Posted on 12/02/2006 1:33:42 PM PST by Coleus
With great respect to the Talmud, we can't know exactly when life begins. If we believe in God and the existence of an immortal soul within us, we must err on the side of caution. From the point of view of the human intellect, the most obvious time for God to impart a soul is at the moment of conception. That is when the most profound physiologic changes occur. That is when an incomplete genetic package becomes complete with all the code of a complete human being.
What should be the price/condemnation for killing a human physical body?..
even at the age of 1 month?..
Well, scientifically, we know when the life of an individual human being begins. It begins at conception. You can only get life from life, Frankenstein to the contrary. A live child is conceived by living parents, and we say that its life "begins" because it is genetically a separate person from either of its parents.
The Talmud is presumably based on biblical descriptions such as the one in the Book of Job. But the Bible is not attempting to be scientifically precise at all points. The Bible says that the sun "rises" and "sets," but we know it doesn't actually do that--rather, the earth turns and it only seems to rise and set. But it's so convenient to say so that we still say that the sun rises and sets, which certainly is not a false statement. It merely has to be properly understood.
Similarly, St. Thomas and other theologians spoke about life beginning at the moment of quickening or ensoulment, taken to be when the baby is first felt to move in the womb. But we now know that life begins earlier, at the beginning, and that therefore ensoulment must also be earlier.
I must say, these days whenever I see the word "ethicist," I reach for my pistol (metaphorically). An ethicist is, more often than not, a highly trained professional who is almost completely ignorant of real morality. His function is to tell hospitals and other institutions who pay him what they want to hear.
St. Thomas and St. Augustine knew that life itself began at conception. They simply didn't believe it had advanced to the point of having a soul until it had developed to the point of movement. Nor was there any scientific evidence that changed the mind of the Church. It was "decreed" in the 1850s that life and soul began at conception. It was thought by some to be as much a political decision by the Pope as a theological one.
How about when it is too late for an embryo to become a twin?
the dog dies, the kids leave home...THAT's when life begins.
I know the feeling. "Medical ethics" has become pseudonym for creative ways in which to end life. This is the logical extension of abandonment of personal moral responsibility.
St Augustines views on early development of the fetus were not what one would call biologically apt.
Life begins at conception. God says He knew us before we were in the womb. God deals in souls. Ergo, ensoulment and conception go hand in hand.
It seems so simple, a near application of the transitive principle, A=B, and B=C, and therefore A=C, but ... there are always first principles to be assumed aren't there?
Wonder why the Church didn't realize that for about 1200 years? And of course, not everyone would agree with you on a couple of points. Life, yes. Human life, maybe. Your conclusion on ensoulment and conception merely state an opinion, not a scientific proof. Which is why many do not accept that theory.
But of course. Ensoulment is an article of faith. Conception is science. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas did not have the tools of science at hand that we do. Hence, they made bad conclusions scientifically which affected their theology.
I've been studying this issue for some time now. The science is clear, biogenesis is the law of the land, new human life begins at conception. These things are not arguable though you can find arguments in "science" texts debating when human life begins. Junk science borne of ideology.
Of course there is junk theology as well.
Nobody gets a pass here at FR. :-}
The Church knew realized it from the beginning, they were led astray shall we say. I can give you more but I'd say God's word would be the deciding factor for those of faith though the Didache and many other early and prominent Christians did not adhere to Augustines views.
Stuff happens.
Nascent future potential versus the present actual. Some find that relevant, and some don't. Still, I have more of a conscience issue with even legalized first trimester abortions, than I do with legalizing how one manages one's final exit (although that one in practice would have some downside risk as well). But then, when I consider it time to depart this mortal coil, the legalities will be of absolutely no interest to me. And so it goes.
Me either. When it's time I'll go. I almost died once, it didn't scare me. Maybe it's the faith, I don't know. But I do know that the God I have faith in does not embrace suffering for sufferings sake. I would prefer to keep the government out of end of life decisions for various reasons but I understand that Doctors need protection from the lawyers. :-} I'm open to any ideas on how we might wed those thoughts.
I'm not entirely sure of that, although I may be mistaken. It was a fairly common view that life could come from non-living matter. The best known instance is Nile mud, which was thought capable of yearly giving birth to all sorts of living creatures. That one was still current in the Renaissance.
I suppose it depends what you mean by soul. It was commonly thought, from ancient times through medieval to the Renaissance, that plants had a single soul, which governed growth and reproduction; animals had a second soul, which included the senses and locomotion, and humans had a third soul, which involved reason, will, and memory. Some also speak of a higher spiritual soul, but this is not a firmly established idea.
But etymology, both Hebrew and Greek, suggest that life, breath, wind, and spirit are related concepts (ruach and pneuma). God breathes into Adam to give him life, and when the breath leaves the body we die.
Further, the soul is not only spiritual. The Catechism of the Catholic Church still includes a formulation that goes back to Aristotle, that the soul is the form of the body. The body lives only when it has a soul. So, I would think this was a development of doctrine, not a change of doctrine.
They certainly knew how conception took place. They knew that a "life" was growing. That was not the issue. The issue was the theory or concept of ensoulment, which has no scientific basis. When Pius IX issued his determination that a fetus had a soul at conception, it still had no scientific basis, nor is their any evidence he had any more biological knowledge than did Augustine, whose determination of no ensoulment was based on the unformed and non-animated body of the fetus, which are still facts today.
I've been studying this issue for some time now. The science is clear, biogenesis is the law of the land, new human life begins at conception
You should give Augustine some credit. He knew that the life growing from a "seed" was indeed a human, but so unformed as to make it unready for the soul. No amount of biogenesis is sufficient to counter the point made by Augustine. The early fetus has no central nervous system, no arms, legs, sexual distinction, mind, nor any of the physical attributes that distinuish a human being from any other early stage animal. Augustine's determinations of ensoulment and Pius' later countermanding of that are both simply philosophical calls, not based on any science.
This is purely an article of faith. Both sides of the issue have credibility...until the fetus is in its later term. Then, I believe, common sense and the Constitution come into play.
Nobody gets a pass here at FR
You got that right!
Suicide is a decision anyone is free to make and has always been free to make. I discourage people from doing so of course but they are still free to do it. Forcing society to bless that choice however is objectionable and selfish. My opinion anyway.
I know I am not making much sense perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.