will or will not have a positive impact on the lives of many others.

Therefore, from a societal viewpoint alone it is immoral to end that life.

I’ve already addressed this type of hypothetical. You can stipulate the prisoner is unconscious and unaware, and you can further stipulate that there’s nobody to care about them being alive or dead. What you don’t account for is the so-called “collateral damage” of the act.

There’s an old philosophical problem. A doctor has 4 dying patients in his care. One needs a heart transplant, another - new lungs, another - new kidneys, and the last - a new liver. The doctor has no organs to transplant, but in his waiting room is one person with completely healthy organs. He can simply take the new patient into a separate room, kill them painlessly, and dissect them for their healthy organs. So we lose one life, but 4 other people live.

Is this moral? Not at all. The raw math - saving a net 3 lives - doesn’t justify this behavior. The reason its immoral, notwithstanding the grief and pain of friends and loved ones, is because of the collateral damage. None of us would want to live in a world where we could be dissected at any moment, just for being on the wrong end of a numbers game.

Your prisoners example fails because it doesn’t account for this kind of damage. Would you want to live in a world where you or someone you love might one day be that kind of prisoner?

Likewise, your appeal to one’s potential doesn’t really hold up. A given human zygote might grow to contribute great things to society, or they might wind up a total psychopath, destined to cause misery wherever we go. I’m not suggesting we try to guess how someone would turn out - it’s impossible at any rate. But I’ll say again - if you kill somebody in self-defense (a morally permissible act in Catholic theology), you’re also cutting off someone’s potential for future positive impacts on society.