Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='May 27 2005, 04:48 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Hi Jake,

What I have established is that there really is no difference between cloning and natural conception. Both will eventually result in an adult human being.

The thrust of the argument is that there is not immediately a rational, immaterial, immortal soul in one case of the one cell organism, but not the other. Despite the prolifer's claims!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 27 2005, 05:01 PM'] the skin cell is not man already any more than the sperm cell is man already

[/quote]
Poor analogy. A sperm only has half the genetic complement, The skin cell has the complete genome. They are therefore not the same.

It should read:

The skin cell is not man already any more than the zygote (or fertilized ovum) is man already.

Both start out as genetically complete individual cells which can reproduce under the correct circumstances.

LittleLes

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 27 2005, 09:37 PM'] Do clones have souls? I mean...I guess I kind of always assumed they wouldn't, but that seems like an illogical assumption. [/quote]
When a clone reaches personhood it would have a rational, immaterial, immortal soul just like a zygote when if reaches an equivalent stage of fetal development.

[guardsman]

[quote name='KizlarAgha' date='May 27 2005, 09:37 PM']Do clones have souls?  I mean...I guess I kind of always assumed they wouldn't, but that seems like an illogical assumption.[/quote]
My guess (only a guess!) is that if God allows a clone to be born, it would have a soul. God gives life, and no one else. Therefore, even though scientists may believe they have created life, they are wrong. God just allowed us a different method of procreation. Anything that ends in a new life must have come from God, because only He is capable of such things. Just my opinion. I'll go with whatever the magesterium says, if I'm wrong.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 11:48 PM'] Poor analogy. A sperm only has half the genetic complement, The skin cell has the complete genome. They are therefore not the same.

It should read:

The skin cell is not man already any more than the zygote (or fertilized ovum) is man already.

Both start out as genetically complete individual cells which can reproduce under the correct circumstances.

LittleLes [/quote]
the skin cell has a complete genome identicle to the person it comes off of, and it is not growing into a human being, therefore you can not include it as someone who "will be man"... not until all your sci-fi immoral scienc dr. frankenstein mumbo-jumbo is done to it. then and only then can it be considered "he who will be man"

a skin cell if left in its natural state will not become a man

an embryo if left in its natural state will become a man

not only is the genome there, but the instructions for how it should grow into that person is there.

[guardsman]

[quote name='MC Just' date='May 23 2005, 09:45 AM'] Hi Kobe.. Peace be with you

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...mages/index.htm[/url]

tell them to go to that site... [/quote]
I'm a member of both of those groups. Abortion is definitely killing an innocent child.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 27 2005, 11:05 PM'] the skin cell has a complete genome identicle to the person it comes off of, and it is not growing into a human being, therefore you can not include it as someone who "will be man"... not until all your sci-fi immoral scienc dr. frankenstein mumbo-jumbo is done to it. then and only then can it be considered "he who will be man"

a skin cell if left in its natural state will not become a man

an embryo if left in its natural state will become a man

not only is the genome there, but the instructions for how it should grow into that person is there. [/quote]
No, you are error. A zygote of itself will not develop into a human being unless it is implanted in a uterus. This can be seen most clearly in the case of in vitro fertilization in which the best zygotes are selected to be implanted.

If, instead, a single nucleus of a tissue cell is placed in a ova from which all DNA has been removed and implanted, it too will develop into a human being. And, yes, both will become ensouled at some point. But claiming that the zygote resulting from intercourse or from in vitro fertilization, but not the clone, are human beings or have souls is incorrect. They would have the same moral status.

Both the cell nucleus containing the complete genome and the zygote containing a complete genome (whether produced internally through intercourse or externally by in vitro fertilization) are passive and require implanation to develop.

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 05:28 PM'] No, you are error. A zygote of itself will not develop into a human being unless it is implanted in a uterus. This can be seen most clearly in the case of in vitro fertilization in which the best zygotes are selected to be implanted.

If, instead, a single nucleus of a tissue cell is placed in a ova from which all DNA has been removed and implanted, it too will develop into a human being. And, yes, both will become ensouled at some point. But claiming that the zygote resulting from intercourse or from in vitro fertilization, but not the clone, are human beings or have souls is incorrect. They would have the same moral status.

Both the cell nucleus containing the complete genome and the zygote containing a complete genome (whether produced internally through intercourse or externally by in vitro fertilization) are passive and require implanation to develop. [/quote]
The difference is that one implantation is invasive, and the other implantation is not. In vitro fertilization is of course unnatural, so it doesn't count.

[Aloysius]

yeah, what he said.

an embryo in a woman, created naturally in a woman, will become man.

from a Catholic POV, your argument has been disproven. Aquinas, Jerome, and Augustine have been explained and it has been explained that Abortion was always considered a sexual sin, Turtullian has been presented, and the Catholic Context that does not allow for in vitro fertilization (because it is a sexual sin with certain murderous aspects based on doctrine informed by modern science) has produced a clean-cut case. Your position is outside of Catholic Teaching from the time of Augustine and Jerome to the present day and thus your premise has been discredited (that Catholic Teaching has changed and that Catholics can be pro-abortion)

But I will always remember the valuable lessons you have taught me (see my sig for details)

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 28 2005, 05:51 PM'] yeah, what she said.

an embryo in a woman, created naturally in a woman, will become man.

from a Catholic POV, your argument has been disproven. Aquinas, Jerome, and Augustine have been explained and it has been explained that Abortion was always considered a sexual sin, Turtullian has been presented, and the Catholic Context that does not allow for in vitro fertilization (because it is a sexual sin with certain murderous aspects based on doctrine informed by modern science) has produced a clean-cut case. Your position is outside of Catholic Teaching from the time of Augustine and Jerome to the present day and thus your premise has been discredited (that Catholic Teaching has changed and that Catholics can be pro-abortion)

But I will always remember the valuable lessons you have taught me (see my sig for details) [/quote]
agreed.

[bookwyrm]

Little Les, I must say that I find it amusing how you try to use scientific terminology and fall flat on your face. Most of your arguments about cloning or primates are not related to the subject. So focus, please. Quit trying to confuse the poor people and argue coherently.

[kateri05]

are we sure that clones would have souls? because as catholics, our bodies and souls are inextriably linked so if the DNA is identical, then how could they both have a soul and not be 2 different people... although i guess twins would disprove that theory... i dunno, i guess i've just always assumed clones would be soulless... but how would that be possible? ok, im' gonna stop talking to myself now

[Aloysius]

it'd be interesting to see if their human intellects actually developed and they became self-aware. perhaps they would end up reduced to animalistic reactionary lives. If they're alive, they have souls, but do they have immortal rational human souls?

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 12:29 AM'] it'd be interesting to see if their human intellects actually developed and they became self-aware. perhaps they would end up reduced to animalistic reactionary lives. If they're alive, they have souls, but do they have immortal rational human souls? [/quote]
Let's hope we never have to find out. I for one think that they would. I don't think the body is really all that important in relation to the soul. But I have my reasons for that.

[Aloysius]

in some ways it is and some ways it isn't. It's hard to really determine where to draw the line there, especially when it comes to this unnatural evil science carp.