Zygote V. Baby

[imogen]

"---------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. --------------"


1) cells grown from your arm are different from the gamete cells they have different numbers of chromosomes

"-------i'd bet you could support cells from my liver in a test tube. but those are not babies. --------------"
yes because they are of a person not actually a person coz they're not fertilised

[Katholikos]

Likos wrote:
[quote]When a human comes into being, he is an individual "person." If not, you tell me when he aquires "personhood."[/quote]

Please answer the question. When does a human being become a person, is it's not when life begins -- which is the moment of conception -- in your opinion?

If, as you and your authority claim, it is not when the human comes into being, which is the moment when life begins, and is at some later point in the human being's development, please specify the point at which you believe the human being becomes a person.

Birth?
One month of age?
Six months of age?
Six years of age?

What is your evidence for such "personhood."

Other beings are not "persons." Only [b]human[/b] beings are persons. See Webster.

All persons are human beings.
Zygotes are human beings.
Therefore, zygotes are persons.

Nothing is added to a zygote -- ever -- it is a complete human being. Therefore, it is a person. All that is needed is time for development. Time is also needed for an infant to become an adult and for an adult to attain old age. All of human development requires time from conception to death.

Likos

[dairygirl4u2c]

zygotes are human life. as that article suggests, that's different possibly than from human personhood.

it's also important to distinguish between personhood in terms of soul and personhood interms of a being. my main argument is that personhood in terms of being, the early cells could be likened to blocks. if you havea snowball, is that a snowman? at what point exactly does the snowman begin if you build snowball by snowball?

as per personhoold interms of soul. i don't claim to know when the personhood starts. i don't have to, as i'm not claiming to know. all i'm claiming to do is cast doubt on when it does. we have evidence that zygotes branch off into twins that says that personhood defined as souls anyway are not ensouled at first, though they might be and then another added at the split, or something. there's evidnce that we might assume God wouldn't allow half the conceived to die, as half the fertilized eggs do not become implanted but die. (i do realize allowing to die naturally and abortin aredifferent, but that's beside the point)
i would say that at the point the baby could typically survive is a good indicator of soul. i know it's uncertain.. what a bout a second earlier/ a second before thta/ etc etc. maybe it varies.

whatever the case, for either scenario, just asking teh question and not being able to get an answer isn't answering it for your position. it's not a logical necessity that it's what you say, as a sould could come later, or it could just be akin to blocks at first.
also, if the personhood was so clear from conception, the CC would define without ambiguity in speech.

what's ironic is that everything i'm arguing is completely in line with CC teaching. though i'm stressing the limits of the teaching more than most catholis would.

Edited May 25, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1281221' date='May 25 2007, 11:00 AM']Likos wrote:


Please answer the question. When does a human being become a person, is it's not when life begins -- which is the moment of conception -- in your opinion?

If, as you and your authority claim, it is not when the human comes into being, which is the moment when life begins, and is at some later point in the human being's development, please specify the point at which you believe the human being becomes a person.

Birth?
One month of age?
Six months of age?
Six years of age?

What is your evidence for such "personhood."

Other beings are not "persons." Only [b]human[/b] beings are persons. See Webster.

All persons are human beings.
Zygotes are human beings.
Therefore, zygotes are persons.

Nothing is added to a zygote -- ever -- it is a complete human being. Therefore, it is a person. All that is needed is time for development. Time is also needed for an infant to become an adult and for an adult to attain old age. All of human development requires time from conception to death.

Likos[/quote]


It would be incorrect to state that all persons are men because there are three divine Persons (one of which is also a Man) and a host of angelic persons.

[Aloysius]

actually dairy, your idea of a "soul" and a "personhood" are outside of the bounds of Catholic doctrine and border on dualism. The human person is a united whole, body and soul are united so long as a human is alive; if you admit something is human, you automatically admit it has a human soul according to Catholic teaching on the nature of the "soul" as the life principal of the body. it's not a ghost to be infused into a shell at some point, it is tangably knowable if something has a human soul by asking "is it a human life?". if the answer is yes, it has a human soul. if the answer is no, it does not have a human soul.

The only speculation that was ever possible about "ensoulment" was when they thought that the physical form did not begin as human but as plant, then animal, then human. Modern science proves this to be in error, therefore it is a unique human and has a unique human soul.

It's okay, if most Catholics just view the soul as this ghost that floats around and occupies them somehow... but that's foreign to the mind of the authors of Scripture, it's foreign to the teaching of the Church, and thus is foreign to the teaching of Christ. but most protestants teach something along those lines too, so this "argument" is only beneficial in the dialogue with evangelical american politics, not in a dialogue with a sound Catholic anthropology which sees body and soul as inseperable. If there is a body, there is a soul. If the body is alive, the soul is "in" (I use that term figuratively) the body. If the body is dead, the soul has been seperated from the body (and they will be reunited on the last day).

[Aloysius]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1281316' date='May 25 2007, 04:05 PM']It would be incorrect to state that all persons are men because there are three divine Persons (one of which is also a Man) and a host of angelic persons.[/quote]
this comes from the linguistic politically correct engineering that confused the terminology there... it happens when the elites of society think they can just replace "man" with "person" and have no consequences... there are tremendous consequences and a distinction has to be made.

a man is the union between body and soul. it has ultimate "personhood" but need not have the capability of displaying that personhood in order to be a man.
a person is a unique personality; could be the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, could be the Angels, could be men, could be fictional charecters actually...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1280944' date='May 24 2007, 09:06 PM']But these dairygirl threads are predictable as clockwork - expect next a tirade against that idiot Socrates for his "status-quo conservatism." [/quote]


[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281077' date='May 24 2007, 11:39 PM']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.[/quote]
Like I said, predictable as clockwork . . .


And this "status quo conservative" line is just nonsensical contradictory blather.

If I were all about preserving the status quo, I would be defending Roe v. Wade and the "right" to an abortion, rather than attacking it, and saying it should be overturned. After all, Roe v. Wade is the current legal status quo . . .

And conservatism is not a political platform, btw.

. . . Gosh!

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1281238' date='May 25 2007, 11:18 AM']zygotes are human life. as that article suggests, that's different possibly than from human personhood.

it's also important to distinguish between personhood in terms of soul and personhood interms of a being. my main argument is that personhood in terms of being, the early cells could be likened to blocks. if you havea snowball, is that a snowman? at what point exactly does the snowman begin if you build snowball by snowball?

as per personhoold interms of soul. i don't claim to know when the personhood starts. i don't have to, as i'm not claiming to know. all i'm claiming to do is cast doubt on when it does. we have evidence that zygotes branch off into twins that says that personhood defined as souls anyway are not ensouled at first, though they might be and then another added at the split, or something. there's evidnce that we might assume God wouldn't allow half the conceived to die, as half the fertilized eggs do not become implanted but die. (i do realize allowing to die naturally and abortin aredifferent, but that's beside the point)
i would say that at the point the baby could typically survive is a good indicator of soul. i know it's uncertain.. what a bout a second earlier/ a second before thta/ etc etc. maybe it varies.

whatever the case, for either scenario, just asking teh question and not being able to get an answer isn't answering it for your position. it's not a logical necessity that it's what you say, as a sould could come later, or it could just be akin to blocks at first.
also, if the personhood was so clear from conception, the CC would define without ambiguity in speech.

what's ironic is that everything i'm arguing is completely in line with CC teaching. though i'm stressing the limits of the teaching more than most catholis would.[/quote]
There is nothing ambiguous in Catholic teaching regarding the sanctity of innocent human life, nor about the wrongness of willfully taking it - in any stage of development. The Catholic Church clearly and unambiguously teaches that abortion is wrong at any stage.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Socrates

[track2004]

Anyone celebrate the day of their kid's conception rather than the day (s)he was born? (caveat: anyone not from China.)

[mortify]

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

Are we to believe a fetus is [i]just[/i] an ordinary extension of the mother, like the rest of her flesh and therefore she can do whatever she wants with [i]it[/i]? Even if we go back to the very beginning of our existence, that of zygote, where sperm and egg unite thereby creating a unique genetic code containing all the information for a unique person distinct from the mother, we are dealing with an existence separate from the mother's. The Zygote is not like an ordinary cell, if a woman plucks the cell off her finger tip it does not affect the existence of another individual, yet destroying the zygote most certainly will. Since our existence begins at the stage of a zygote, we are dealing with the existence of a person *separate* and *distinct* from the mother, and therefore she has no right to snuff that life out. Everyone has the right to live, no one has the right to take it away from us, no woman has the right to willfully end the existence of another person.

That professor can go snuff himself

[Didymus]

[quote name='track2004' post='1281472' date='May 25 2007, 11:05 PM']Anyone celebrate the day of their kid's conception rather than the day (s)he was born? (caveat: anyone not from China.)[/quote]

no, but the celebration of birthdays go far back before we knew much of anything that went on during the early stages of pregnancy. That's really not a relative argument.

[Didymus]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1281113' date='May 25 2007, 02:04 AM']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![/quote]

I think most of this is an invasion of the Godly by those trying to push humanist doctrine. Countless doctors, scientists, and professors are firmly holding on to these denials meant to push others from God. And they're trying to do it on God's own field - trying to scientifically prove irrationality using God's ordered creation.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Didymus

[doe-jo]

i just listened to this audio this morning.. pretty good and interesting.. check it out if u havent heard it..

[url="http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/was_hitler_right.mp3"]http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/downl...itler_right.mp3[/url]

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='mortify' post='1281473' date='May 26 2007, 04:10 AM']Are we to believe a fetus is [i]just[/i] an ordinary extension of the mother, like the rest of her flesh and therefore she can do whatever she wants with [i]it[/i]? Even if we go back to the very beginning of our existence, that of zygote, where sperm and egg unite thereby creating a unique genetic code containing all the information for a unique person distinct from the mother, we are dealing with an existence separate from the mother's. The Zygote is not like an ordinary cell, if a woman plucks the cell off her finger tip it does not affect the existence of another individual, yet destroying the zygote most certainly will. Since our existence begins at the stage of a zygote, we are dealing with the existence of a person *separate* and *distinct* from the mother, and therefore she has no right to snuff that life out. Everyone has the right to live, no one has the right to take it away from us, no woman has the right to willfully end the existence of another person.

That professor can go snuff himself [/quote]

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Archaeology cat

[dairygirl4u2c]

i notice no one has attacked the block analogy. you claim it's a human person without question, but have not addressed that critical issue.

another issue i thought of, though i'm not sure of the scientific soundness, just a theory. if the early cells are like regular stem cells but with an enzyme or something causing to grow into a person, i would imagine most here would say removing those enzymes then is surely murder, like removing a heart from a regular person.
but then, start thinking about the adding and subtracting of the enzymes. what if you added it back in again, and it started growing again? did you just recreate the life? then go back and forth, killing and creating, apparently...
of course, assuming it's that simple....
the point being that it's so flimsy the life death situation that it's almost surely not personhood if it can be like that.

the more i think of the possibilities, the more i think it makes more sense that personhood doesn't come till later. a good time might be whenever the fetus starts moving out of its own volition. but really, i have no idea if it's a person or not. and i don't think anyone can claim to know, and that's the point of this thread.

also, if you read that quoted text it has teh pope's words, he seems to allow the possibility it's not a person. he could be saying that it's only allowing a theoretical possibility "even if" type thing, but it don't look like it.