Abortion Issue Hits The work Scene

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 1 2005, 03:54 PM'] "Processing steps" do not change the nature of the somatic cell nucleus which is living and human and contains the same genetic complement as the zygote. Hence, to argue that the zygote is an ensouled human being while a somatic cell is not , is clearly in error. Both are potentially human beings.


And I understand that the outer cell wall of both the SNT (clone) and zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and ovum either in vivo or in vitro must undergo modification before implantation can occur.

To argue that these are "processing steps" are different does not bear on the essential similar nature of both structures.

I'm afraid that you are trying to nitpick semantics to avoid the fact that the complete human genome which can develope into a human person are present in both cases. [/quote]
Sure, if the nucleus of the cell is what counts. A somatic cell is not a human being [i]until[/i] it has been tinkered with and altered. There are fundamental differences. Mankind has granted itself the terrifying power to create human life, but that does not affect the humanity of the life in question.

A parallel argument would be to hold that a plastic packet of yeast is a loaf of bread. Of course, the packet cannot become a loaf on its own, but with some "processing steps," which "do not change the nature" of the yeast, it can be caused to form into bread. So therefore a packet of yeast is the same as a loaf of bread, or ought to be considered so morally.

A somatic cell will not be alive unless it is implanted into a human egg cell. By implanting the nucleus into the egg cell, the equivalent of fertilization is achieved, as the egg cell now has a full genetic complement. That is, the yeast has entered the dough, and now 9 months in the oven is all it takes. But the difference between the somatic cell and the artificially created zygote is almost the same as the difference between a single spermatozoon and a natural zygote. In both cases, the first is necessary for the creation of the second, but is essentially different from the second.

Ergo, the structures are not necessarily "similar" at all.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 1 2005, 07:22 PM']

A somatic cell will not be alive unless it is implanted into a human egg cell. [/quote]
No implanting is required for a somatic cell to be "alive." It already is and can be grown in tissue culture where it will divide by mitosis and form an unlimited number of daugthter cells identical with itself. They each contain the entire genetic package that a zygote carries. If implanted each will eventually form a human being.

But if individualization is a precondition for personhood, neither are human beings until individualization occurs.

Edited June 2, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 1 2005, 08:37 AM'] In other words, we should kill potential persons for the sake of experimentation.  Sounds like the Nazi’s argument too.  Not calling you a Nazi, of course.  But just want to draw the parallel.

God bless. [/quote]
I am unaware of any evidence that the Nazies engaged in stem cell research. If you don't have any, then your "parallel" isn't at all parallel.

Again, as Fr. Karl Rahner S.J. puts it:

"But it would be intrinsically thinkable that, if we presuppose a serious positive doubt that the experimental material was really a person, there would be reasons for an experiment that from a rational perspective are stronger than the uncertain right of a person whose existence is subject to doubt."

LittleLes

Edited June 2, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Jun 1 2005, 11:13 AM']



A zygote is no less a person than a fetus,


[/quote]
Do you have any evidence to support your claim or is it an unsubstantiated preconviction?

But if a zygote is a person, then its twin, the somatic cell nucleus with the same genetic complement is also a person. If implanted, both can become persons.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Qoheleth' date='Jun 1 2005, 07:22 PM']

A parallel argument would be to hold that a plastic packet of yeast is a loaf of bread. Of course, the packet cannot become a loaf on its own, but with some "processing steps," which "do not change the nature" of the yeast, it can be caused to form into bread. So therefore a packet of yeast is the same as a loaf of bread, or ought to be considered so morally.

A [/quote]
False analogy. Yeast does not contain all of the components of bread, nor their precursors.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 02:49 AM'] Again, as Fr. Karl Rahner S.J. puts it:... [/quote]
Boy, you just keep citing this quote.

You don't believe in the reliability of the Holy Scriptures, or the Early Church Fathers, or the Doctors of the Church, or the teachings of the Catholic Church. But this Jesuit gives an opinion and it's an infallible declaration for you--heck, his words serve your purpose, so his opinion must be right!

PS--this is the trademark behavior of a "true believer." LOL!

Edited June 2, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[Jake Huether]

Littleles,

My prayers are with you. There is a point in a debate where one must realize that the seeds have been planted and there's nothing more the servant can do. May the Holy Spirit fill you with His wisdom to comprehend the Truthes that are presented. I realize that you are not alone in your thinking... I pray for all those who don't understand the perfection of God's plan just yet. May His peace fill your heart.

God bless.

[God Conquers]

Les,

In order for a somatic cell to be cloned, ie to implant and develop into an adult, it must be removed from its membrane and placed inside an ovum.

This constitutes a serious change in the nature of the cell. It is only after this has occured, and the resulting cell has been stimulated to divide, that it can grow into an adult individual.

Individualization in this process occurs at the point of stimulation to division, when the cell comes alive.

Left on its own in the womb, the zygote will become an adult. Left on its own in the womb, a somatic cell with no human intervention will do nothing, except maybe give the poor woman an infection.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:52 AM'] Boy, you just keep citing this quote.

You don't believe in the reliability of the Holy Scriptures, or the Early Church Fathers, or the Doctors of the Church, or the teachings of the Catholic Church.  But this Jesuit gives an opinion and it's an infallible declaration for you--heck, his words serve your purpose, so his opinion must be right!  

PS--this is the trademark behavior of a "true believer."  LOL! [/quote]
This is your broad generalization. Not mine.

But as a general norm, I tend to believe Church teachings that are correct. Not those that are in error.

The early Church Fathers taught the literal biblical interpretation that the sun revolved around the earth. This was necessary to support the miracle of the sun in Joshua. But that was in error. I don't believe it. (And because a teaching is old is no guarantee that it is correct. At the very least, the teaching should be reexamined).

Until about 1900, the Church's teaching was that chattel slavery was licit because it had biblical and natural law support. But I believe this is in error. The church has since changed this teaching.

And until the early nineteen hundreds, the Church taught:

"Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that "it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother." Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot."

In summary, in the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, both the mother and fetus must be permitted to die rather than surgically remove the fetus. This teaching, too, has changed.

Some hold that one must always believe whatever the Church teaches or has taught in the past (on the theory that such teachings cannot be in error). I don't hold the view that one is required to believe error to be a good Catholic, nor the view that the Church is never in error.

It's important that conclusions be correct, not that they be popular or always in keeping with a preconceived belief system.

Edited June 2, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jun 2 2005, 08:36 AM'] Littleles,

My prayers are with you. There is a point in a debate where one must realize that the seeds have been planted and there's nothing more the servant can do. May the Holy Spirit fill you with His wisdom to comprehend the Truthes that are presented. I realize that you are not alone in your thinking... I pray for all those who don't understand the perfection of God's plan just yet. May His peace fill your heart.

God bless. [/quote]
HI Jake,

And I pray for those who accept teachings without evidence. Or, in effect, those who must accept or reject data, not based on its accuracy, but on whether it conforms with a preconceived belief system which they are told they must accept.

Les

[LittleLes]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Jun 2 2005, 10:20 AM']

Individualization in this process occurs at the point of stimulation to division, when the cell comes alive.

Left on its own in the womb, the zygote will become an adult. Left on its own in the womb, a somatic cell with no human intervention will do nothing, except maybe give the poor woman an infection. [/quote]
(1) I believe that each zygote or SNT cell may have up to 64 divisions each a potential twin until individualization occurs about day 12 p.c. You might want to consult a textbook of embryology on this point.

(2) Because both a somatic cell nucli and in vitro fertilization (involving a sperm and ova) requires some maipulation, this in no way makes them less potential human beings.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 12:01 PM']This is your broad generalization. Not mine. [/quote]
First step in the twelve step program is that you admit you have a problem.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 12:01 PM']But as a general norm, I tend to believe Church teachings that are correct. Not those that are in error.[/quote]
I wonder what this means, since you have already stated that you reject [i]de fide[/i] teachings. Have you received a separate revelation that you'd like to share with the rest of us?

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 12:01 PM']The early Church Fathers taught the literal biblical interpretation that the sun revolved around the earth. This was necessary to support the miracle of the sun in Joshua. But that was in error. I don't believe it. (And because a teaching is old is no guarantee that it is correct. At the very least, the teaching should be reexamined).[/quote]
Actually, if you believe Newton, the Sun [u]does[/u] revolve around the Earth. LOL!

(Edit)

I just wanted to add a few things:
1) There is no faith or morals teaching that relies on the sun moving or not.
2) Unless you are complaining to people who say that the sun rises and sets each day, I don't know why it is important to get so hyper-literalistic about a statement like "the sun stopped."
3) I've read some of the Early Church Fathers writings. I'd love to see you cite their words to show that they were such literalists. Less opinionts, more proof, please?

In fact, if you've read the Confessions of St. Augustine, you'd see that he understood that some parts of the Biblical Creation account need not be interpreted 100% literally--and he's one of the top Doctors of the Church! Maybe you don't see him as a significant person in Christian history (like...maybe the great Fr. Rahner).

Edited June 2, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 2 2005, 11:58 AM'] First step in the twelve step program is that you admit you have a problem.


I wonder what this means, since you have already stated that you reject [i]de fide[/i] teachings. Have you received a separate revelation that you'd like to share with the rest of us?


Actually, if you believe Newton, the Sun [u]does[/u] revolve around the Earth. LOL!

(Edit)

I just wanted to add a few things:
1) There is no faith or morals teaching that relies on the sun moving or not.
2) Unless you are complaining to people who say that the sun rises and sets each day, I don't know why it is important to get so hyper-literalistic about a statement like "the sun stopped."
3) I've read some of the Early Church Fathers writings. I'd love to see you cite their words to show that they were such literalists. Less opinionts, more proof, please?

In fact, if you've read the Confessions of St. Augustine, you'd see that he understood that some parts of the Biblical Creation account need not be interpreted 100% literally--and he's one of the top Doctors of the Church! Maybe you don't see him as a significant person in Christian history (like...maybe the great Fr. Rahner). [/quote]
No problem:

(1) Always seek the truth.
(2) Seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows (Aquinas).
(3) Put aside the things of a child and believe as a man (St Paul)
(4) Always honor primacy of conscience.
(5) Test everything. Hold fast to what is true. Reject that which is false (St Paul).
(6) Never confuse the institutional Catholic Church and the Kingdom of God.
(7) Because someone in authority tells one something, this is not evidence that it is true. Investigate fully.
(8) The institutional Catholic Church has been wrong in some of its teachings.
(9) Teachings of the institutional Catholic Church have changed over time.
(10) Remain open to correcting ones views if they are proven to be in error.

My ten rules to assist the gullible in vovercoming their problem!

[God Conquers]

The point is that the invitro zygote IS a person, and a somatic cell nuclei is not.

After the somatic cell nuclei is placed into an ovum and stimulated to divide, THEN it is a person, equal in degnity and rights with every other.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:44 PM']No problem:

(1) Always seek the truth.
(2) Seek such certitude as the nature of the thing allows (Aquinas).
(3) Put aside the things of a child and believe as a man (St Paul)
(4) Always honor primacy of conscience.
(5) Test everything. Hold fast to what is true. Reject that which is false (St Paul).
(6) Never confuse the institutional Catholic Church and the Kingdom of God.
(7) Because someone in authority tells one something, this is not evidence that it is true. Investigate fully.
(8) The institutional Catholic Church has been wrong in some of its teachings.
(9) Teachings of the institutional Catholic Church have changed over time.
(10) Remain open to correcting ones views if they are proven to be in error.

My ten rules to assist the gullible in vovercoming their problem! [/quote]
It's interesting that you give rules for "the gullible." As Our Lord teaches: "Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?" ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew7.htm#v3"]Matthew 7:3[/url])

A couple quotes for you. First, Al Pacino's memorable line as the devil in "The Devil's Advocate":
[quote]Vanity...It's definitely one of my favorite sins.[/quote]

Second, from the Encyclical [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i]:
[quote name='Pope John Paul II']Called to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, "the true light that enlightens everyone" (Jn 1:9), people become "light in the Lord" and "children of light" (Eph 5:8), and are made holy by "obedience to the truth" (1 Pet 1:22).

This obedience is not always easy. As a result of that mysterious original sin, committed at the prompting of Satan, the one who is "a liar and the father of lies" (Jn 8:44), man is constantly tempted to turn his gaze away from the living and true God in order to direct it towards idols (cf. 1 Thes 1:9), exchanging "the truth about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25). Man's capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and scepticism (cf. Jn 18:38), he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.

But no darkness of error or of sin can totally take away from man the light of God the Creator. In the depths of his heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and a thirst to attain full knowledge of it.[/quote]