Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[LittleLes]

[quote name='ardillacid' date='May 25 2005, 11:54 PM'] Littleles-

I know we've gone over this before. Magisterium never declared the earth to be the center of the universe. I don't know if you know what the Magisterium is, but how about I give you a couple clues: it isn't the theologians of the Holy Office, and it isn't 6 cardinals signing a condemnation of Galileo .

I have seen how you argue. If the opposition makes a point you cannot defend you completely ingore them, go off on tangents, and attack from a different angle to cover your bare ass.  [/quote]
The issue isn't whether or not the magisterium declared the earth to be the center of the universe. The issue involves the infallibility of Trent and Vatican I's claim that the Church always interpreted scripture correctly.

It hasn't.

And if the "opposition" makes a point, it is their task to defend it. Not mine.

Edited May 26, 2005 by LittleLes

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 05:55 PM'] Hi,

The presence of an immaterial rational soul makes a human person. I believe this has always been the Church's teaching. No soul, no person. [/quote]
Where is Bertrand Russell when you need him?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 12:01 PM']What does "Religious Tolerance" have to do with the writings of St. Augustine and St. Jerome? [/quote]
What does "Religious Tolerance" have to do with the writings of ReligiousTolerance.org?

Seriously, ReligiousTolerance.org is one of a few places where they follow the same script that you're following.

Here's the comparison for everyone to see:
Your words on St. Augustine:
[quote]Augustine tells us that no soul can live in an unformed body, so there can be no talk of murder in the case of early abortion. (see On Exodus 21,80).[/quote]
ReligiousTolerance.org on St. Augustine:
[quote]Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, and returned to the Aristotelian concept of "delayed ensoulment." He wrote {Footnote: St. Augustine, "On Exodus", (21, 80)}  that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed...[/quote]

Your words on St. Jerome:
[quote]And Jerome tells us in his Epistle 121,4 that "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired there external appearance and their limbs."[/quote]
ReligiousTolerance.org on St. Jerome:
[quote]St. Jerome wrote in a letter  to Aglasia: "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs" {Footnote: St Jerome, "Epistle" (121, 4)}[/quote]

In both cases, St. Augustine is quoted immediately before St. Jerome.
I suppose you could have gotten these quotes from another Internet site like anatheist.com; but, what's the difference? Why not be honest and cite other websites when you are doing copy-and-paste arguments? We'll still respect you, even if you are just parroting someone else's ideas.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 12:01 PM']And incidently less than half of the fertilized ova implant and go on to develop. So if you are talking about just numbers, spontaneous abortions far far outnumber clinical abortions.[/quote]
I hate to break it to you; but this "fact" is actually just a guess that someone pulled out of their hat. There is no proof of such a statistic. Do your own research. Call up NIH. The truth is out there.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 12:01 PM']Before you argue further, you had better give us your definition of abortion. Do you consider the loss or an embryo which fails to implant abortion? If not why not? [/quote]
Technically, any miscarriage during a pregnancy is an abortion ([url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortion"]dictionary definition of abortion[/url]). The real issue is culpability.

I'll use a simple parallel: If I could show that a certain number of children die from poison, could that be used as a justification for me to intentionally cause the death of a child with poison? There is a difference between death and murder. A spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage) is not murder. Would you disagree?

In fact, in common English usage, the term abortion has gradually changed to include only intentional abortions. It seems quite natural that women who lose their pre-born children would prefer to use the term miscarriage instead of abortion, to distinguish their experience from the quite different experience of those who would (for whatever motive) intentionally kill an unborn child.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='May 25 2005, 11:43 PM'] The skin cells are [u][i]human[/i][/u] skin cells.

It is not a human.

What makes a human a person then? [/quote]
Lets compare definitons.

Human = of the human species.
Being = something in existence.

When I use the term "human being" I generally mean a person. However, those making a prolife like to argue "how can a fertailized ovum not be a human being?" It's human, and its a being.

One can correctly use that term, but the implication is that a zygote is a person.

Lets be consistent.

A human sperm and a human ovum combine to form a single cell called a zygote which contains the complete human chromosome set. If it is implanted in a uterus, it will eventually develop into a adult human person or human being, in this case to offspring of the parents.

A skin cell (a epithelial cell) also contains the complete human chromosome set. If it too were planted in a uterus it would eventually develop into a adult human person or human being, in this case a clone of a single person (via single nuclear transfer).

How can it then be argued that the zygote is at once a human being, an ensouled person, but a "skin" or epithelial cell is not? Both are capable of implantation and fetal development into a adult.

I wouldn't want to claim ensoulment (or personhood) for either until later in fetal development.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='May 25 2005, 11:47 PM'] Or, maybe they weren't ambivalent, and you shouldn't put blind faith in the reliability of ReligiousTolerance.org.


[/quote]
So are you claiming that "religious tolerance" quoted either St. Jerome or St. Augustine incorrectly?

Or do only Catholic websites quote correctly?

Are you denying that these statements were made by Jerome and Augustine?

And Jerome tells us in his Epistle 121,4 that "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired there external appearance and their limbs."

Augustine tells us that no soul can live in an unformed body, so there can be no talk of murder in the case of early abortion. (see On Exodus 21,80).


Keep in mind that the theory of delayed ensoulment continued to be the Catholic position via the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas pretty much into the 18th century, and persisted in canon law up until the 1917 revision. Now it's some apologist's position that this was never really the Church's teaching since this teaching has changed. But, of course, it was.

LittleLes

Edited May 27, 2005 by LittleLes

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 08:59 PM'] Lets compare definitons.

Human = of the human species.
Being = something in existence.

When I use the term "human being" I generally mean a person. However, those making a prolife like to argue "how can a fertailized ovum not be a human being?" It's human, and its a being.

One can correctly use that term, but the implication is that a zygote is a person.

Lets be consistent.

A human sperm and a human ovum combine to form a single cell called a zygote which contains the complete human chromosome set. If it is implanted in a uterus, it will eventually develop into a adult human person or human being, in this case to offspring of the parents.

A skin cell (a epithelial cell) also contains the complete human chromosome set. If it too were planted in a uterus it would eventually develop into a adult human person or human being, in this case a clone of a single person (via single nuclear transfer).

How can it then be argued that the zygote is at once a human being, an ensouled person, but a "skin" or epithelial cell is not? Both are capable of implantation and fetal development into a adult.

I wouldn't want to claim ensoulment (or personhood) for either until later in fetal development.

LittleLes [/quote]
Not the case at all. You'd have to take the DNA set out of the skin cell and put it into a fertilized egg cell in order to make the clone. You can't take the skin cell and stick it in the uterus and have it grow. It has no POTENTIAL. That's the real difference here. It's like the difference between a corpse and a living person. The corpse has the potential to sit there and rot, much like the skin cell. The zygote has the potential to live, much like an adult human.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 26 2005, 09:22 PM'] Not the case at all.  You'd have to take the DNA set out of the skin cell and put it into a fertilized egg cell in order to make the clone.  You can't take the skin cell and stick it in the uterus and have it grow.  It has no POTENTIAL.  That's the real difference here.  It's like the difference between a corpse and a living person.  The corpse has the potential to sit there and rot, much like the skin cell.  The zygote has the potential to live, much like an adult human. [/quote]
Not at all. One removes the cytoplasm and places the somatic (or epithelial)nucleus in a hollowed out ovum from which all DNA has been removed and then implants it into a uterus. So you are in error about DNA from the mother.

To survive and develop, a zygote too must be implanted in a uterus. Either as the result of intercourse or implantation following in vitro fertilization.

And material also has to be removed from the sperm and ova (starting with the sperm's tail).

Both the somatic cell and the zygote are living cells so your corpse analogy is invalid. Both are living cells. At least my tissue cells are not "rotting."

So we have a comparable situation with both. Why should one immediately be claimed to be a human being while the other is not?

LittleLes

Edited May 27, 2005 by LittleLes

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 09:42 PM'] Not at all. One removes the cytoplasm and places the somatic (or epithelial)nucleus in a hollowed out ovum from which all DNA has been removed and then implants it into a uterus. So you are in error about DNA from the mother.

To survive and develop, a zygote too must be implanted in a uterus. Either as the result of intercourse or implantation following in vitro fertilization.

And material also has to be removed from the sperm and ova (starting with the sperm's tail).

Both the somatic cell and the zygote are living cells so your corpse analogy is invalid. Both are living cells.

So we have a comparable situation with both. Why should one immediately be claimed to be a human being while the other is not?

LittleLes [/quote]
Not at all the case. You have to hijack another cell for your "somatic" to even work. You cannot take the skin cell and put it in a uterus and have it do anything. You have to take the ovum. So all you're really doing is creating a fertilized egg cell by bypassing the fertilization. You need the egg cell.

Besides which, doing this with a human is far easier said than done. To my knowledge, no such clone has ever been brought to term. We don't even know what the side-effects might be.

[Aloysius]

it was always considered a SEXUAL SIN anyway, on the same par with contraception, and thus considered completely evil and immoral.

and Turtillian alluded to the relation it had to murder even if he himself might have also not thought the embryo to be a person by saying "He who will be man is man already"

delayed ensoulment rested on the Aristotelian science view that the seed starts as a vegetable (considering the scientific knowledge of the day, let us note that these quotes are not speeking metephorically when they call it a "seed" that grows. they believe it to be a seed.) And so I shall affirm alongside Augustine, Jerome, and Thomas Aquinas that if a woman had a plant seed that would eventually form into a human being it would not be considered murder to get rid of it.

So, ladies, feel free to get rid of any plants in your uterus: Augustine, Jerome, and Aquinas have no problem with it. What they would have a problem with is getting rid of a distinctly different human genome that will be a man so long as nothing gets in its way.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 26 2005, 10:45 PM'] Not at all the case. You have to hijack another cell for your "somatic" to even work. You cannot take the skin cell and put it in a uterus and have it do anything. You have to take the ovum. So all you're really doing is creating a fertilized egg cell by bypassing the fertilization. You need the egg cell.

Besides which, doing this with a human is far easier said than done. To my knowledge, no such clone has ever been brought to term. We don't even know what the side-effects might be. [/quote]
you forgot the raelians

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 26 2005, 09:45 PM'] Not at all the case.  You have to hijack another cell for your "somatic" to even work.  You cannot take the skin cell and put it in a uterus and have it do anything.  You have to take the ovum.  So all you're really doing is creating a fertilized egg cell by bypassing the fertilization.  You need the egg cell.

Besides which, doing this with a human is far easier said than done.  To my knowledge, no such clone has ever been brought to term.  We don't even know what the side-effects might be. [/quote]


As Carrie Earll summarizes:

Any attempt to clone humans will utilize the same technology used on animals. Mammalian cloning is the process of using asexual production to replicate an organism. The method employed is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and results in the creation of a new organism by way of fusion, as opposed to fertilization. SCNT consists of removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell from the donor to be cloned. A somatic cell, such as a skin or white blood cell, contains the donors DNA or genetic code. Then, instead of fertilization, a small electric pulse is applied to cause the cells to fuse and divide. If successful, the result is a newly cloned individual who begins the same process of human development that we all experienced

(1) Your arguments are a bit nonsensical . Does an ovum "hijack" a sperm to become fertilized?

(2) Your arguments are getting way off the issue. The central point , which you continue to avoid, is that the "fertilized" ovum is not yet a human being, but that natural conception, in vitro fertilization, and cloning if allowed to proceed will all result in the eventual development of a human being. But neither the zygote nor the cloned cell immediately has the moral status of a person.

(3) And Dolly, the cloned sheep, a mammal, was brought to term. You may have heard.

Edited May 27, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 26 2005, 09:51 PM']

and Turtillian alluded to the relation it had to murder even if he himself might have also not thought the embryo to be a person by saying "He who will be man is man already"

[/quote]
If Tertullian was correct then, all my skin cells which can be cloned ( rememeber, these have the same genetic programing as the zygote ) and become a man are a "man already." Is that what you are arguing?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 06:03 AM']

As Carrie Earll summarizes:

Any attempt to clone humans will utilize the same technology used on animals. Mammalian cloning is the process of using asexual production to replicate an organism. The method employed is called somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) and results in the creation of a new organism by way of fusion, as opposed to fertilization. SCNT consists of removing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg and replacing it with the nucleus of a somatic cell from the donor to be cloned. A somatic cell, such as a skin or white blood cell, contains the donors DNA or genetic code. Then, instead of fertilization, a small electric pulse is applied to cause the cells to fuse and divide. If successful, the result is a newly cloned individual who begins the same process of human development that we all experienced

(1) Your arguments are  a bit nonsensical . Does an ovum "hijack" a sperm to become fertilized?

(2) Your arguments are getting way off the issue. The central point , which you continue to avoid, is that the "fertilized" ovum is not yet a human being, but that natural conception, in vitro fertilization, and cloning if allowed to proceed will all result in the eventual development of a human being. But neither the zygote nor the cloned cell immediately has the moral status of a person.

(3) And Dolly, the cloned sheep, a mammal,  was brought to term. You may have heard. [/quote]
LittleLes,

You need to step back, maybe do a side by side comparison of the steps taken for a natural conception and cloning, etc.

You are comparing a fertilized ovum with a skin cell... An obvious apples / oranges comparison. You are comparing two different steps. If you are to make a comparison worth anything, then you would compare the skin cell with the sperm... Or the Zygote with the newly conceived clone.

Maybe this will help.


1.) sperm / egg


2.) Sperm enters egg

3.) Fertilization

4.) Newly conceived human


1.) skin / egg

2.) remove/replace egg nuc. with somatic cell nuc.

3.) fusion (essentially the same as fertilization

4.) Newly conceived human

In a side by side comparison you would have to hit the enter key on the clone column 3 times to come up with your comparison, because you've compared step 4 of the natural way with step 1 of the genetic engineering way.

In either case as soon as you hit stage 3, we are talking about a new individual human LIFE as apposed to say an egg or sperm or skin.

Granted we can never know when exactly ensoulment happens. The Church hasn't taught this. So we don't know if this new human life has an eternal soul immediately at fertilization or fusion. But we do know that this is the point after which a soul is possible. There is only guessing. Before this (steps 1 and 2) we know for sure that a human soul is not present, because human life is not present (only component level "human" life - sperm, skin cell, etc.). But after this we cannot say that abortion is permissible, because we know for sure this is a complete individual human, and we know that it is possible that this human is a person (in your definition... i.e. has a soul).

I'm hoping that you read this thoroughly before responding...

I think you are arguing for the sake of wanting to be right, not necessarily for the sake of learning what is right.

God bless.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Jake Huether

[Aloysius]

the skin cell is not man already any more than the sperm cell is man already

it is only once all the needed parts are put together that there is a real potential. when an egg is fertilized, it holds the information from both the egg and the sperm, all the information is there, and only then can it be applied "he who will be man is man already"

anyway, notice how your arguments from Aquinas, Augustine, and Jerome have been dessimated. I suggest a humble concession, it might help your ethos and make any other arguments you make more convincing.

[KizlarAgha]

Do clones have souls? I mean...I guess I kind of always assumed they wouldn't, but that seems like an illogical assumption.