Zygote V. Baby

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

i personally subscribe to this.... (which i know most will say is irrational, but at least i have smart people and many people who agree with me.. which is something to consider, arguments aside):
"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)

Edited May 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Didymus]

yes, it is irrational to to think that a zygote just after conception has less value than a new born baby. Human life is human life. With today's technology, if we do not recognize life as beginning at conception, then we are being irrational, because there is no other stage so defining.

[cmotherofpirl]

its a distinct human being, the only difference between her and you is time.

[Katholikos]

Yes, it is irrational. The stages of human life are dilineated and named for medical and scientific reasons.

You and I were once zygotes. Zygote describes an essential developmental stage of human life. One stage is not more valuable than another; each stage is valuable and necessary, from zygote to natural death.

This is like asking if adolescence is more valuable than old age.

Likos

[Groo the Wanderer]

Consider this...

The 'zygote' possesses all the qualities of life: organization, metabolism, growth, reproduction, response to stimuli

It also possesses the unique genetic makeup of a human being 100%


Put 'em together now...

TADA! Guess What?? It's a living human being!!

[dairygirl4u2c]

There are issues where reasonable people disagree and it's reasonable to disagree, and some issues are such that a reasonable person can think reasonable people shouldn't disagree but reasonable people do disagree. I think think this is that latter sort of issue. And I think the people who think that reasonable people shouldn't disagree are mistaken. I think putting yes or thinking it's irrational is irrational.
That reasonable people do disagree I think is more evidence that it's irrational to think they can't disagree.

That said, maybe I should have explained and pointed out, asking whether it's *ultimately* irrational to believe that. If reasonable people can disagree on something, then it's irrational to the person who disagrees, but they might acknowledge taht it's a reasonable stance for someone to have. ie ultimately rational, though personally irrational.
People might be thinking about personal irrationality in the poll than ultimate irrationality....

Edited May 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Intrinsic evil cannot be said to be ratoinal even though some rationalize it as moral. Now it is possible that some do not have the proper tools and knowledge to correctly rationalize the truth, but that is a different matter. The doctors who kill such babies no better in their hearts unless there consciences have been seered to a crisp.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

i refuse to speculate

[kafka]

Certainly the soul is infused at the moment of conception, so that the soul does not exist without the body, and the body does not exist without the soul. This is certain because the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception requires that Mary's body and soul be saved from the first moment of existance and at the same time.

Also the doctrine of the Incarnation would not make sense if the body or the soul were created first.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1280460' date='May 24 2007, 11:57 AM']ty

"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)[/quote]

This "when does a human being become a person" argument is the same one that was used by the proponents of slavery. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, found that slaves were not persons in the dreadful Dred Scott opinion. And later had to eat their words. When a human comes into being, he is an individual "person." If not, you tell me when he aquires "personhood." When a human comes into being is the moment when conception occurs; that is scientific fact. Using "person" and not "human" as the criteria for allowing abortion is a dodge, just as Nazi's denying that Jews were persons made them justifiably "killable."

Do you believe it's okay to kill a human being but not okay to kill a "person," as Professor Campos does?

Likos

[cmotherofpirl]

Murder is still murder, no matter how old or young the victim.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1280460' date='May 24 2007, 10:57 AM']ty

i personally subscribe to this.... (which i know most will say is irrational, but at least i have smart people and many people who agree with me.. which is something to consider, arguments aside):
"Whether or not abortion should be legal turns on the answer to the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person. This is a question that cannot be answered logically or empirically. The concept of personhood is neither logical nor empirical: It is essentially a religious, or quasi-religious idea, based on one's fundamental (and therefore unverifiable) assumptions about the nature of the world." Paul Campos, professor of law at the University of Colorado. (2002)[/quote]
Some years back, I researched and wrote an article on on one of the leading "smart people" who advocates this position - Dr. Peter Singer.
Singer (a staunch atheist) argues that human life has [i]no[/i] intrinsic value in itself, but that the value of life depends entirely on extrinsic things such as level of cognitive ability. He states flat out that not all human beings are "persons" and that not all "persons" are human beings. (He considers a number of higher animals to be "persons" deserving rights.)

A problem with this is that if not all human life is considered "persons" with a right to life, the granting of "personhood" to a human being becomes ultimately arbitrary.
Singer uses this logic to justify, not only abortion, but infanticide and euthanasia as well. (He notes that there is no significant difference in cognition, etc. between an unborn fetus and a young infant.)

If you're going to follow this line of argumentation, are you ready to face the consequences of an arbitrary definition of personhood?

Of course, Dairy pulls her usual predictable "agree to disagree" conclusion - but if one does not seek to arrive at the truth of an issue, what is the point? If people did not disagree, there could be no debate!

But these dairygirl threads are predictable as clockwork - expect next a tirade against that idiot Socrates for his "status-quo conservatism."

Edited May 25, 2007 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

well soc this is an issue that status quo conservative stance is more understandable. it's life or death.
your prob is that everything you can possibly be conservative without infringing on the CC (tho some questionable areas i think you do) you are that. if conservatism is right, then you're good. what are the odds a political platform of today has embraced the perfect political thought? not very good theoretically speaking. yet there you go embracing it all. most people do not embrace status quo of either side, but are more moderate... they reflect reality.

i don't think every issue is such that we should agree to disagree. some issues you got to stand firm. of course when to stand firm and when not is debatable itself. i think saying whether a zygote is a person is not a firm thing, because it is not fact. you say that it is, yet scientists disagree on the matter. there are points of arbitrariness and gray area in defining people, as there is with most things if you are open to reality. life goes on.

just asking hte question of when is it a person if not conception is not answering the question. i can see erring on the side that it is a person, and in fact if i were presidenti probably would and ban it all. but that's not answering the question. you start looking at the fact that a cell has all the things you attribute to earlier cells and it starts getting gray. i do realize that no cell in your arm is gonna grow into a baby, but potential is not a person.
what if the conception cells are just like stem cells in the back of your spine, slowing growing into someone? would it be wrong to kill a cell that was a cellwithout doubt and not a person, but that was growing into someone? of course if i pose it as fact when it's not then sure. the question is whether it's fact or not tht it's just a cell that grows into someone or if it's a person growing wholly from the beginning. this seems like an obvious question, but some people here (i myself was in thatmindset so i can spot it) seem to think it's wholly a person and never even considered that when we say it's just a cell, we are saying it's just a cell that grows into something like adding blocks together. (a baby turning into an adult would not be blocks but would be a complete set growing more, though i couldn't really argue if you said otherwise. but who's being the absurd one here if you said otherwise? thinking the zygote is just cells isn't on its face absurd, so it's a different situation. i'm sure they thought blacks weren't humans wasn't on its face absurd, but they were denying what was obvious, and even if it's not obvious, such is life.)
just because it's a unique set of DNA doesn't matter, as there's unique sets in dead animals, and still more there's DNA in cells that are living in animals that shutting down pshysiologically just before death. i'm pretty sure you can create cells that have a unique set of DNA that do not grow into people in a test tube but are just like cells in your arm. or on that note, i'd bet you could support cells from my liver in a test tube. but those are not babies.

if you could activate your regular stem cells to grow into someone, would that be a person? i'm guess you'd say yes. there has got to be something like enzymes or something that causes stem cells to grow into someone, as one in my spine right now is not going to pop into a kid. that enzyme is a physiological thing that i think someone could point to, but no one has that i am aware of. this is the best argument i know of, but still not a proof. i think the block argument best captures my main point.

Edited May 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

just interesting... not that i'm arguing it for my position, which im not.

[quote]Q: When is a human zygote considered human?

A: There are technical arguments about when the result of human procreation attains human status. Some phrase the debate as human being vs. a human person, while others do not ascribe humanity at the earliest stages of development of the zygote. The key question in all of this is a theological anthropological question: does one have to possess a human soul to be a human person? The notion of personhood is complicated and metaphysical. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae says:

Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, "from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of ...: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time -- a rather lengthy time -- to find its place and to be in a position to act." Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide "a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: "The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.
What is noteworthy here is that the Holy Father is clearly not committing the Church to any scientific certainty as to when the zygote achieves full humanity. Rather the Church's position is that, whatever the pre-ensoulment state is, the fact is that a human person is derived from that and that "the mere probability that a human person is involved" calls for extreme caution. The position is a prudent, careful and cautious position, but it nonetheless is dogmatic, i.e., we are asserting a position based on our theological disposition that calls for belief. The problem here, as with many other religious issues, is the implications for public policy. For the sake of public policy, there would need to be a reasonably accessible public consensus as to what yardstick may be used to determine human personhood.

The Church's voice is always an important contribution to our understanding of human personhood. However, in respect to public policy, especially in a pluralistic society, it would be unwise to simply adopt wholesale the proclamations of the Church in a matter that has as much to do with science as with metaphysics and faith. This does not mean that Catholics do not hold highly the Church's proclamations. As Catholics they may remain personally bound by them, but public policy requirements demand a consensus unconstrained uncritically by sectarian dogma.

The traditional teaching of the Church is that our distinctness as human beings comes from our human souls. So at the point in which the human zygote is ensouled, it is considered a human being in the same respect that you or I are human beings. Another way to pursue this is to ask, at what point in our development do we possess the very souls that we presently posses?

Q: According to the Church, does ensoulment occur at conception?

A: The Church has taken no position on when ensoulment actually occurs. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith concedes that ensoulment may occur later in the development of the zygote.

The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation Replies to Certain Questions of the Day, 1987.


A telling argument against ensoulment at the moment of conception is the issue of monozygotic twinning, i.e., twins deriving from one zygote. The process of monozygotic twinning is a process that can take up to 14 days. If ensoulment began at conception, then that would mean:

a) A human soul was formed at conception

b) That human soul after x number of days split into two souls corresponding to the zygotic segmentation that causes the twins

c) If, as it has happened, the two distinct zygotes recombine, that would mean that the two individual souls from b) recombine to form a single soul.


This all would be absurd to say the least. The process of monozygotic twinning prevents us from claiming ensoulment at the moment of conception. .

Q: Doesn't the Church teach that life begins at conception?

A: "Life" is an imprecise term in such a technical discussion. That "life" begins at conception is the popular position of many in the Church, but the Magisterium, according to the CDF (see above quote from the CDF) has not taken a position on this. The Church does not teach that life, if defined as a human being with a soul, begins at conception. As seen in the quote above from Evangelium Vitae, the Church teaches that there is a "personal presence" at the first moment of existence, but the Church also acknowledges that there is a difference between the zygote at that earliest stage and later. In the Church's eyes, this does not preclude the zygote from being considered human.

Q: If life does not begin at conception, then why is the Church opposed to early abortion or embryonic stem cell research involving days-old blastocysts?

A: The Church's opposition to abortion and to embryonic stem cell research, even if it occurs before ensoulment, is two-fold:

a) The Church has always steadfastly considered abortion as sinful (argument from tradition).

b) The Church believes that since the zygote will become a human person, the dignity accorded the human person should be applied to the earliest stages existence, even if that existence does not yet have a human soul.


Q: What is the Church's position on embryonic stem cell research?

A: The Church is opposed to embryonic stem cell research. Benedict Ashley, OP, a renowned Catholic bio-ethicist says:

The opposition of the Catholic Church to embryo or "pre-embryo"1 experimentation, as well as to abortion, does not rest, as is sometimes supposed, solely on the belief that the human embryo is a human person from the moment of conception2 or that killing the embryo or fetus is murder in a strict sense. The Church has always held that even if human ensoulment takes place only after conception as it was once supposed, abortion, although it would not be technically "murder," would be a very serious sin against human life.3 This is because the natural process of reproduction would already have been initiated and to interrupt it is contrary to our responsibility to preserve the order of nature that one can and should perfect, but not violate. This is the same principle upon which modern ecology and environmentalism is based.

"Cloning, Aqunas, and the Embryonic Person," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly Summer 2001, Vol. 1 No. 2.

Q: What is Senator Kerry's position on embryonic stem cell research?

A: Senator Kerry believes that federal funding for research on embryonic stem cells should move forward. However, there should be strict ethical guidelines attached to federal funding and research. The NIH and credible scientists agree that embryonic stem cells hold great potential for cures for many human ailments. The popular argument by opponents of stem cell research targets the un-likelihood that Alzheimer's patients would benefit from embryonic stem cell research. Most proponents of stem cell research agree that any benefit vis-a-vis Alzheimer's is far away. That does not, however, affect the great promise of stem cell research for multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, pulmonary fibrosis and other ailments.

Another issue raised by embryonic stem cell research opponents is that adult stem cells are just as useful as embryonic stem cells. The NIH says that there is a difference, though research has shown that adult stem cells are capable of greater elasticity than previously thought. Embryonic stem cells can accomplish far more than adult stem cells, which have been in use for a long time.

Q: But didn't President Bush allow scientists to use existing stem cell lines for research?

A. The 60 "suitable" stem cell lines that President Bush made available to federal researchers turned out to be inauthentic stem cells with no scientific value. Only 19 of the 60 promised lines, less than a third, is available for federal research. All of these 19 stem cell lines were grown on a feeder layer of mouse cells creating a very high risk of mouse cell contamination. Thus, their therapeutic value is uncertain. In addition, the available stem cell lines were created over 3 years ago. The techniques used are outdated in comparison to more recent techniques that have been developed which do not need mouse feeder layer cells.

Q: Do embryonic stem cell research proponents primarily advocate creating embryos for the purpose of creating stem cells?

A: No. Most advocate using excess fertilized eggs in fertility clinics which ordinarily would be destroyed and discarded. Some stem cells are created through therapeutic cloning techniques (qualitatively different from reproductive cloning-no human embryo is formed in therapeutic cloning). Someone with pulmonary fibrosis made the following observation which is an example of stem cell creation using a therapeutic cloning technique:

Embryonic stem cells are derived from an unfertilized egg, like the ones released by most women every month, which are allowed to [be]divided in a petri dish for a few days (up to 10 days) and then are seeded with my DNA (to avoid rejection by my body), then they are enticed (by a concoction of chemicals, growth hormones and enzymes) to grow into lung cells that can be transplanted into my lungs. If the science works, then new lung tissue will grow to replace the damaged tissue in my lungs.

For more information on stem cell research:

International Society for Stem Cell Research

The Stem Cell Research Foundation

The National Institute for Health (NIH): Stem Cell Basics


Q: Is there a contradiction with Kerry saying he believes that life begins at conception and that the beginnings of human existence is a "form of life"?

A: No. As we have seen, this is similar to the Church's position and many prominent Catholic theologians in the tradition, who believed that human life develops in stages. The Church accepts that ensoulment may occur later in the the early development of the fertilized egg, nonetheless, the zygote is considered living in a sense. The main difference is that Senator Kerry and proponents of stem cell research believe that this situation opens up ethical space for embryonic stem cell research, while the Church maintains that the pre-souled zygote must be given the same dignity as an ensouled human.

Q: Is the destruction of embryonic stem cells the destruction of a human being?

A: This is the key question. If one accepts that ensoulement occurs later in the process, then it is not the destruction of a human being. Nonetheless, it does destroy, at the least, potential life. The question asked then by people of good will is the acceptability of destroying potential life to save actual human life. While many Catholics view the issue in metaphysical terms, supported by a strong theological viewpoint, we have to accept that people of goodwill of other theological persuasions may see it differently. This again, is an issue in which one must weigh an individual's religious views with what can be promulgated publicly.[/quote]

[jckinsman]

I read all of that above,(why? I'm not sure) I am truly sickened by your advanced lucid thinking. We know what this boils down to,don't we satan???? If you can convince people its not a person,you can feel free to do what you want with it. And the tiny snowball rolls down the big snowy hill. Ask yourself very carefully,why this is so important to prove your point if abortion isn't involved? What in the world would be the purpose for this question anyway? I do not care what political veiws you may have, It IS a baby...... but if you are looking for an excuse to justify abortion,count me out! I don't want to die and see that placed before me.I hope that you wouldn't either! JC