Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the body loses its ability to manufacture insulin. It’s an extremely serious condition that must be treated in order for life to be preserved.
But it can only be treated, not cured.
Until now, it seems.
A new technique has been developed using a person’s own stem cells to apparently cure type 1 diabetes.
The catch is: It only works when the condition is newly diagnosed, so unfortunatley it can’t be used for those who already have established type 1 diabetes.
Still, it’s an advance–assuming the results can be replicated and expanded out into a standard medical treatment.
It also involves the use of adult stem cells, though that didn’t keep The Times from spinning it as an argument for promoting embryonic stem cell research.
GET THE STORY.
Yeah, the article states;
“But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.”
Except embyonic stem cells are only *theoreticallY* more versatile. In terms of practical therapeutic results they have been completely useless because they are extremely unstable.
It’s like if some scientists got all excited about the idea of developing a warp drive to travel at light speeds, and demanded that we throw half our research money toward that project, rather than toward developing better conventional rocket engines.
A warp drive is a very cool idea, but it is, in practical scientific terms, a complete fantasy.
In all the clamor for Embryonic Stem Cell research, there seems the unspoken implication that if we can only do enough research we will be able to “crack the code” and use embryonic cells to eradicate disease forever. None need suffer any more… heaven on earth.
Like the Warp Drive, it’s a sexy idea… but a complete fantasy, at this point.
And, it involves KILLING some people in order to treat other people. No thanks. If I end up with some deadly disease, and they DO develop an embryonic stem cell cure for it, keep that needle away from me. I’d rather die like a man than allow another human being destroyed on my behalf. Get away from me, ya vampires.
Of course this won’t get any front page coverage because it’s not embryonic stem cells. How many diseases have embryonic stem cells cured now?
Zero.
I suppose we should feel ashamed for standing up for life and promoting therapies that actually work… (Tongue-in-cheek)
Tim J writes:
Like the Warp Drive, it’s a sexy idea… but a complete fantasy, at this point
Tim,
I know you go on to express exactly the opinion that I’m about to express, but–I really dislike pro-life arguments regarding stem cells that involve their *current* lack of application. That is, statements like Brian’s:
How many diseases have embryonic stem cells cured now?
It shouldn’t matter. Maybe one day embryonic stem cells will be able to cure all diseases. It shouldn’t matter. The ends don’t justify the means.
Actually, Smoky, I wouldn’t use the “warp drive” thing as a pro-life argument. To me it is just an indication of something out-of-whack… given the obvious lack of progress with embryonic stem cell treatments, it makes me think that there is some ulterior motive behind those who push for it SO hard.
I recall Jimmy being a B5 (as well as B16)fan. Embryonic stem cell research has shades of the “Deathwalker” episode.
this is great news:-) People have been saying the “a cure is right around the corner” for a WHILE. Maybe they’re finally right!
>It also involves the use of adult stem cells, though that didn’t keep The Times from spinning it as an argument for promoting embryonic stem cell research.
Remember, look at the little swinging watch as you are hypnotised:
There is no left wing bias in the media.
There is no left wing bias in the media.
There is no left wing bias in the media.
There is no left wing bias in the media.
There, you have been properly programmed, err, indoctrinated, err, brainwashed, err, informed by the media.
🙂
Maybe one day embryonic stem cells will be able to cure all diseases. It shouldn’t matter. The ends don’t justify the means.
True, but as long as embryonic stem cells are getting promoted solely from the unproven assertion that they’re more useful, I think we’ve got a case of the means trying to justify themselves. When was the last time you saw a news article that made the “embryonic stem cells are better” assertion and based it on something more concrete than What Everybody Just Knows? I can’t remember.
*bleat* We’re trying to do something important here! Don’t hold it against us if things only seem to be getting worse! *bleat*
If ESCR didn’t have any political leverage (what Tim J alluded to) it would have been buried and all but forgotten by now.
This comment from the article:
But research using the most versatile kind of stem cells — those acquired from human embryos — is currently opposed by powerful critics, including President Bush.
almost makes it sound like Bush and pro-lifers would oppose the research that led to this discovery, if you don’t read carefully. Furthermore, the link to a heart attack application of stem cells that immediately precedes this comment regards adult stem cells. After this comment, there is no other mention of embryonic stem cells in the article. It’s completely out of place. Sigh.
Of course they associate it with Bush. It’s like after the pro-life march, when all the headlines read something like, “Bush cheers on opponents of Roe v. Wade,” etc. The propaganda is ridiculous. Bush is unpopular (albeit for totally unrelated reasons), so if you want to discredit something, just associate it with him.
Doesn’t everybody love being the victim?
Yes there’s bias, but it’s not really as bad as you’d like it to be.
Of course it’s not as bad as we’d like it to be, it’s far worse than that.
And as far as anyone being the victim, I think the thousands and thousands of aborted children count in my book. I’ll do what I can to fight back.
Yes there’s bias, but it’s not really as bad as you’d like it to be
Google search results:
“stem cell research”…………2,780,000 hits
“embyonic stem cell research”…….3,290 hits
I find this pretty exciting. Also exciting, however, is that they may in fact have found a cure for cancer. The catch is that it’s not marketable because it’s not patentable, so little funding outside the university level is being thrown at it…sigh…
1. Proof from Google searches!
2. Notice that when the media mention that Bush isn’t an embryonic stem cell research fan, they don’t remind/tell you that Bush expanded ESCR funding by allowing some funding. Clintion never allowed any funding.
Is there anything morally wrong with ESCR on animals? I mean as long as its done for the right reasons, just like any good science. Obviously if its done to perfect the technique on animals before moving onto humans, that’s wrong. But can animal embryos morally be used to make cures for human diseases, kind of like this: Argentine cow clones to produce insulin in milk
(coincidentally this also has to do with diabetes, but its a treatment not a cure).
it makes me think that there is some ulterior motive behind those who push for it SO hard
If ESCR didn’t have any political leverage
Tim and Ed, masters of understatement. The reason for all the hype? Because it would be an “acceptable” justification for abortion.
Funny, when I google “stem cell research” (in quotation marks) I get 1,880,000 hits; “embryonic stem cell research” (also in quotation marks) gets 1,180,000. Not much of a drop, is it? If I misspell embryonic by leaving out the R, as our anonymous friend did, I still get 10,600 hits.
A word of advice: If you’re going to lie about your evidence, at least tell a lie that would support your argument if it were true. Irrelevant lies are hardly better than facts.
And Mary Kay, you are exactly right about the motive behind the hype. It’s not the only motive, but it’s probably the most important one.
You see, this is the reason Jesus never ate with the journalists.
Not strictly on topic, but for those who want to study bioethical issues further and read some good arguments, I commend the UK’s
Linacre Centre.
“The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics exists to help Catholics and others to explore the Church’s position on bioethical issues. Its perspective is informed by Catholic moral teaching, but in defending such teaching it seeks also to enable dialogue with those of no religious faith.”
Google search result counts:
“stem cell” … 34.50 M
“embryonic stem cell” … 1.18 M
“adult stem cell” … 0.39 M
“stem cell” -“embryonic stem cell” -“adult stem cell” … 27.7 M
I don’t know how accurate the google search result counts are. However, I think the most telling sign of bias is the lack of a label (embryonic vs. adult) on most results as evidenced by the 4th query above.
FYI if you’re not familiar with google syntax — the hyphen before the phrases in the fourth query are NOT’s to google. So, the fourth query is:
“stem cell” AND NOT “embryonic stem cell” AND NOT “adult stem cell”
Dean–I share your reading of “Deathwalker” as regards this situation, but the reference that keeps coming to mind for me is a line from the Akallabeth:
“And men made sacrifice to Melkor, that he might release them from death.”
John
The five stages you quoted are commonly know as the five stages of grief. The model was introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. They apply to everyone facing very difficult, often unexpected, situations. Normal people usually progress through them in a step-like fashion, ultimately arriving at acceptance of whatever was so very difficult at the beginning. Each of us spend different amounts of time and efforts at the different stages. Some, however, never get to acceptance but languish along the way and become very frustrated people.
I see a lot of that behavior in the above posts, especially those of the “die-hard” traditionalists who refuse Vatican II teaching.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will prevail over our wills.
Oops wrong combox. Sorry
I would say much knowledge of medicine and technology is already known, and conserved within masons and such. The cure for cancer is probably already hidden some where.
The thing is that the devil, being an angel knows almost everything there is to know in Creation. And he can certainly reveal that to his followers.
I believe Bl.Palau said that the American continent was already known by the judeo-masonry, and the Devil actually took his agents there.
There are some pretty well known ones too though…
DaVinci and his “flying machines” and so forth…
Uhhhh… Some Day, I don’t quite know what to say except that I think you need to stop reading into conspiracy theories.
I don’t quite think anybody has actually developed the cure for cancer given its nature.
I am just taking from Bl. Palau.
Consperacy theories are made by the very ones who the theories are about.
That discredits any true attacks on secret forces, because conspiracy theorists have already loonified and mocked it.
But plenty of saints have talked about it.
Its just not something that “they” would like to be very public.
St.Louis de Monfort himself said his writings would be destroyed by the devil or at least hidden in an “old chest”.
That is exactly what happend.
Read The “Burning Prayer” for Missionaries from St. Louis. It speaks about those who would destroy the evil within the world.
So not everyone is a conspiracy theorist.
In fact I try not to speak about it.
It is imprudent of me to do so, as it as you immediately posted, discredits me as a stupid conspiracy theorist.
But trust me I am not.
I am no false rightist nor some idiot UFO believer.
There is an emerging consensus that embryonic stem cells can (and likely will) some day be produce extraordinary medicla benefits. That, I’m afraid, is fact — not hype.
If we couch our arguments as grounded in scientific or medical efficacy, we are very likely to lose — and probably should. Our real concern is moral, and here we have the high ground — the truth. We may still lose this battle, but at least we will be fighting on the proper front.
Mike Petrik:
Unfortunately, what you’ve stated above may, in fact, be true.
I cannot see, based on research and a certain understanding of stem cells (albeit, rudimentary in nature), how it cannot.
The only thing supporting us is the fact that it does go against our Christian morals; but whether in the end that is enough in a secular world that looks to Science as its ‘god’, this may not matter at all.
In the end, as you have rightly alluded to above, it’s the fact that we should fight against it that really matters, no matter how great the opposition or how convincing the Science is.
Mike Petrik,
I made a similar point to yours upthread. However, Ed Pie made a good point in response:
as long as embryonic stem cells are getting promoted solely from the unproven assertion that they’re more useful, I think we’ve got a case of the means trying to justify themselves.
So long as embryonic stem cell research provides no results, I think we do no harm by pointing that out (as long as we’re clear that it’s wrong regardless of it’s results).
There is an emerging consensus
Mike, whose consensus?
Mary Kay:
Mike might be alluding to, among other things, the following from the White House Fact Sheet:
The potential of embryonic stem cell research.
Many scientists believe that embryonic stem cell research may eventually lead to therapies that could be used to treat diseases that afflict approximately 128 million Americans. Treatments may include replacing destroyed dopamine-secreting neurons in a Parkinson’s patient’s brain; transplanting insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells in diabetic patients; and infusing cardiac muscle cells in a heart damaged by myocardial infarction. Embryonic stem cells may also be used to understand basic biology and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new medicines.
Link:
Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Yes, Esau, and according to my many scientist friends (including serious Catholics) there is much more. While years away from significant therapeutic value, most scientists agree that, at least theoretically, embryonic stem cells should be extremely useful — much more useful than adult stem cells. In fact, the prospects make them so giddy that all too many rationalize away the fairly obvious moral concerns.
I appreciate Ed Pie’s rhetorical point, I do. But it really is more rhetorical than logical. Without our well-grounded moral inhibitions, we would be nuts not to allow science a free reign to research the field. The scientific and medical prospects associated with ESCs, while still prospets rather than facts, are legitimate and serious. But the use of embryonic stem cells does involve the destructive use of a human life as a means to an end; and this we know is wrong, even if the end is good.
And Esau, while I do very much generally agree with your 12:45 post, I would differ in only this slight respect. The morals implicated should properly be understood as transcending Christianity. The moral law imprinted on the hearts of men (i.e., natural law) is what is involved here. Science should be an ally in leading to the conclusion that such cells are human in nature, but all too many scientists abandon good science in favor of very bad ontology.
Science should be an ally in leading to the conclusion that such cells are human in nature, but all too many scientists abandon good science in favor of very bad ontology.
Very well said.
What does it mean to be “human”?
Mike Petrik:
You bring up a very good point above in terms of the Natural Law.
However, given the very nature of embryonic stem cells, the question that arises many times is how are you to conclude (and I’m strictly speaking from a secular perspective) that such embryonic stem cells in such a pre-mature state can actually be considered a total human individual?
Many would simply look upon it as nothing more than a cell than an actual human.
I remember when I was extracting cells in a hen oviduct back in college, it becomes pretty difficult to consider such as actually a hen itself.
What does it mean to be “human”?
To be human is to be created in the image of God. All human organisms are human by their very nature. It’s not based on whether or not an individual possesses the qualities that the public associates with “humanness.” All members of the human species are deserving of dignity of one created in God’s image.
To be human is to be created in the image of God.
What does it mean “to be created in the image of God”?
Brian,
To illustrate my point above, with only Natural Law as guide, do you consider totipotent or even pluripotent cells a total human individual? If so, why?
Very good points, Esau. I would respond by saying that the question posed is not a scientific one, but an ontological one that should look to moral philosophy for the relevant principles and to science for the relevant facts. An understanding of this actually brings home your key observation. For example, it probably is rational (or at least reasonable) for one to apply moral principles in concluding that the essence of humanity is grounded in some degree of consciousness (which is not to say there aren’t defects imbedded in such a conclusion). So your point really is an insightful one. To a large extent, while natural law may well tell all of us that human life is important and should not be relegated to the status of an instrument or means to an end, *why* that is is important in understanding what we mean by human, and that may well be grounded in Christian morality rather than natural law as such. Indeed, the fine points of ensoulment are probably not written on the hearts of men.
What does it mean “to be created in the image of God”?
According to Aquinas, “It is clear, therefore, that intellectual creatures alone, properly speaking, are made to God’s image.” And, “Man is said to be the image of God by reason of his intellectual nature.” And, “to be to the image of God belongs to the mind only.”
Esau,
I was answering Lana’s question – trying to get a Catholic answer on the board before the Gnostic word play begins. But I can take shot at your question.
To illustrate my point above, with only Natural Law as guide, do you consider totipotent or even pluripotent cells a total human individual? If so, why?
I guess you have to start with the assumption that all members of the species homo sapiens are deserving of human rights. If human rights are based on some type “human” quality, we end up with the mess we’re in today.
Let me make sure I understand my science. It’s my understanding that totipotent cells can develop into any organ(s) and pluripotent cells can develop into many types of organs. But these cells can’t develop into other species. If I’ve got something wrong, please correct me.
These cells, even though they don’t look like the humans we know, are one complete human. They don’t develop into babies by adding pieces in the way that a foundation develops into a building. They develop just like we do by using energy to grow and develop from the cells that already exist. Everything that they become grows out of what they already are. In this sense we are the exact same organism we were at the moment of conception, just as we’re the same organism we were when we were babies even though we appear much different now.
I guess that’s the best I can do. I’m better at summing up someone else’s ideas simply than making a fool-proof argument of my own.
Brian:
I was answering Lana’s question – trying to get a Catholic answer on the board before the Gnostic word play begins
Actually, I meant to distract you from falling prey to any potential Gnostic games that may have been lying in wait and prevent any such deviations from this all-important topic.
At any rate, you need to consider the particulars of what you have stated here.
These cells, even though they don’t look like the humans we know, are one complete human.
There are certain ramifications to such a statement that I believe you may not have seriously considered.
To make my point — do you believe that each of these cells contain a ‘soul’?
To make my point — do you believe that each of these cells contain a ‘soul’?
Yes. You can’t grow a soul, it’s immortal. Does this fall inside or outside of natural law?
Anyway, what’s the question that follows this answer?
Naturaly, man should not die, so is death within Natural Law?
I am glad you ask intelligent questions, but they become “Byzantine” when they don’t aide the situation…
Its like being invaded by a bunch of Turks in Constantinople and the most imperative arguement is if Adam had a bellybutton?
Are souls within cells?
Are cells within souls?
My post above sorry.
Don’t feed the Lana, er…troll.
But your intelligence is certainly not in your brain…
Whoops, the Mountain patrol said not to feed the products of monkey evolution.
Brian:
That’s just it — you can’t really argue from a Natural Law perspective since a cell is what it is — a ‘cell’, and not a total human individual.
The point being — to suppose a mere ‘cell’ actually constitutes a complete human individual would be ludicrous just as one saying that an arm or a leg are actually different human individuals.
And, coming from the other side of the coin, how can you suppose that a mere ‘cell’ actually contains a ‘soul’?
Are souls within cells?
Are cells within souls?
Souls are within humans. The newly conceived human who consists of only totipotent cells contains a soul. The slightly older human who consists of pluripotent cells contains a soul. Souls, not being physical, are not within cells; nor are cells within souls.
Well Natural Law involves property.
It is natural for man to own things.
Yet he does not own himself…
He belongs to God.
So not only is the person’s rights put into play,
but most importantly, God’s rights.
sorry Smoky, you posted while i was writing
But your intelligence is certainly not in your brain…
So why is it ok to harvest organs from brain dead people?
Souls are within humans.
Exactly!
So, given that perspective, please provide me with your reason why you should believe that such cells cannot be used for research?
sorry Smoky, you posted while i was writing
No problem…there seems to be a tip-off of a troll on these forums — they post cutesy one-line word games, always under an alias we’ve never seen before.
I know I’m be uncharitable here, but I think it’s safe to assume that if they truly wanted a dialogue, they wouldn’t speak in riddles.
This forum is for communication!
Its not!
Esau, Does natural law include a Creator? I mean isn’t the natural law built on that premise?
It’s one thing to argue from a purely natural law standpoint (which is based in truth) and it’s another to argue from a completely secular/relativist standpoint (which is not based in truth).
I don’t mean to attack you; I ask because I’m wondering. Thank you for playing devil’s advocate – it’s difficult but good for me.
This forum is for communication
Its not!
Then what’s it for?
LANA, I was making fun of you not saying where intelligence is!
But if you calm down and think like a Catholic I’ll let you be.
This is why I post quickly Smoky.
It’s not
refers to Lana’s post on brain harvesting
Its not!
Are you sure?
“A faithful Catholic may also make provisions for the donation of his own organs in the event of his death whether it is determined by cardio-pulmonary or neurological criteria.”
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FAQ_BrainDeath.asp
So, given that perspective, please provide me with your reason why you should believe that such cells cannot be used for research?
Such cells don’t come from nowhere. They’re conceived. These days that sometimes happens in very non-traditional methods (isn’t theraputic cloning something like injecting a nucleus into an egg and then zapping it to life). But they’re conceived nonetheless. And by my argument that once conceived he’s the same complete organism he will be in 80 years (he it lives that long) he therefore has a soul.
The thing is what is death?
Death consists of the soul separating from the body.
If you cannot live with out artificial help ( and this does not mean tube feeding) because your brain does not work, you are or will be dead.
When this death occurs, cardio-respritory death will soon follow. Then (at some point) the soul will separate.
The Church is not a doctor, so it will not go and say “yup his heart stoped”.
But She has said that death is when the soul separates from the body.
Brian —
I still don’t see how what you’ve said here:
Esau, Does natural law include a Creator? I mean isn’t the natural law built on that premise?
…actually advances your argument.
Please elaborate.
“A faithful Catholic may also make provisions for the donation of his own organs in the event of his death whether it is determined by cardio-pulmonary or neurological criteria.”
Holy Hobby Horse Batman! Lana, would you mind moving that topic back to the Speedo thread where it was started?
once conceived he’s the same complete organism he will be in 80 years (he it lives that long) he therefore has a soul.
What does “once conceived” mean? Exactly at what point is that? When sperm meets egg?
Such cells don’t come from nowhere. They’re conceived. These days that sometimes happens in very non-traditional methods (isn’t theraputic cloning something like injecting a nucleus into an egg and then zapping it to life). But they’re conceived nonetheless.
Kindly explain how these cells, in and of themselves, actually constitute a human being?
And by my argument that once conceived he’s the same complete organism he will be in 80 years (he it lives that long) he therefore has a soul.
But that’s just it — an essential component to a human being is the ‘soul’. Therefore, where is the ‘soul’ in these individual cells?
Therefore, where is the ‘soul’ in these individual cells?
Especially when one considers that two days later, the cells may divide into two embryos. Is souls arise at conception, where did this second soul come from two days later?
Souls are not physical.
An infinte amount of angels can fit on the point of a needle.
Souls are spirits as well.
The same applies.
An infinte amount of angels can fit on the point of a needle.
How many souls does one human body have?
One, yet if they are destined to be twins, God already know that.
Plus when a demon possses a person, your soul is still there.
Don’t ask stupid questions please.
I would never say anything to divert you from the Catholic Faith.
Don’t ask stupid questions please.
Don’t make stupid statements please.
Some Day:
I’m not necessarily siding with Lana here, but could you kindly restrict your comments to something more on-topic on this thread?
I apologize, but it’s just that I’m very interested in continuing this topic from a more Scientific/Christian standpoint.
That is the point.
In an arguement you must sometimes enter a definition mode to complete the arguement.
Some Day:
Okay — you answer my questions then:
1. Kindly explain how these cells, in and of themselves, actually constitute a human being?
2. An essential component to a human being is the ‘soul’. Therefore, where is the ‘soul’ in these individual cells?
If the cells grow two heads like I’ve seen on TV, is that one soul or two?
Is it possible that it’s a trap to try to explain how the soul relates to the physical body at any level (whether to a one-celled zygote or to a 20 year old). Is perhaps the most honest answer, “we don’t know – therefore we choose not to draw an arbitrary line between when we can and cannot willfully kill a fetus”?
Lana,
I would ask you to shut up, but that would be rude.
But on the other hand, you are not following the rules either.
But I won’t get down to your level.
Ask questions that will benefit your spritual life or stop it.
Esau:
I’ll answer #2 first since it is the easiest.
Sprits are “where” they act. An angel can be in the Sun preventing it from shooting a destructive flame from wiping us, and then at his will be at the 7:00 Mass adoring Our Lord or both since he is not physically bound.
A soul is the spiritual part of the two part human. We have a soul and a body.
A human is both, without a soul it is mortal flesh, nothing. A soul without a body means the person died.
Now mixing in with question #1, these cells are now a human because God puts the soul into them at conception. The science comes in to explain conception. The uniting of the two sex cells.
At this point God creates the soul.
Now there is human. Both a physical biological and spiritual being. That is the essential thing to know. The soul is the most important part, it is the substancial form. The body whether a heap of cells or a colosal Goliath, is the body of a human because of the soul.
If the cells grow two heads like I’ve seen on TV, is that one soul or two?
If there are two functioning heads, Jimmy considered it to be two persons.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/02/ethical_questio.html
If there are two functioning heads, Jimmy considered it to be two persons.
So how many persons is it if there is not yet any functioning head?
I would ask you to shut up, but that would be rude.
After you.
The same here Bridget.
Two simultanous rationals imply two souls.
Unfortunately the woman looks muslim, therfore no baptism is possible.
But God is merciful. There I’ll reserve opinion nor enter discussion as to their eternal destiny.
Lana the Quizical:
When are you going to stop asking pointless questions?
I honestly ask this in good faith, because it would seem that you are not here to learn, contemplate and admire God , His Church and His theology, but rather to question them.
Some Day:
I’ve got to admit, some of what you’ve said in your post above have some rather interesting insight to it, as it almost seems you were coming off the precipice of substantiality.
But allow me to take these in small bites, as I attempt to grasp the exact meaning of your statements.
Here’s one comment of yours that would seem to allude to something (though not exactly) I was attempting to get to in my exchange with Brian.
…without a soul it is mortal flesh, nothing.
Thus, the very cells that actually exist within us, by themselves, would not constitute the human person as, by themselves, are not and do not contain a ‘soul’.
This is the dilemma.
When are you going to stop asking pointless questions?
LOL. When are you?
Clarification:
When I said above, Some Day, I meant your May 2, 2007 5:13:21 PM post.
Yes Esau,
By themselves they do not. Because they are part of us because our soul is acting within them.
If your arm gets cut off, your soul ceases to act in it, therefore is not “there”. But if you put it back in, it will again.
So a heap of cells without a soul is either a severed part of the body or a dead person.
I honestly don’t see the dilema.
So a heap of cells without a soul is either a severed part of the body or a dead person. I honestly don’t see the dilema.
The dilemma is in the “either”.
If there are two functioning heads, Jimmy considered it to be two persons.
If one person goes to hell and other person to heaven, where is the body?
Kindly explain how these cells, in and of themselves, actually constitute a human being?
If I go past my understanding of the science, please correct me. A newly conceived embryo has it’s own unique DNA. The DNA is not the person, but is evidence that a person may exist. It proves that the embryo isn’t merely a mixture of the parts that made it, but something new altogether. You can think of the middle school science example of baking a cake – in the oven the ingredients go through a chemical change and become something new altogether rather than being a simple, separable mixture of ingredients. At conception two human parts come together to make a human organism.
Now, as I said, DNA is evidence that a person may exist. As Some Day has pointed out you may have a dead body or you may have a part of a body (living or dead) or you may have a real live person. I guess test is to let it live. If its dead it doesn’t grow. If its just a body part it may grow but its not ever going to go through the life cycle that humans do. If it is indeed a living human it will continue to progress through the natural life cycle. Embryos become babies, children become adolescents, and men become old men.
As far as I know there’s no test for a soul. If it’s human it has a soul and if it has a soul it’s human. The soul reflects itself through the body. So you can’t say that because an embryo doesn’t have the qualities we associate with “humanness” it’s not human. It’s soul is the same as mine and yours, it’s just unable to reflect itself in the same way that yours and mine does. We know that all humans have a soul because we have a Creator who made us in His image. We don’t resemble God by our bodies but by our souls. It’s by our souls that we are made in His image. If this isn’t true, then I think it would be hard to uphold natural law.
This is old i know it is to Lana | May 2, 2007 5:46:56 PM
Forgot to press post.
Well if it is a newly formed human it is not dead, heck it just started living. And if it was a severed body part, you’d think the servered person would know.
Brian and Some Day,
A cell in and of itself does not constitute a total human individual. This would seem just as riscible as the notion that an arm or a leg can actually be considered one.
I mean, when I extracted cells from a hen oviduct back in college, are you telling me then that the stuff in my pipette contained an actual ‘hen’?
The embyro is a very small human.
It it has the same dependancies as a baby.
You need to feed it.
In fact it has less, you don’t need to nap it or clean after it.
And it is a human because a soul is in it.
The severed part has no soul acting in it.
The new embryo does.
A dead person had a soul, which you could losely call a heap of individual cells together in one very together form.
Come on Esau, I expect better from you.
Why would abortion be intrinsically wrong if it was only a heap of cells?
A cell in and of itself does not constitute a total human individual. This would seem just as riscible as the notion that an arm or a leg can actually be considered one.
It’s hard to deal with hypotheticals when we have something we can’t even see. Where did this cell come from? If its not a total human individual, what would need to be added to it to make it a complete human being and not just a part like an arm or a leg?
I mean, when I extracted cells from a hen oviduct back in college, are you telling me then that the stuff in my pipette contained an actual ‘hen’
I don’t know enough about hen biology to know what you’re talking about. I’m going to guess that chickens reproduce like us with male and female seeds (I always wondered how farms get chickens to lay eggs every day). Were you removing the hen’s unfertilized eggs? In that case those are just hen body parts. If you were removing fertilized embryos, those are chickens. You can’t separate the embryo back into its male and female seeds (body parts), a new chicken has been created. You can tell it’s a chicken because if you leave it in it’s natural environment it will either progress through the chicken life cycle or die of natural causes. If it were just some body part, it could never become the cute fuzzy chick you see at 4H exhibit at the state fair.
If there are two functioning heads, Jimmy considered it to be two persons.
If one person goes to hell and other person to heaven, where is the body?
Lana, The body is in the ground where they buried it. If I’m not mistaken, you don’t believe in the resurrection, so why do you care what will happen to the body. If I am mistaken, I apologize.
On a slight tangent – I don’t see anything wrong with doing ESCR on our chicken embryos from this example as long as, like all things, it’s done for a good purpose. Is this consistent with Church teaching?
It’s hard to deal with hypotheticals when we have something we can’t even see. Where did this cell come from? If its not a total human individual, what would need to be added to it to make it a complete human being and not just a part like an arm or a leg?
Brian:
I believe that’s the whole point — the answer to that would be: ‘a soul’.
But if it doesn’t have a soul it’s never going to have one. We can’t grow souls, we have one from our first moment of existence.
Brian,
That’s just it:
We can’t grow souls, we have one from our first moment of existence.
Define exactly the ‘first moment of existence’?
It’s my understanding that an embryo is biologically a human organism from the moment of conception. Again, if this is wrong, correct me. The fact that its a human organism means it has a soul. Human organisms don’t somehow start out without a soul and then grow one as they develop the qualities we recognize in a human “being.”
Brian:
It’s my understanding that an embryo is biologically a human organism from the moment of conception.
If certain natural biological mishap were to occur wherein the totipotent cell suffered an incident, would you then claim that the lost of such cell resulted in the actual death of a human individual?
Give me a real example and I’ll give you an answer. Tell me how this totipotent cell came to be and what incident it suffered?
Tell me how this totipotent cell came to be
For all intents and purposes, let’s just simplify the whole as having arisen from the fertilization of the egg wherein such came into being.
what incident it suffered
Apoptosis.
Given these parameters, again, as posed previously, if certain natural biological mishap were to occur wherein the totipotent cell suffered an incident, would you then claim that the lost of such cell resulted in the actual death of a human individual?
Apoptosis only occurs in multicellular organisms. Cells within the organism kill themselves so that the organism as a whole may live. If the entire organism consists of one cell then apoptosis, by definition, can’t occur.
But my claim is that once conception occurs a new human organism is made. If it dies from that point on it results in the death of a human individual.
But my claim is that once conception occurs a new human organism is made. If it dies from that point on it results in the death of a human individual.
Are you telling me then that the death of a zygote means the actual death of a human individual?
Yes.
Are you telling me then that the death of a zygote means the actual death of a human individual?
Yes, when you get down to this level of detail you’re at the bounds of my understanding of the science. But, I’ll stick with the baking a cake analogy. Once the two seeds (or cake ingredients) can no longer be separated into their individual parts and have become something new, a human individual exists.
Brian,
Where’s this recipe for a two-ingredient cake you keep talking about?
Isn’t a Zygote too early a stage in that all it is is but a cell; in fact, one that is yet to undergo various other cell divisions and reach the morulla stage.
Are you telling me then that this cell (even in such a premature state) actually possess a ‘soul’?
Where’s this recipe for a two-ingredient cake you keep talking about?
It’s one of those pour it out of the box and just add water cakes. I don’t how they made babies back in the old days when they needed like 10 ingredients just to make a cake.
Are you telling me then that this cell (even in such a premature state) actually possess a ‘soul’?
Yes and No. The cell itself doesn’t possess a soul, the human organism that consists of that one cell possesses a soul. Much like your brain doesn’t physically possess thoughts, but your brain possesses thoughts nonetheless.
So Yes and No, but Yes in the terms I’ve been speaking of all along.
Are you telling me then that this cell (even in such a premature state) actually possess a ‘soul’?
Yes and No. The cell itself doesn’t possess a soul, the human organism that consists of that one cell possesses a soul. Much like your brain doesn’t physically possess thoughts, but your brain possesses thoughts nonetheless.
So Yes and No, but Yes in the terms I’ve been speaking of all along.
Brian:
Further to the above, isn’t that almost like saying that amino acids (which many Scientists claim was the beginning of life here on earth) actually contain a ‘soul’ as well?
Are you telling me then that this cell (even in such a premature state) actually possess a ‘soul’?
I’m not in a position to judge the ‘soul’ question, as I’m not really Catholic. But: my standpoint is that any line you try to draw between when something is and isn’t human is bound to be arbitrary and artificial and have much potential for slippery-sloppiness. So, I draw no line.
Are you telling me then that the death of a zygote means the actual death of a human individual?
Esau, are you (not) Catholic?
These guys are my friends. They don’t like arbitrary lines either. 🙂
Food for thought.
CCC 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
From the moment of her conception Our Lady was free from Original Sin.
Now I would suggest that means from her zygote stage.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry about the double post.
The first life on earth wasn’t human. Only humans have souls. Only humans are made in the image of our Creator.
Bert, Esau is playing Devil’s Advocate (and I think enjoying himself). Like an apple to a doctor, it beats the trolls at their own game and keeps them away. Not to mention, it seems pretty effective at unraveling the Catholic position.
Only humans have souls
“Animals possess a soul and … men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren”
— Pope John Paul II, 1990
Inocencio:
As indicated in earlier posts, I am trying to approach this from other viewpoints.
Personally, I believe it’s wrong, but my view depends too much on certain Catholic principles that may be foreign to a secular world.
The concept of a ‘soul’ is not foreign in that those who are even non-Catholics believe in it; even if it’s simply ‘de anima‘.
Bert, Esau is playing Devil’s Advocate (and I think enjoying himself). Like an apple to a doctor, it beats the trolls at their own game and keeps them away. Not to mention, it seems pretty effective at unraveling the Catholic position.
Thanks, Brian.
That’s actually one of the points of this exercise.
Frances, Can you provide that quote in context. When I google it I can’t find it in it’s original usage. I don’t doubt it, but I also don’t think that the Church teaches animal souls are the same as human souls. Of course, I’m at the end of my theological rope here – maybe someone else who knows more than me can chime in.
I did not read your earlier post about taking a different viewpoint.
“Are you telling me then that the death of a zygote means the actual death of a human individual?”
Yes, if you had died at that point of your existence you would not be able to ask that question.
A person’s a person, no matter how small.– Dr. Seuss
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
It pops up on lots of animal rights and vegan websites. 🙂
it seems pretty effective at unraveling the Catholic position.
To many people, such a statement implies a defect in the Catholic position.
Brian,
There are vegetative, sensitive (both perishable) and rational souls (immortal).
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
it seems pretty effective at unraveling the Catholic position.
I meant unraveling, like investigating more deeply. Like what John Paul II’s Theology of the Body did for our understanding of human sexuality. The teaching was always there JPII just expounded it with a depth and beauty that no one had seen before. I didn’t mean unraveling like unraveling a sweater and making into a useless ball of yard.
Of course we’re not doing anything on JPII’s level here. But as an average Catholic layman it certainly deepens my understanding of the issue.
Brian:
I don’t think your analogy to yarn is appropriate. 🙂
There are vegetative, sensitive (both perishable) and rational souls (immortal).
Thanks Inocencio.
“Animals possess a soul and … men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren” — Pope John Paul II, 1990
Thank you Frances, I’ll clarify my statement to only humans have rational souls.
Further to the above, isn’t that almost like saying that amino acids (which many Scientists claim was the beginning of life here on earth) actually contain a ‘soul’ as well?
I can’t say. You’ve exceeded my knowledge. If amino acids are indeed organisms, then they have a soul given to them by our Creator. It’s my guess that amino acids are more like parts than complete organisms. But like I said, I’m out of my element. They certainly don’t have a rational soul, which is what our discussion in concerned with. Can we get back on course?
It’s my guess that amino acids are more like parts than complete organisms.
BINGO!!!!
ding — ding — ding — ding — ding
Esau,
If a zygote is just a part, what is added to it to complete the human being? The parts have already been put together. At conception it is complete.
If amino acids are indeed organisms, then they have a soul given to them by our Creator. It’s my guess that amino acids are more like parts than complete organisms. But like I said, I’m out of my element. They certainly don’t have a rational soul, which is what our discussion in concerned with.
Now, demonstrate to me that something as undeveloped as a zygote which has yet to undergo several cell divisions can actually have a rational soul?
I don’t think your analogy to yarn is appropriate. 🙂
Yes it is! Yarn and it’s cousin, felt, have a long banner heritage going back to Vatican II.
Now, demonstrate to me that something as undeveloped as a zygote which has yet to undergo several cell divisions can actually have a rational soul?
Demonstrate to me that you and I can have a soul and I’ll demonstrate that a zygote can have a soul. I don’t think you’ll doubt that I have a soul now. I’m the same organism that I was when I was a zygote. Before that I didn’t exist. I was just a gleam in my father’s eye as they say. If I had a soul now, I had one when I first came into existence. There’s no way for me to pick one up along the way.
There’s no way for me to pick one up along the way.
Why can’t God plop one in you once you cross the arbitrary developmental threshold known as “finally the liberals can’t kill me anymore”?
Cogito ergo sum.
Why can’t God plop one in you once you cross the arbitrary developmental threshold known as “finally the liberals can’t kill me anymore”?
I can’t make chicken salad from… umm… not chicken. I can form an argument using purely natural law because natural law is true, but I can’t form an argument from a basic premise that denies the truth. Like I said way back at the start of this exercise: I guess you have to start with the assumption that all members of the species homo sapiens are deserving of human rights. If human rights are based on some type “human” quality, we end up with the mess we’re in today.”
Cogito ergo sum. a.k.a. I think, therefore I am
So if you’re in a coma you don’t exist?
I admit I’m Latin Illiterate, I had to google that to find out what it meant. Maybe Smoky and I can start Latin Illiterates Anonymous. Only I’d have to change my name because right now I’m nonymous or non-anonymous or something like that.
Brian:
That wasn’t the point of the exchange.
It’s clear that you haven’t read any of my posts concerning that matter, and I doubt you’ll even consider anything I’ve written here to any serious degree.
To avoid any conflict, you win.
It’s clear that you haven’t read any of my posts concerning that matter, and I doubt you’ll even consider anything I’ve written here to any serious degree.
You’re too lazy and stupid, Brian. 🙂
Esau,
I wasn’t trying to take sides on the fight from the other thread. I really did have to look it up (I didn’t mind it, I had to look up apoptosis too) and was making light of it as a show of solidarity with Smoky. Being a non-Catholic who’s interested in the Church, he is our most important type of client around here.
Your argument in the other thread has boiled down to pride on both ends. You both agree with the big picture of the importance of Latin. You’re fighting over whether or not Latin needs a footnote on a thread that no-one will read in a week. Who cares, you’ve wasted too many bytes on it already.
Brian is right. I at least have been somewhat immature and uncharitable on the other thread, so I apologize to you, Esau, and to Jimmy’s readers.
I should’ve let this go a long time ago.
I can’t make chicken salad from… umm… not chicken.
When I make chicken salad, I add the chicken last.
I’ve got a story that relates to all of this, yet isn’t related.
My buddies from high school asked me to be on their their team for the Tour de Cure to support the American Diabetes Association. I was real excited, but then I thought, “hey I wonder if they support embryonic stem cell research?” Turns out they do and I was sad because I wasn’t going to give them money if even a penny of it could be used for ESCR.
Luckily I was able to get in touch with the coordinator for our local Tour de Cure and set it up so that all the money I raise will go to a camp for children with diabetes. But now my team captain is hosting a dodgeball tournament to raise money to sponsor our team in the ride. I thought a dodgeball tournament would be a good opportunity for the Knights of Columbus to make a showing so I got in touch with the councils in the area to see if they had some guys who wanted to play (the tournament’s in my home town, not where I live now). And at tonights meeting I asked my council if they’d pay for shirts so we could kinda help give the Knights a younger image and maybe even recruit a guy or two. Obviously I’d also make arrangements for our tournament entrance fee to go to the camp instead of the ADA general fund.
Well the proposal started a firestorm. I’m actually kinda happy to learn that I’m not the only one who obsesses over such details. One of the members of my council said that the Knights shouldn’t even have their name associated with the ADA – even if the money is going to a good (aka non ESCR) place. I put up no objection, especially given Archbishop Burke’s recent example, and withdrew my proposal for a Knights sponsored dodgeball team. A big argument followed. Almost all the guys are old enough to be my dad and close to half have diabetes.
I’m just wondering. Can a Catholic ethically donate money to the ADA without stipulating that the money won’t be used for ESCR or lobbying for ESCR?
Is what I’m doing, giving them money but making sure it will only be used for a camp for children with diabetes ethical?
Any other comments?
“I can’t make chicken salad from… umm… not chicken.”
When I make chicken salad, I add the chicken last.
Carol, I apologize for sometimes throwing around too many analogies. The chicken salad metaphor is in reference to forming an argument, it’s not about how humans are made. I was saying that I can’t build an argument that starts with a false premise. I don’t think you meant to refute this point.
Brian, that sounds like a good question for Jimmy when he comes back. The Tour de Cure might be over, but it’s an interesting question.
Actually the one I’m riding is is June 3rd (they’re at different times all over the country), but by joining a team I have already committed to raise at least $150.
I think when determining when human life begins, we should instead think of death. If you can’t do to an infant (which everyone would agree is a living human being) what you can do to a “pre-infant” and not kill it, then it isn’t alive. Human beings cannot be frozen for years, thawed out, and then be perfectly fine. I’m just saying…
Another way to think about the beginning of life is self-sustainability. If a “pre-infant” can survive and develop on food and water alone, it is alive. If it cannot, it is not alive. A fertilized egg cannot develop without hormones from the mother.
Hi Michael, interesting thoughts, but they may have some flaws
If you can’t do to an infant (which everyone would agree is a living human being) what you can do to a “pre-infant” and not kill it, then it isn’t alive.
Human beings cannot be frozen for years, thawed out, and then be perfectly fine. I’m just saying…
1) You can’t freeze and thaw a full grown human yet. It may be technologically possible one day. Just as it wasn’t always technologically possible to freeze embryos.
2) A full grown person can go days without eating and still survive, while a baby can’t. Since denying food to a baby kills it and denying food to a full grown person doesn’t, does that mean a full grown person isn’t human? The chemistry of our bodies works in different ways at different phases in our lives.
3) It may be possible to freeze and re-animate an embryo, but embryo’s can certainly be killed and die. I don’t know how this happens if they’re not alive.
Another way to think about the beginning of life is self-sustainability. If a “pre-infant” can survive and develop on food and water alone, it is alive. If it cannot, it is not alive. A fertilized egg cannot develop without hormones from the mother.
1)What about sick people who are on a ventilator or other devices? Are they not alive?
2)If our pre-infant is not alive before it’s viable, how does it grow? What is it if it’s not alive? I don’t think you would call it dead or even non-living like a rock that never had life?
3)Lots of organisms live in symbiotic relationships. Don’t we have bacteria in our digestive that we depend on to help us process food. That doesn’t make either us or the bacteria less alive.
I think when determining when human life begins, we should instead think of death.
Michael:
I think you’re hitting on some potentially good points, which is why I was bringing up the subject of the ‘soul’ and if a zygote died, could that really be considered the death of a total human individual; i.e., the death of a ‘soul’?
One of the reasons why I also brought up the issue of ‘thought’ in deferring to Descartes’ saying is because regardless of a person in a coma, or even a mentally-retarded individual, there is the capacity for ‘thought’; there is, in fact, a ‘consciousness’.
Can one really say that a zygote posseses such a ‘consciousness’?
There is no consciousness or capacity for thought when I’m asleep, only potential for future consciousness and capacity for thought once I awake.
But please don’t kill me when I’m sleeping.
It is scary that Descartes takes the sacred name of God, I am, and decides that because he thinks (which is a gift from God) he is somehow God.
Esau,
Are you still playing devil’s advocate?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Are you serious about Descartes, Inocencio? I don’t think that’s what he means at all.
Smoky,
Not really. Just thinking aloud. My limited reading of Descartes has come from trying to get some background of philosphy. So I could have a better understanding when reading the Theology of the Body.
It just seems like about his time we took a wrong turn in our thinking. I am completely open to correction.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
The thing is, when you think of a human individual, s/he has a ‘soul’; there is conscentia.
Even when asleep and in a dream state, elementary cognitive processes are yet in play — this can also be said of coma patients.
The difficulty is in demonstrating that a zygote cell that is yet to undergo several cell divisions (even prior to reaching morula stage), in spite of this premature state, actually possesses a rational soul and can be expressed as a total human individual absent even these certain properties that actually define one.
One of the reasons why I also brought up the issue of ‘thought’ in deferring to Descartes’ saying is because regardless of a person in a coma, or even a mentally-retarded individual, there is the capacity for ‘thought’; there is, in fact, a ‘consciousness’.
Can one really say that a zygote posseses such a ‘consciousness’?
Does this capacity for thought or consciousness form a soul, or does the soul express itself through consciousness? The soul exists before the organism develops into a fetus with the physical capability to create thoughts. I ask you, if it doesn’t then where does the soul come in? I don’t think you doubt that a zygote is, biologically speaking, a human organism.
What about someone who is brain dead, but kept alive by artificial means? We recognize that they still have a soul, and even that their soul suffering with their body. If medical tests show that they are indeed permanently brain dead, we all agree that the proper thing to do is remove the artificial devices so the soul may be freed from the body.
Isn’t this the same type of situation as a zygote? Yet we recognize the existence of the soul in the brain dead person.
If medical tests show that they are indeed permanently brain dead, we all agree that the proper thing to do is remove the artificial devices so the soul may be freed from the body.
Again, as stated:
Elementary cognitive processes are yet in play even in coma patients, which many of the medical community will neglect to acknowledge, although there have been researchers who have come out with such studies.
Further, why would the fact there is an apaprent defect in the body justify the killing of the person just to release the soul?
This goes against even Natural Law which would go towards doing no harm to any human person.
Elementary cognitive processes are yet in play even in coma patients, which many of the medical community will neglect to acknowledge, although there have been researchers who have come out with such studies.
What is it about these elementary processes that make them evidence of a rational soul? If your researchers are wrong and the medical community turns out to be right, does that mean there is no soul?
Further, why would the fact there is an apaprent defect in the body justify the killing of the person just to release the soul?
This is tangent to the issue at hand, so lets not follow it too far. But here’s my response… It’s not killing, its the stopping of extraordinary medical treatment. Death is not unnatural, living forever as a shell of a person is. There’s a difference between a defect and an irrecoverable death of part of the body that will directly lead to the death of the entire organism if not for life support.
In such situations, we recognize that despite the person’s condition they are still a complete human being with a soul. That is why only people with a right to speak for them are allowed to make medical decisions for them.
A coma patient, unlike a ‘cell’, is a complete and total human individual.
In terms of DNRs, so not to divert the topic off its original course, I’ll just say that it can actually be considered murder to perform such an act for the very fact that one is not allowing a natural death to occur but, instead, purposely provoking the occurence of death by termination of medical facility.
Also, if you are to claim a totipotent cell, in fact, has a rational ‘soul’; what of other totipotent cells? Do they also have one as well?
In terms of DNRs, so not to divert the topic off its original course, I’ll just say that it can actually be considered murder to perform such an act for the very fact that one is not allowing a natural death to occur but, instead, purposely provoking the occurence of death by termination of medical facility.
So people don’t have a right to refuse medical treatment?
Also, if you are to claim a totipotent cell, in fact, has a rational ‘soul’; what of other totipotent cells? Do they also have one as well?
Human organisms have rational souls. If a human organism consists of just one cell it has a soul. If its slightly older and consists of several cells, each cell does not have a soul, the whole human has a soul.
You seem to have somewhat of a background in biology. Biologically speaking, is a human zygote a human organism? Where a human organism is, a human soul is. The size of the human or organ function or consciousness has no bearing on that. Just as a mensa member has no more of a soul than our brain dead friend on life support.
If it is alive, and carries a human genetic code, it’s a human being.
Heck, we’re ALL just piles of chemicals, in a strict sense.
If it is alive, and carries a human genetic code, it’s a human being.
Not necessarily, it could be a part of a human. Like an organ or part of an organ or something. But I think we’ve already covered that base in this discussion.
Tim J.,
If it is alive, and carries a human genetic code, it’s a human being.
Each cell carries DNA, but is not actually considered a human being.
I know a skin cell kept alive in a petri dish is not a human being, but we were talking in terms of human development/gestation.
Ethically, unless and until we KNOW different, we must assume that a zygote is an ensouled human being. Obviously, that is a philosophical answer to a question that science is permanently unequipped to tackle.
we must assume that a zygote is an ensouled human being
Only if the zygote is human.
Only if the zygote is human.
Exactly, Bernadette. So why isn’t a human zygote human?
Not “why isn’t”, but what makes a zygote human. That’s the next question in the series.
How about: potential to become a full-fledged human adult without the addition of additional genetic material?
Ethically, unless and until we KNOW different, we must assume that a zygote is an ensouled human being. Obviously, that is a philosophical answer to a question that science is permanently unequipped to tackle.
Tim J.,
I agree.
The thing is, I feel inequipped to confront my colleagues with such arguments that even remotely touches on Catholic principles since doing so automatically becomes self-defeating in the face of such an audience; i.e., can one reasonably argue this point absent any regard to the Catholic ideals which upholds such notions of morality?
I’m a big fan of the argument from “potential”.
Killing me in my sleep might be done without causing me pain. But, it strips me of the potential for future conscious life, and is therefore wrong.
Of course, there are probably holes in my thinking due to my non-philosopherness.
Is there not sufficient genetic material in many of the cells of the body to make a full-fledged human adult?
Is there not sufficient genetic material in many of the cells of the body to make a full-fledged human adult?
How many times must it be repeated that even when asleep and in a dream state, elementary cognitive processes are yet in play — this can also be said of coma patients?
How about: potential to become a full-fledged human adult without the addition of additional genetic material?
I think this addresses Esau’s question:
Also, if you are to claim a totipotent cell, in fact, has a rational ‘soul’; what of other totipotent cells? Do they also have one as well?
If the totipotent cell has the potential to become a full-fledged human, then yes, it has a soul.
That should have read:
How many times must it be repeated that even when asleep and in a dream state, elementary cognitive processes are yet in play and that this also can be said of coma patients and, in fact, applies (P300 anyone)?
Smoky, I think you have to be careful using full-fledged human. It makes it sound as if the zygote is somehow not a complete human yet. I’ve been using “progress along the human life cycle” (embryo to fetus to baby to child to adolescent to adult to old man, etc) but I’m sure there has to be a better scientific term for it.
Bernadette, I believe that a zygote is, biologically speaking, a human organism (whether or not its legally human is a whole other can of worms). Being of the human species and being a complete organism is what makes it human. Smoky, hits on a very good point. If it’s somehow less than human, what is added to it to make it human?
If the totipotent cell has the potential to become a full-fledged human, then yes, it has a soul.
Do cells really have potential in and of themselves?
Is there not sufficient genetic material in many of the cells of the body to make a full-fledged human adult?
Tough question. I think I tried to answer it earlier:
DNA is evidence that a person may exist. As Some Day has pointed out you may have a dead body or you may have a part of a body (living or dead) or you may have a real live person. I guess test is to let it live. If its dead it doesn’t grow. If its just a body part it may grow but its not ever going to go through the life cycle that humans do. If it is indeed a living human it will continue to progress through the natural life cycle. Embryos become babies, children become adolescents, and men become old men.
That’s the best I could come up with. Any thoughts?
As Bernadette rightly alluded to, each cell contains DNA, which is the genetic code for a full-fledged human.
Being of the human species and being a complete organism is what makes it human
Is there such thing as an incomplete organism?
As Bernadette rightly alluded to, each cell contains DNA, which is the genetic code for a full-fledged human.
Yes, but the key again is potential as I’ve said above.
If someone could take my skin cell and “grow” it into an adult human, would that human have a soul?
If the totipotent cell has the potential to become a full-fledged human, then yes, it has a soul.
Then a human person, then, possesses more than 1 soul according to this!
Also, I never knew my skin cell also possessed a soul!
If someone could take my skin cell and “grow” it into an adult human, would that human have a soul?
No, because it’s not God’s way to grow a human from a skin cell. But a fertilized ovum is God’s plan for a unique human being.
No, because it’s not God’s way to grow a human from a skin cell
How do we know God has only one way to grow a human? Is God limited?
Then a human person, then, possesses more than 1 soul according to this!
Also, I never knew my skin cell also possessed a soul!
Not necessarily. Doesn’t the Church teach that each soul is individually created by God at conception? Nothing in science can prove or disprove that. “Soul” is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.
So, why can’t God create a soul for the future human once He knows it’s on the path to becoming one?
This is similar to a debate about whether clones would have souls. I think the Church position is that they would.
No, because it’s not God’s way to grow a human from a skin cell. But a fertilized ovum is God’s plan for a unique human being
It’s also not God’s plan to grow a human from a test tube baby or from cloning, but I think the Church teaches that such humans would have souls.
Not to divert attention from the main focus, but if Science were capable of cloning an entire human from one cell, if such a process matures into a human being; it can arguably possess a ‘soul’ given the fact that its components were of human material.
You might think of how God made Eve out of Adam’s ribs.
Esau,
Cognitive processes are one way that the soul expresses itself. But the soul always expresses itself through the body, if the body doesn’t have cognitive processes it may be difficult to see the effects of the soul but it doesn’t mean the soul doesn’t exist.
I think we both agree with the the statement: If we witness cognitive processes in a human, then it has a soul.
The logical opposite of this statement is: If a human doesn’t have a soul, then we won’t witness any cognitive processes.
You can’t derive from this statement that the lack of cognitive processes in a newly conceived human disproves a soul. It’s high school logic.
The correct proof for a soul is if you have a human organism (person or being are also synonymous, but people have a hard time associating those words with a microscopic human). If you have a living human organism, then it has a rational soul.
Really, if we’re trying to address this question from a purely Natural Law perspective, why are we even talking about souls?
You might think of how God made Eve out of Adam’s ribs.
That would be a good one to follow. At what point did the new soul appear when it was once a rib?
Again you are off point.
The initial statement made:
“If the totipotent cell has the potential to become a full-fledged human, then yes, it has a soul.”
Humans have cells that have such potential; does that mean, then, that each cell has a ‘soul’?
Really, if we’re trying to address this question from a purely Natural Law perspective, why are we even talking about souls?
Refer to Posted by: Esau | May 3, 2007 1:30:09 PM.
“Being of the human species and being a complete organism is what makes it human”
Is there such thing as an incomplete organism?
Bernadette, I believe that’s my point. You seem to admit that that a human zygote is of the human species – it can’t become a frog or anything like that. And now you seem to be saying that it can’t be an incomplete organism.
My conclusion is that by being a human organism, it has a soul.
Esau,
How does the natural law hold up if we don’t have souls? Isn’t a Creator who made us in his image necessary for Natural Law?
That would be a good one to follow. At what point did the new soul appear when it was once a rib?
Thanks Bernadette!!!!
That’s just it — until Eve came into being, it was but a rib.
“If the totipotent cell has the potential to become a full-fledged human, then yes, it has a soul.”
Humans have cells that have such potential; does that mean, then, that each cell has a ‘soul’?
OK, I’ll try to refine. Since every cell has the genetic material of a complete human, is it correct that theoretically every cell has the potential to become a separate human?
But this clearly doesn’t happen. Cells have both a potential and a trajectory. Skin cells follow the trajectory of skin cells. But if a scientist re-programmed a skin cell such that it could grow into a new human — i.e. set it onto a zygote trajectory — it should then be treated as a human.
Similarly, so long as several totipotent cells are clustered together as a zygote, they follow the trajectory of a single zygote (which has one soul only). If the zygote split, the separated cells would follow separate trajectories, and at the instance of trajectory-switch, God would create new souls as needed.
How’s that for speculation?
Esau,
How does the natural law hold up if we don’t have souls? Isn’t a Creator who made us in his image necessary for Natural Law?
Brian,
Try explaining that to Smoky.
He was the one who said:
“Really, if we’re trying to address this question from a purely Natural Law perspective, why are we even talking about souls?”
Posted by: Smoky Mountain | May 4, 2007 2:32:50 PM
I just told him to refer to the previous posts.
That’s just it — until Eve came into being, it was but a rib.
The Church doesn’t require a literal reading of the rib-based creation of Eve, does it? I’m pretty sure that can be taken figuratively.
OK, I’ll try to refine. Since every cell has the genetic material of a complete human, is it correct that theoretically every cell has the potential to become a separate human?
But this clearly doesn’t happen. Cells have both a potential and a trajectory. Skin cells follow the trajectory of skin cells. But if a scientist re-programmed a skin cell such that it could grow into a new human — i.e. set it onto a zygote trajectory — it should then be treated as a human.
This is ridiculous — this means we could not perform research at all because, here, you are claiming that since each have this potential, they should be treated as a human!
Thus, you are barring ALL forms of research which REQUIRES cells!
This is the rather more draconian stance than ever there was one!
If someone could take my skin cell and “grow” it into an adult human, would that human have a soul?
Before we go too far along this road. Skin cells only have adult stem cells in them, there’s no way to turn them into new humans.
The only way is to use totipotent cells from very young humans. As far as I know to do this you’d have to destroy an embryo, which is murder in itself. Or if you can somehow get one of these cells out of an embryo without damaging it you’d need to reanimate it or something similar to what they do in theraputic cloning. You’d in essence be artificially recreating the process of conception, at which point you’d create a new human with a God-given soul (which is also sinful outside the marital act). Maybe someone who knows the science better can clarify.
No, you misunderstand me. It’s not until the trajectory-switch that the cell should be treated as human.
That’s what I tried to refine — both potential and trajectory are necessary.
I sense a bit of rudeness in your responses — I’d appreciate a little more charity, as I’m just fleshing out ideas…I’m on your side Esau on pro-life issues.
The Church doesn’t require a literal reading of the rib-based creation of Eve, does it? I’m pretty sure that can be taken figuratively.
Again, refer to:
Posted by: Esau | May 4, 2007 2:31:26 PM
It was just a metaphor — wasn’t mean to be ‘literal’.
In the meantime —
Brian and Bernadette:
I really appreciate your generous participation in this exchange.
I’m, at least, drawing some points in our discussion here that might help — although I am still struggling, as you can see here.
I don’t know much about natural law. I’m 26, which means courts left it behind long before I came around. But I imagine that if we aren’t ensouled beings and don’t have a creator, then all our laws are basically selfish.
The reason murder is illegal is because I don’t want to be murdered, and most people feel the same way so we all agree and pass a law and make it illegal.
Unfortunately this thinking fails to provide a voice for the unborn. They can’t speak up for themselves and everyone who can has already been born so they don’t really have a vested interest.
Come to think of it, that pretty much exactly describes the way our legal system works today.
you seem to be saying that it can’t be an incomplete organism. My conclusion is that by being a human organism, it has a soul.
No, you said it had to be COMPLETE organism. My question was what makes a complete vs. incomplete organism. A group of cells growing in a womb cannot survive and will not develop without additional chemicals from the mother. As development cannot complete without that help, is the organism complete?
Brian writes:
Before we go too far along this road. Skin cells only have adult stem cells in them, there’s no way to turn them into new humans.
Then they don’t have the “potential” portion of my “potenial + trajectory” hypothesis.
Esau writes:
if Science were capable of cloning an entire human from one cell, if such a process matures into a human being; it can arguably possess a ‘soul’ given the fact that its components were of human material.
I think this fits my hypothesis.
I personally can’t make an argument against ESCR if we don’t have souls. Maybe someone with a better mind than me can.
I agree with you Brian that morality is hard to posit a priori…that is, from an atheistic world view. I’m not convinced that it would be impossible to do so.
Brian:
The cells themselves are incapable of becoming anything else; however, the DNA contained in them, if Science were to advance beyond their current limitations, have such potential.
I’m not convinced that it would be impossible to do so.
Smoky,
That’s the purpose behind this exercise; i.e., I am trying to see if there is actually a way given Brian’s and Bernadette’s participation here, since they have provided some potential good points in the discussion.
No, you said it had to be COMPLETE organism. My question was what makes a complete vs. incomplete organism. A group of cells growing in a womb cannot survive and will not develop without additional chemicals from the mother. As development cannot complete without that help, is the organism complete?
We can’t survive without bacteria that live in our digestive system? Does that symbiotic relationship make us incomplete human organisms?
If the embryo is incomplete when its using it’s mother’s hormones, at what point does it become complete?
I am trying to see if there is actually a way given Brian’s and Bernadette’s participation here, since they have provided some potential good points in the discussion.
By omission, I’ve apparently not provided any potential good points? 🙁
By omission, I’ve apparently not provided any potential good points? 🙁
That doesn’t necessarily mean that you won’t. =^)
It’s just so far, you haven’t yet made a contribution that I can utilize in forming an effective argument.
The cells themselves are incapable of becoming anything else; however, the DNA contained in them, if Science were to advance beyond their current limitations, have such potential.
I have a hard enough time keeping up a general knowledge of the current state of the science. Let’s keep the discussion here to where we’re at today.
We can’t survive without bacteria that live in our digestive system? Does that symbiotic relationship make us incomplete human organisms?
But once you have them, you can survive. In addition, the bacteria are generally not considered part of the human organism. Therefore, they do not relate to the completeness of the human organism itself.
If the embryo is incomplete when its using it’s mother’s hormones, at what point does it become complete?
Your question is when is the human organism complete. That is my question too.
So there’s nothing to my potential+trajectory idea?
Bernadette,
I don’t consider the mother’s hormones to be part of the embryo. The mother gives them to the embryo in much the same way as she gives her unborn baby nutrients.
I believe a human organism is complete at conception. If I’m wrong, can you tell me when it is complete?
So there’s nothing to my potential+trajectory idea?
I’d stick to more scientific terms, the potential+trajectory idea leaves a lot of wiggle room (kind of like USCCB documents). Sorry, Smoky. The only reason I have the knowledge I do is from attending a few seminars to learn about the science behind stem cell research. It’s mighty scary.
I don’t consider the mother’s hormones to be part of the embryo. The mother gives them to the embryo in much the same way as she gives her unborn baby nutrients.
Once the mother gives them, they become chemically part of the embryo. Just as much as when a father and mother donate sperm and egg.
I believe a human organism is complete at conception. If I’m wrong, can you tell me when it is complete?
If I conceive of a building such as a temple, it’s not complete at conception but until it’s built.
I’d stick to more scientific terms
The problem with sticking to scientific terms only is that the question of a soul and when exactly God creates one is not a question of science.
If the value of a human is based upon his/her having a soul, then a human achieves value only when God gives him/her that soul.
When that happens is not something that can be decided by science.
Given the above, if we’re going to use scientific arguments, why are talking about souls?
If we’re talking about souls, why are scientific arguments relavent?
So there’s nothing to my potential+trajectory idea?
Smoky:
Go to my Posted by: Esau | May 4, 2007 3:01:46 PM
In other words, it would’ve worked if it were the actual reality and not merely a present limitation as a consequence of our current Scientific knowledge.
Once the mother gives them, they become chemically part of the embryo. Just as much as when a father and mother donate sperm and egg.
If I have a hormonal imbalance and take hormone shots, the hormones become chemically a part of me. Does that mean I wasn’t complete until I took the shot? I think it may be a stretch to call this the same as when the parents donate their seeds.
If I conceive of a building such as a temple, it’s not complete at conception but until it’s built.
You’ve used two different definitions of conceive. If I conceive of a person, I have an imaginary friend. If I conceive a person, I’m calling up my buddies and passing out cigars.
I think of conception in the same way we were all taught the difference between physical and chemical changes in middle school. When you put a cake in the oven the ingredients go through a chemical change and become something new altogether rather than being a simple, separable mixture of ingredients. At conception two human parts come together to make a human organism, they’ve gone through an irreversible change and can’t separated back out again into egg and sperm. A new human life has been made.
In other words, it would’ve worked if it were the actual reality and not merely a present limitation as a consequence of our current Scientific knowledge
Thank you. But given that, as far as we now know, skin cells can’t become humans, they therefore don’t have the potential to become humans?
As you point out, the DNA in that cell may have the potential to become a human — I assume you mean if it was implanted into a host cell. Once that DNA is implanted and the host cell starts on the trajectory towards human development, wouldn’t the Church teach that God gives it a soul?
Given the above, if we’re going to use scientific arguments, why are talking about souls?
If we’re talking about souls, why are scientific arguments relavent?
Natural Law doesn’t exclude scientific truths (I think souls are part of natural law and no one has told me otherwise). In fact they compliment each other.
And mostly, I have my hands full as it is trying to establish when a human exists. I’m not good enough to open another avenue of debate, much like I’m not good enough to make this argument without souls.
If you’re up to it, Smoky, go right ahead.
Does that mean I wasn’t complete until I took the shot?
You took the shot yourself. You were not hooked up to umbilical cord having it dumped in.
When you put a cake in the oven the ingredients go through a chemical change and become something new altogether rather than being a simple, separable mixture of ingredients.
The cake is not complete until all the ingredients have been combined and baked. Humans bake generally for 9 months.
much like I’m not good enough to make this argument without souls
Exactly, Brian. That’s my point. But we’re making this argument without souls.
The point that a human has value is the instance that that human has a soul. Debating about exactly when a human is scientifically a human seems irrelevant — the only thing that matters is “when does God create the soul”?
That’s not a question anyone can answer except via faith.
If something else matters — if a human has value distinct from his/her having a soul — then I see the merit of scientific arguments.
That anonymous post was me.
And mostly, I have my hands full as it is trying to establish when a human exists.
Brian,
That, indeed, is the dilemma!
A thought experiment:
If the Bible taught that God created a person’s soul on their 1st Birthday, would there be any sin in killing them prior to that?
You took the shot yourself. You were not hooked up to umbilical cord having it dumped in.
You had me on the ropes, but I think you’ve taken a step in the wrong direction here. Without me providing them nutrients those little bacteria in my gut are gonners. But just because they’re in a dependent symbiotic relationship doesn’t mean they’re not complete organisms.
The cake is not complete until all the ingredients have been combined and baked. Humans bake generally for 9 months.
My analogy was to the point when the chemical change occurs and the ingredients have changed to form something new altogether. I’m saying human life begins when the egg and sperm have combined and can no longer be separated into an individual egg and individual sperm anymore. I don’t know of any other ingredients that are added after this point. The embryo gets hormones and nutrients, etc. from its mother and uses them to grow itself (much like we use food and oxygen, etc.), but no parts are added – you could say the frosting’s already on the cake.
When, exactly, are you saying a human is complete?
oops, italics off!
That’s my point. But we’re making this argument without souls.
That’s not the actual case.
Again, I would recommend you read our earlier discussions, which evolved to the one we’re having.
I did read them, Esau.
Do you disagree with my statement:
the only thing that matters is “when does God create the soul”?
I did read them, Esau.
Do you disagree with my statement:
the only thing that matters is “when does God create the soul”?
I don’t know why it’s double posting…
The point that a human has value is the instance that that human has a soul. Debating about exactly when a human is scientifically a human seems irrelevant — the only thing that matters is “when does God create the soul”?
That’s not a question anyone can answer except via faith.
I didn’t know we were making this argument without souls. I thought souls were part of natural law.
You’re right, the only part that matters is when God creates the soul. I’ve stated that as soon as it’s a human organism it has a soul and no one seems to have argued that point (so luckily I get to keep souls for now). So now the debate has moved onto when its a human organism.
If the Bible taught that God created a person’s soul on their 1st Birthday, would there be any sin in killing them prior to that?
This is a very good question, I gotta go now. But being able make a case against infanticide in that world would be a big step in spreading the Gospel of Life to everyone.
Oops I meant to also say I’ll try to tackle that one when I get back. But that’s a real mind bender.
Bernadette, I’d also love to hear your comments.
You’re right, the only part that matters is when God creates the soul. I’ve stated that as soon as it’s a human organism it has a soul
Then why not simply state that as soon as conception occurs it has a soul?
My analogy was to the point when the chemical change occurs and the ingredients have changed to form something new altogether.
Brian,
Let me provide a basic framework from chemistry.
There is the typical scheme:
reactants —> products
That is:
A + B —> C
For “C” to even come into being, A and B have to react accordingly.
However, for that to even happen, above the —> is a transitional phase, and it’s this transitional phase that has to occur in order for “C” to actually come into being.
(please note: I’m going to oversimplify the reality of this by not touching on any essential transitional state arguments, or even treat thermodynamic or kinetic arguments/products, or ramble about the energy of activation barrier in that regard; so for those in the audience intimately acquainted with chemistry, you will have to forgive this oversimplification.)
Now, in the transitional phase, there are intermediates that need to come about just to get to “C”.
The ‘intermediates’ in the transitional phase for the reaction might be likened to that of the zygote cell where you have the zygote needing to undergo several cell divisions before you even reach morula, blastocyst, trophoblast, etc. — until you have finally come to the human fetus (in our chemical equation, this would be “C”).
Now, in the chemical equation, the intermediates are NOT at all “C” in that they possess their own individual properties. It is not until the intermediates complete their own reaction that “C” finally results.
By themselves, prior to becoming “C”, the intermediates exist as an entirely different ‘identity’ other than “C”, as they each possess their own properties (and, in fact, have their own chemical names/signature) and are NOT “C”.
Then why not simply state that as soon as conception occurs it has a soul?
I have several times. Well I guess I’ve said it the long way that at conception a human is complete and therefore has a soul. Bernadette doesn’t agree that its a complete human at contraception and therefore it doesn’t have a soul. I hope she answers when she thinks a human is complete/has a soul.
Perhaps the “long way” over-complicated things by introducing the “complete human” requirement. The only requirement is that God gave the organism a human soul. When does God do that? Conception.
Esau,
That’s a very interesting analogy to chemistry … thank you — something to chew on.
If I conceive of a building such as a temple, it’s not complete at conception but until it’s built.
And we’re certainly not built until our early twenties to so.
Bernadette doesn’t agree that its a complete human at contraception and therefore it doesn’t have a soul. I hope she answers when she thinks a human is complete/has a soul.
I’m not here to proclaim when a soul enters the picture. There’s Church dogma for that. But I can say that to call a human complete from conception seems to pretty well render the word “complete” meaningless. It’s like saying a cake is complete just because I’ve mixed the first two ingredients. With Esau’s chemical reaction theory, you start with A+B, but then you still have to add in a whole bunch of other ingredients and undergo many intermediary reactions which can each be labeled with names like “morula, blastocyst, trophoblast, etc.” But it doesn’t seem like any of those are a complete human any more than it would be a complete car to yank a chassis off the assembly line somewhere along the way. If the soul is not in place from the beginning, it could be added anywhere along the line.
And we’re certainly not built until our early twenties to so.
If sins are chalked up against a soul by the age of reason, there’d have to be a soul by then.
The ‘intermediates’ in the transitional phase for the reaction might be likened to that of the zygote cell where you have the zygote needing to undergo several cell divisions before you even reach morula, blastocyst, trophoblast, etc. — until you have finally come to the human fetus (in our chemical equation, this would be “C”).
Now, in the chemical equation, the intermediates are NOT at all “C” in that they possess their own individual properties. It is not until the intermediates complete their own reaction that “C” finally results.
The zygote, morula, blastocyst, and trophoblast are nevertheless human zygotes, morulas, blastocysts, and trophoblasts.
I note that as soon as you mix the ingredients together for a cake, you do not have the ingredients for cake, but batter. Furthermore, you have cake batter, not pancake or muffin batter. This is even simpler for humans than for cake, because there are only two ingredients for humans; in cake, you could argue about what happens when some but not all of the ingredients have been mixed together.
My baking experience is pretty much only stuff that comes out of a box. But here goes my clarification.
A + B —> C
Sperm + Egg —> Human
At the point where the sperm and the egg have combined to create single celled human organism with it’s own unique DNA (aka conception) you have a human with a soul. The A + B part of this equation are no more, C already exists and the reaction is done. While this may not happen instantly it happens pretty fast – I remember seeing it in the beginnin of Look Whose Talking :). In layman’s terms, the cake has been baked (in layman’s terms the bun however still has 9 months to go in the oven, but that’s neither here nor there). The growth from a zygote thru morula, blastocyst, trophoblast, etc are stages in the human growth cycle just as baby to child to adolescent are.
Esau, you claim that the fetus stage, not conception, is C, but what is it about the fetus stage that completes this transition? What causes the reaction to end?
But I can say that to call a human complete from conception seems to pretty well render the word “complete” meaningless.
How so? I fail to see what is incomplete about a newly conceived person. Unless we’re somehow not complete until we reach our physical peak at 30 or whenever that is.
It’s like saying a cake is complete just because I’ve mixed the first two ingredients.
Where are these other ingredients that go into a human? The only physical ingredients are a male and female seed.
With Esau’s chemical reaction theory, you start with A+B, but then you still have to add in a whole bunch of other ingredients and undergo many intermediary reactions which can each be labeled with names like “morula, blastocyst, trophoblast, etc.”
I don’t think Esau was saying there’s any more variables on the left side of the equation. He was saying that during all those phases with big names the reaction is still taking place and isn’t complete yet. But, you’re on the right track to proving me wrong by saying the reaction is still happening during these phases. I did my best to refute it above.
But it doesn’t seem like any of those are a complete human any more than it would be a complete car to yank a chassis off the assembly line somewhere along the way.
A car chassis still requires a lot of parts before it’s a car. An embryo has all its parts. Think of it as a fertilized flower seed. When its fully grown a flower is still the same organism as when it was just a seed. The seed grows itself using water and nutrients and eventually sunlight, no parts are added to it.
If the soul is not in place from the beginning, it could be added anywhere along the line.
What’s the beginning? If the beginning is the first existance of the human, then no it can’t be added along the line. A human by definition has a rational soul. If the beginning is the start of the procreative process, then yes its added along the line of the procreative process. Our equation, if we include non-physical elements, would look like: Egg + Sperm + Soul —> Human
If sins are chalked up against a soul by the age of reason, there’d have to be a soul by then.
So you are Catholic, Bernadette. Would you at least concede that embryonic stem cell research is gravely sinful because it perverts the marital act?
I note that as soon as you mix the ingredients together for a cake, you do not have the ingredients for cake, but batter.
I would say that at this point you’re still at the procreating stage (A + B side of the equation). The ingredients can still be separated by normal (yet painstaking) physical means (evaporate the water, and separate the flour from the sugar, etc.). Doing something like this would be equivalent to contraception (if only contraception were that difficult). Once the cake is baked it’s impossible to separate out the flour from the sugar because they’ve undergone chemical change. Chemical change probably isn’t the right term to describe what happens in procreation, but I think it’s analogous.
sorry. italics off
off
If the Bible taught that God created a person’s soul on their 1st Birthday, would there be any sin in killing them prior to that?
I don’t think killing a less than one year old infant would be homicide in this case, but I can think of two reasons why it would constitute mortal sin:
1) I think it would basically be contraception. What you’ve really created here is a 21 month procreation process. Unnaturally interupting it turns the marital act into a selfish, purely pleasure seeking action.
2) It’s sinful because it’s treating something that’s not yours as if it is. The infant in this scenario doesn’t have rational soul but to be alive it must have some soul, probably similar to an animal soul. This would be like senselessly killing a swan for no good reason. It’s one of God’s creatures and it’s not your life to take. Only this would be worse than murdering an animal because even though the infant doesn’t have a human soul yet, it’s still a human being and would have gained a rational soul on it’s birthday.
Unfortunately, I don’t know if either of these are reasons the general public would buy.
Would you at least concede that embryonic stem cell research is gravely sinful because it perverts the marital act?
ESCR is a broad topic not defined to be any specific sinful act. Why should I believe it’s always a sin when, for example, it’s not always a sin for a doctor to perform a variety of operations to save a baby’s life or indeed that may result in the loss of a child as a secondary effect? Such actions might include forms of ESCR. There may be moral ways to proceed with ESCR, even if some forms may not be.
Why should I believe it’s always a sin when, for example, it’s not always a sin for a doctor to perform a variety of operations to save a baby’s life or indeed that may result in the loss of a child as a secondary effect?
ESRC creates an embryo in the lab. It separates the procreative process from the marital act. No one takes these embryos from married women (if that’s how they had to do it I don’t think it would be legal in the first place).
Once the embryo is made, the procreative act is over. And we get into the debate we’re in now of whether or not its a human being.
.Your limited view of ESCR does not disprove the possibility of moral avenues, to include those which may be available under the principle of double effect, to pursue ESCR. Therefore, as long as the possibility of moral avenues to pursue ESCR may exist, I will not “concede that embryonic stem cell research is gravely sinful.”
italics off, sorry I’m bad today.
ESCR is a broad topic not defined to be any specific sinful act.
If you’re Catholic, it is a specific topic defined to be a sinful act. If you’re not, that’s ok. I was just wondering, it would have changed my argument.
Your limited view of ESCR does not disprove the possibility of moral avenues, to include those which may be available under the principle of double effect, to pursue ESCR.
I admit my ignorance here, what is the principal of double effect and how does it apply to ESCR?
This is what the Catechism says:
1753
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
ESCR on humans begins with the creation of a human outside of the marital act, no matter how good the end is the Church says we cannot commit this sin. If you don’t submit to the Magisterium, that’s fine with me, I’m not going to judge. I was just wondering, it would have taken some pressure off me if we agreed here. It would have made the rest of the debate “academic” (i.e. we both would agree ESRC is wrong, just for different reasons).
Therefore, as long as the possibility of moral avenues to pursue ESCR may exist, I will not “concede that embryonic stem cell research is gravely sinful.
What are these moral avenues?
I admit I only have a basic understanding this issue, and as I said before I don’t know about the principal of double effect. Here’s what I know, please fill in the parts where i’m lacking or mistaken:
Non-embryonic stem cell research in humans is ok (adult stem cells, placenta stem cells, etc).
All stem cell research is ok in an animals as far as I know.
If we don’t agree here, that’s fine with me, you have the right to say that the Church is wrong. But please don’t say the Catholic Chuch says there are moral avenues for human ESCR when it doesn’t. Our debate started out using only natural law, and I would happy to get back to that if you would.
I note that as soon as you mix the ingredients together for a cake, you do not have the ingredients for cake, but batter.
I would say that at this point you’re still at the procreating stage (A + B side of the equation). The ingredients can still be separated by normal (yet painstaking) physical means (evaporate the water, and separate the flour from the sugar, etc.).
Nope. You get chemical reactions. You can not separate them by physical means.
Cake and chicken salad – you guys are making me hungry 🙂 Looks like I’ve missed an interesting discussion.
Brian said he’s going at this from natural law, my guess is to answer non-Catholics, but I want to think out loud a Catholic line of thought.
In reading the posts today, Smoky stopped me with his coment that the Church teaches that test tube babies have a soul.
A brief search found a statement that made me think in analogy to Mass which can be valid even if illicit. So a person conceived in an illicit manner has a soul, a valid spiritual life, if you will. But one can not approach IVF and say, “Oh well, God will give a soul if we proceed” because that would incur the sin of presumption.
Okay. That probably didn’t trouble anyone other than me, just thinking out loud.
Nope. You get chemical reactions. You can not separate them by physical means.
Mary (not Mary Kay), are you saying that making cake batter is a chemical reaction? I don’t think the scientific community is on your side here. I thought baking a cake was the standard, generally understood example to show the difference between chemical and physical reactions. I’m sorry I didn’t mean to bring complex science into this, I thought it would be a simple analogy to help describe conception.
After my Knights of Columbus meeting, and inspired by Archbishop Burke’s courageous example, I’ve made this shirt to wear at the dodgeball tournament and the bike ride I’m participating in: Stem Cell Shirt
Hey Smoky,
I read an article in Columbia Magazine that mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t believe a human body was ensouled until weeks after conception. Yet he obviously still maintained that contraception and abortion constitute grave sin. So the point can definitely be made even if one doesn’t believe zygotes have souls (I just hope it doesn’t take St. Thomas’ brilliance to make it). Anyway the article wasn’t about that, it just mentioned it in passing so I don’t have any more details.
I was also thinking back to a talk I went to about a year ago. I think scientists are at or close to the point where they can take any cell (like one from your arm), remove it’s “guts” and replace them with a totipotent nucleus and zap it to life to make a new organism. I think that’s basically the idea behind “therapeutic cloning” (when did scientists start paying marketers to name their techniques?). It’s very scary. So maybe your potential+trajectory idea is worth exploring more here.
“Thou shall not kill.”
If someone dies because treatment was withheld are we not committing the same act? My thought is “yes”.
Now lets say there is a treatment, although not a very good treatment, and there are risks associated. Some of these risks are blindness, amputation, brain damage, kidney failure, liver failure… to list a few. Is it more humane to allow insufferable risks to occur and yet “save” a life. Notice that “save” is in quotes as the life these people are forced into is one of pain and suffering.
Or, is it more humane to truly save these people by sacrificing another?
My daughter was diagnosed at 18 months with type 1 diabetes. I will gladly give my life to cure her. Unfortunately it does not work that way. If stem cell research will cure my daughter, and potentially 20 million other people (yes it is that high), then why would we let this opportunity pass by?
To keep her alive until she is 61.5 years old will require approximately 110,000 lancets and another 110,000 hypodermic needles (this is considered to be biohazardous waste). This is just to put her on par with someone who does not have diabetes.
It is easy to sacrifice yourself to save another. How would you cope if you had to choose between saving your loved one and someone else’s loved one? Now answer that same question when the other “loved one” is a small group of cells that was willingly donated.
Let’s find a cure for my daughter. Let’s find a cure for sons and daughters of the 40 million parents of those also diagnosed.
I am a God fearing man. I believe He will have mercy.