Creation Of Human-animal Embryos

[SJP]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1277181' date='May 19 2007, 12:37 AM']A soul is by definition immortal and spiritual.
Unless heaven is not eternal, the above is true, and brings to error your statement.[/quote]

SUMMA THEOLOGICA: How the human soul knows what is above itself ...
Question 75. Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul

[b]"I answer that, To seek the nature of the soul, we must premise that the soul is defined as the first principle of life of those things which live: for we call living things "animate," [i.e. having a soul], and those things which have no life, "inanimate." "[/b]


CCC 367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.

Spirit is a non-material being.
Soul is the animating principle of a living being.

For human beings, our soul is spiritual (i.e. non-material) in nature.

Edited May 19, 2007 by SJP

[SJP]

Double post

Edited May 19, 2007 by SJP

[jeffpugh]

I think SJP is right... animals have a temporal 'soul'. That is, it dies with their body... but the Human soul is spiritual and rational. That is why we have these conversations over a virtual world wide network on complex machines of silicon and plastic.

[Didacus]

I stand corrected.
(why do people stand when corrected anyways? Wouldn't it be easier sitting down?)

[Era Might]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1277327' date='May 19 2007, 10:12 AM']I stand corrected.
(why do people stand when corrected anyways? Wouldn't it be easier sitting down?)[/quote]
And yet when someone wants to correct you, they give you a dressing [i]down[/i].

[SJP]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1277327' date='May 19 2007, 11:12 AM']I stand corrected.
(why do people stand when corrected anyways? Wouldn't it be easier sitting down?)[/quote]


[quote name='Era Might' post='1277332' date='May 19 2007, 11:15 AM']And yet when someone wants to correct you, they give you a dressing [i]down[/i].[/quote]



So in the case of a chimera, we could safely say that such a being should be treated as human if it exhibits rational thought, intellectual abilities, and will. However, we cannot say that the absence of such qualities automatically precludes a chimera from being "human". For there are certainly Human beings who do not possess the outward signs of such qualities (ie. intellect, will) due to material problems with the functioning of the brain, yet we would obviously consider them to be humans.

Thus every "production" of modern science should be loved and treated as a potential child of God. I'm thinking here of future creations where the line between animal and human is blurred.

Does that make sense???

[johnnydigit]

behold, HOMER-CLES!

there was a good episode of The Outer Limits where students discover a craft and board it, but instead of a distant world, it actually takes them back to earth, but in the far future. civilization has destroyed itself, and they find remnants of genetically altered humans with wings and such that look like angels. sounds like a realistic future to me..

[Pontifex]

[quote name='SJP' post='1277161' date='May 18 2007, 11:10 PM']I was under the impression that every living thing had a soul. However, only a Human Being could have a rational soul.[/quote]



You are correct, as long as the terminology is clarified. I really find it confusing for people in general, especially when they ask if animals have souls. The underlying question usually is, "Did fluffy go to Heaven?" The answer is obviously no, and so in order to simplify things for the common man I simply say that animals do not have souls. They have a animating life principle but that certainly is different than an eternal soul.

If I tell people I'm in the confessional saving souls, I want them to realize that dogs can't get in line nor their favorite fern.

[SJP]

[quote name='Pontifex' post='1277444' date='May 19 2007, 02:34 PM']You are correct, as long as the terminology is clarified. I really find it confusing for people in general, especially when they ask if animals have souls. The underlying question usually is, "Did fluffy go to Heaven?" The answer is obviously no, and so in order to simplify things for the common man I simply say that animals do not have souls. They have a animating life principle but that certainly is different than an eternal soul.

If I tell people I'm in the confessional saving souls, I want them to realize that dogs can't get in line nor their favorite fern. [/quote]

I can understand why you would stick with a simple approach.

I only made the distinction because it was relevant to the topic/discussion at hand.

[Pontifex]

[quote name='SJP' post='1277457' date='May 19 2007, 01:41 PM'] I can understand why you would stick with a simple approach.

I only made the distinction because it was relevant to the topic/discussion at hand.[/quote]


Certainly. I should have known that you understood.



Father can you absolve my rubber tree plant? I want to take it with me and it put it in my dwelling place in Heaven. geesh!!!!

[Aloysius]

if it starts out as a human embryo, it is human. It does not matter if the DNA is later spliced with animal DNA, it remains human because it was created human.

I do not know what would happen if the scientists were able to begin with an animal embryo and splice it with human DNA, or if they were to form an embryo which was, from its beginning, a mix of animal and human. I have a feeling that the former would be an animal, but it may just have an eternal soul. The latter, I do not know... I think in both cases it would create an entirely different species which had an eternal soul but which was not human.

But again, once there is a human embryo, that human embryo is a human being. Altering it to give it animal DNA as well does not make it any less of a human being. Only the other two cases (which are not yet issues, because it has not yet been shown possible to do either one) would be questionable.