life begins at conception?

[George Murphy]

I'm not sure where this topic should go - it has components of natural science, theology & ethics, as well as political implications. But let's try it here.

Research on, & potential (N.B.) therapies with, embryonic are controversial topics today. This is primarily because such research requires the destruction of human embryos. The response of many Christians is that "life begins at conception" so that destruction of the embryo means killing a human being, and thus that such research should be prevented. I want to say at the outset that I am not unsympathetic with that view & think some theological arguments can be given in support of it. I am not here just trying to shoot down this view. OTOH such a claim confronts some significant problems & wonder how others respond to these.

Certainly "life begins at conception" in the sense that at conception (which is not an instantaneous process) a genetically unique human organism comes into being. But is it a human person at that time? Consider the following. (I use the word "embryo" throughout though some would want to use terms like "pre-embryo" or "conceptus.")

Even after the first couple of divisions of the fertilized ovum, there is a possibility of twinning - i.e., of the embryo becoming two (or more) persons. Does this mean that one person has become two? (& it should be noted that this process could be induced artificially, making problematic a claim that there were perhaps two souls in the original ovum which destined it to split.)

Conversely, two embryos at a very early stage can come together to form a "chimera" - a rare process but one that has been known to occur. There are people who have 2 different kinds of DNA in different parts of their bodies. (There was an episode of CSI which used this as a plot device a year or so ago,.) Does this mean that two persons became one?

At very early stages of development an embryo has no brain - & in fact there has been no differentiation to produce neural cells. The classical definition of "person" (Boethius) is "an individual substance of a rational nature." Can we say that something with no brain has a rational nature?

Much of the interest in embryonic stem cell research has focussed on doing such work with embryonic clones because this might make possible regenerative therapies which would not be troubled by histocompatability (immune reaction) problems. Some Christians have objected to cloning because it would mean the artificial production of a human being. But if this were done, would such an objection mean that the resulting embryo was defectively human & thus could be destroyed?

& more speculatively, it's been suggested that any kind of human somatic cell could in principle be induced to begin embryonic development if we could learn how to return it (as we can do with a somatic cell nucleus in cloning) to an undifferentiated state. This would mean that every cell in everyone's body would be a potential embryo. Clearly this would create problems if all those cells were then entitled to protection.

Your reactions?

Shalom,
George

[norwegen]

Howdy, George.

I think you make some good points. The idea that life begins at conception may be somewhat simplistic, even to some Christians who might think that life begins about two and a half weeks after conception, when blood begins to flow through some newly-developed veins (Leviticus 17:11 & 14). This might be my position, but I wouldn't entirely dismiss the more simplistic and popular view.

If it grows, it's alive. How is that refutable?

Being semiallogenic, the blastocyst/embryo is no less a biological system than a parasite is. But, unlike you, I would say unequivocally that this parasite is a human person. It may not be conscious or rational, and therefore it may not be a human being, but it occupies all the biological taxa that its host does. It occupies all the biological taxa that a fetus eight and a half months into a pregnancy does, and even to most die-hard pro-choicers, killing a fetus at that stage in life is unconscionable. What makes killing a human at 2 and a half weeks more acceptable than killing a human at eight and a half months when, arguably, neither one is a human being?

[magus]

I could be a nasty fellow and point out that definitionally, a human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. That being the case, the zygote (fertilised egg) is most definitely a human being, as it (he/she) is a member of the species, and is separate from its (his/her) mother/carrier.

However, I won't be nasty. I will simply point out this - namely, we don't have an operating definition for the word 'soul'. The fact that a zygote can become twins, or triplets, or whatever - so where there was previously maybe one soul, there are now more. What's wrong with that? A soul by definition is something intangible, and beyond scientific knowledge. If this is an agreeable statement, then the issue dissolves.

If you can get a piece of my bone marrow, undifferentiate the cells and start it growing towards a brand new human being, I would argue that this new human has a soul and should be protected as such.

Further, a hydrocephalic (or even acephalic) baby is still a human by any stretch of the imagination. God will look after His own.

In the final analysis, if the tissue in question can, on its own, given nutrition and whatnot, turn into a human being, then it is. imho

Love in Christ,
Magus

[Sheepdog]

just FYI, this is a Christian only area, if you want input from nonChristians, we can move it elsewhere.

[George Murphy]

just FYI, this is a Christian only area, if you want input from nonChristians, we can move it elsewhere.

No, while the ideas of non-Christians are important in discussing the science & technology relating to embryonic stem cells, I was looking for Christian theological & ethical responses to some of the questions raised by the science & technology here.

In response to magus & norwegen - I agree, as I thought I made clear, that the embryo from conception on is alive & that it's human. Those aren't what's at issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. The question is whether it's a person - or, as some would put it, when it becomes a person. & that isn't a question that can be answered by science because "person" isn't a concept of biology but one of philosophy, theology & law. You seem to be arguing in effect that anything that's human & alive is a human person but that amounts to just defining the question away. & you haven't really faced up to the questions I raised about twinnning &c.

Shalom,
George

[themuzicman]

I'm not sure where this topic should go - it has components of natural science, theology & ethics, as well as political implications. But let's try it here.

Research on, & potential (N.B.) therapies with, embryonic are controversial topics today. This is primarily because such research requires the destruction of human embryos. The response of many Christians is that "life begins at conception" so that destruction of the embryo means killing a human being, and thus that such research should be prevented. I want to say at the outset that I am not unsympathetic with that view & think some theological arguments can be given in support of it. I am not here just trying to shoot down this view. OTOH such a claim confronts some significant problems & wonder how others respond to these.

A theological argument would be nice for Christianity 201.

Certainly "life begins at conception" in the sense that at conception (which is not an instantaneous process) a genetically unique human organism comes into being. But is it a human person at that time? Consider the following. (I use the word "embryo" throughout though some would want to use terms like "pre-embryo" or "conceptus.")

So, there are humans we can judge to be "non-persons"? Are they just 3/5s of a person, then? What other humans can we make into "non-persons", so they can be killed? Can we experiment on the severly disabled in this way? How about those who are in a persistent vegetative state?

Even after the first couple of divisions of the fertilized ovum, there is a possibility of twinning - i.e., of the embryo becoming two (or more) persons. Does this mean that one person has become two? (& it should be noted that this process could be induced artificially, making problematic a claim that there were perhaps two souls in the original ovum which destined it to split.)

Yes, it becomes two persons. And that's only a problem if you're a dualist.

Conversely, two embryos at a very early stage can come together to form a "chimera" - a rare process but one that has been known to occur. There are people who have 2 different kinds of DNA in different parts of their bodies. (There was an episode of CSI which used this as a plot device a year or so ago,.) Does this mean that two persons became one?

One dies, the other continues.

At very early stages of development an embryo has no brain - & in fact there has been no differentiation to produce neural cells. The classical definition of "person" (Boethius) is "an individual substance of a rational nature." Can we say that something with no brain has a rational nature?


Can we say a human with a brain but no rational function has a rational nature?

Much of the interest in embryonic stem cell research has focussed on doing such work with embryonic clones because this might make possible regenerative therapies which would not be troubled by histocompatability (immune reaction) problems. Some Christians have objected to cloning because it would mean the artificial production of a human being. But if this were done, would such an objection mean that the resulting embryo was defectively human & thus could be destroyed?

No. Why should we think that we can create human life only to kill it?

& more speculatively, it's been suggested that any kind of human somatic cell could in principle be induced to begin embryonic development if we could learn how to return it (as we can do with a somatic cell nucleus in cloning) to an undifferentiated state. This would mean that every cell in everyone's body would be a potential embryo. Clearly this would create problems if all those cells were then entitled to protection.

That's getting into an area of science that I don't have a lot of experience with, so it's grey for me.

Michael

[George Murphy]

I don't know why my original statements to which you replied don't show up here. No time to fix now.

A theological argument would be nice for Christianity 201.



So, there are humans we can judge to be "non-persons"? Are they just 3/5s of a person, then? What other humans can we make into "non-persons", so they can be killed? Can we experiment on the severly disabled in this way? How about those who are in a persistent vegetative state?

Do you think you could prejudice the discussion a bit more?

Yes, it becomes two persons. And that's only a problem if you're a dualist.

A bit of fudging here. "It"? The "it" that becomes 2 persons was previously 1 person. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?

One dies, the other continues.

Which one dies & which one continues?

Can we say a human with a brain but no rational function has a rational nature?

A good question. In fact some have suggested that for embryos we should use a criterion of "brain birth" paralleling the concept of "brain death" as the end of life. (& to be precise "brain" here should be qualified with "whole.")

No. Why should we think that we can create human life only to kill it?

You have missed the point here. IF (N.B.) a clone isn't fully human because it was produced artificially (a position with which I don't agree but which some arguments against cloning suggest) then would it be wrong to destroy it?

That's getting into an area of science that I don't have a lot of experience with, so it's grey for me.

Since no technical knowledge is required to understand the argument, I suspect that you may mean "I don't know how to answer that so I'll punt."

Shalom,
George

[Sheepdog]

i think viability makes this whole debate moot. a kid who has drowned and legally dead is not a human life by anyone's definition, and yet even the staunchest pro-fetalcide advocate would consider it a moral abomination to not perform CPR on such a child if one can. why? because it could still be viable that the child be resuscitated. to refrain would be negligence, if not manslaughter.

likewise, an fetus may or may not be a human life depending on who's definitions we follow... however no one can argue that it is not viable unless there is evidence that it's birth would be impedded by a severe defect. and yet, why is it morally reprehensible to not perform CPR on a drowned child and yet not to abort a fetus? indeed, the moral travesty should be more severe: at least our negligent lifegaurd is "sinning by omission," whereas abortion is not typically passive.

[Sheepdog]

A bit of fudging here. "It"? The "it" that becomes 2 persons was previously 1 person. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?

just an off comment from the theological peanut gallery here. you see, i'm reminded of my former philosophy class where we were talking about the inadequacy of substance dualism versus personallism (or property dualism if you will). we made the point that substance monism is totally compatible with afterlife vis a vis resurrection.

the only objection we got was that resurrection was "weird." and yet, this was the traditional view of the church regarding the "afterlife" for thousands of years. go figure.

i guess my point is, it may be strange, but strangness by itself is not a good argument. we'd need something more, i think.

[themuzicman]

I don't know why my original statements to which you replied don't show up here. No time to fix now.

No problem. That's how the system works.


Do you think you could prejudice the discussion a bit more?

Just making some comparisons to other instances where rational function is unavailble.

A bit of fudging here. "It"? The "it" that becomes 2 persons was previously 1 person. Doesn't this seem a bit odd?

Why? There were two people (mom and dad), and now there's three... Oh, and now there's four. What's unusual about it?

Which one dies & which one continues?

There's probably a good, albiet complex scientific argument, here. The answer just seems apparant.

A good question. In fact some have suggested that for embryos we should use a criterion of "brain birth" paralleling the concept of "brain death" as the end of life. (& to be precise "brain" here should be qualified with "whole.")

Why use such an inexact measure, when there's a concrete one sitting here, just waiting to be used?

You have missed the point here. IF (N.B.) a clone isn't fully human because it was produced artificially (a position with which I don't agree but which some arguments against cloning suggest) then would it be wrong to destroy it?

One of the argument against cloning is the can of ethical worms that it opens up, and the number of bad ends that seem to come out of every train of thought.

Since no technical knowledge is required to understand the argument, I suspect that you may mean "I don't know how to answer that so I'll punt."

"No technical knowledge"? How about the means by which and final product of what this undifferentiated cell is? Could it ever really be used to clone a person? It sounds like maybe in theory, but the underlying technical aspects of what it means are a mystery to me, so I don't have enough info to really make a judgment.

Does it require an event to make it begin to multiply and grow into an individual?
Michael

[magus]

Twinning (and multiple viable blastocysts resulting from a single blastocyst) is what we call asexual reproduction. That is, an organism bringing forth another of its kind without sexual union of egg and sperm (or similar).

Another form of asexual reproduction is categorised in the Bible. Let me be clearer - it accurs in the Gospels. I hope this clears up some confusion.

Love in Christ,
Magus

[George Murphy]

just an off comment from the theological peanut gallery here. you see, i'm reminded of my former philosophy class where we were talking about the inadequacy of substance dualism versus personallism (or property dualism if you will). we made the point that substance monism is totally compatible with afterlife vis a vis resurrection.

the only objection we got was that resurrection was "weird." and yet, this was the traditional view of the church regarding the "afterlife" for thousands of years. go figure.

i guess my point is, it may be strange, but strangness by itself is not a good argument. we'd need something more, i think.

Yes, resurrection in the sense that Christians use the term (or should use it) is strange. Our justification for speaking about it is the resurrection of Jesus - i.e., the basic Christian claim that resurrection has happened. This does automatically lgeitimate any other strange claim that may be made.

& on your previous post, you seem to be using "viable" in an odd way. A fetus isn't viable, though it's potentially so. For that matter a new born baby isn't "viable" in the sense that it can survive on its own. Some more precise terminology is needed.

Nobody here seems to be interested in serious exploration of when an embryo becomes a person. It's not sufficient just to assert that it is from conception onward. As I said to begin with, I'm not just trying to justify embronic stem cell research but I hoped to provoke more serious thought about the issues involved.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

It would help a lot if you'd include at least some of the material you're responding to. It's awkward to respond to disjointed comments that don't always make clear what they're comments on.

Why? There were two people (mom and dad), and now there's three... Oh, and now there's four. What's unusual about it?

Cute but it won't work. My grandaughter can count to four but that doesn't answer the question. Is one twin the parent of the other?

Part of the problem here is that "personhood" or "soul" isn't scientifically observable so you can get away with just making assertions about them & not worry about any empirical challenge. For that reason it's especially important to ask if we have any clear biblical basis or other theological support for such claims & to reason carefully about what we do know. The original claim is that the person comes into being at conception. Now you're saying "Oops - the person of one of the twins came into being a week after conception." Now you can just assert this if you wish but I think the possibility of twinning would at least cause you to think a bit about your original premise.

There's probably a good, albiet complex scientific argument, here. The answer just seems apparant.

That in response to my point about chimeras. (You see why I said inclusion of earlier material would be helpful.) But it's not really a response at all - just "I'm sure there's a good answer." Again, shouldn't this at least make you think about your starting point?

Why use such an inexact measure, when there's a concrete one sitting here, just waiting to be used?

What's inexact? The criterion that's being suggested is that there's no brain, which is certainly the case at the stage when stem cells would be collected precisely because they haven't yet differentiated. Your supposedly concrete criterion OTOH is just an assertion & its validity is what's being examined.

One of the argument against cloning is the can of ethical worms that it opens up, and the number of bad ends that seem to come out of every train of thought.

Every? That's a blunderbuss approach to a complicated set of ethical questions. Sure, some bad things could come from cloning. So could some good things - which is one of the main reasons people are interested in hES research.

"No technical knowledge"? How about the means by which and final product of what this undifferentiated cell is? Could it ever really be used to clone a person? It sounds like maybe in theory, but the underlying technical aspects of what it means are a mystery to me, so I don't have enough info to really make a judgment.

No technical knowledge about how a cell could be completely undifferentiated is needed in order to deal with questions about the ethical & theological consequences of such a process if it could be done. Similarly, we can talk about theological issues that would have to be dealt with if we encountered ETs without knowing details about the conditions needed for them to evolve.

Does it require an event to make it begin to multiply and grow into an individual?
Michael

I would think that being returned to the status of a fertilized ovum would suffice.

Shalom,
George

[Anoetos]

I would think that even the potentiality for life would be sufficient for us to err on the side of safety and treat the zygote/fetus as a living person.

[George Murphy]

I would think that even the potentiality for life would be sufficient for us to err on the side of safety and treat the zygote/fetus as a living person.

"Life" isn't the question. The embryo is alive. When is it a person? Even if we weren't interested in issues related to possible therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells, that question would be a significant one. I find it odd that no one wants to address it.

& then "err on the side of safety" is all very well if there is no positive reason to do research on stem cells. But since there is the possibility that good can come in the form of regenerative medicine for various ailments, there are limits to how much we should err on the side of caution. If we didn't impose such limits in other situations we'd never do anything.

Come on people! All I'm hearing on this are unimaginative refusals to do anything more than repeat the title I gave this thread (sans question mark) as a mantra.

Shalom,
George

[Anoetos]

Life is important enough to guard against even the possibility that we might be wrong (or right as the case may be.

It's not something to toy with.

[George Murphy]

Life is important enough to guard against even the possibility that we might be wrong (or right as the case may be.

It's not something to toy with.

So we'll let people who might be cured with therapies developed from embryonic stem cells die in order to err on the side of safety. N.B. - not because we know that the cost of such a therapy would be the destruction of human persons but because it might be & we're "erring on the side of safety." Brilliant.

Can anybody give me an argument that rises above the level of a bumper sticker?

Shalom,
George

[infide]

So we'll let people who might be cured with therapies developed from embryonic stem cells die in order to err on the side of safety. N.B. - not because we know that the cost of such a therapy would be the destruction of human persons but because it might be & we're "erring on the side of safety." Brilliant.

Can anybody give me an argument that rises above the level of a bumper sticker?

Shalom,
George

You might possibly destroy the person who would cure said diseases not because such research will actually find a cure but because it might. Brilliant.

Why dont you give an argument that doesnt amount to some political talking point?

peace,
jd

[George Murphy]

You might possibly destroy the person who would cure said diseases not because such research will actually find a cure but because it might. Brilliant.

Why dont you give an argument that doesnt amount to some political talking point?

peace,
jd

My last post is hardly the totality of what I've said in this thread. Why don't you go back & read earlier posts before commenting further? My response to Anoetos, while phrased sarcastically, makes a point. Yours is incoherent.

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

George, the way I see it is that even if we could know the stage at which personhood was aquired (assuming it is post conception) it still wouldnt be ok to use the pre-person embryos since we would undoubtedly be destroying potential. Even if I knew there was no personhood until a certain point, I think from conception onwards the notion of destroying potential is real...once the events are in motion that will result in a person then any intervention would be wrong...surely.

[George Murphy]

George, the way I see it is that even if we could know the stage at which personhood was aquired (assuming it is post conception) it still wouldnt be ok to use the pre-person embryos since we would undoubtedly be destroying potential. Even if I knew there was no personhood until a certain point, I think from conception onwards the notion of destroying potential is real...once the events are in motion that will result in a person then any intervention would be wrong...surely.

This a reasonable argument - up to the last word. But "surely"? Insisting upon protection of potential persons raises a lot of problems. 1st, of course, it's very easy to see that it can validate the prohibition of artificial contraception - a sperm and an ovum are potentially a human person. Some Christians may be happy with that argument. I'm dubious about it.

But a more serious, albeit speculative, challenge is what I noted in Post #1 here. Every cell in the human body may be a potential person, & an attempt to protect all those might-become persons would obviously become grotesque.

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

This a reasonable argument - up to the last word. But "surely"? Insisting upon protection of potential persons raises a lot of problems. 1st, of course, it's very easy to see that it can validate the prohibition of artificial contraception - a sperm and an ovum are potentially a human person. Some Christians may be happy with that argument. I'm dubious about it.

But a more serious, albeit speculative, challenge is what I noted in Post #1 here. Every cell in the human body may be a potential person, & an attempt to protect all those might-become persons would obviously become grotesque.

Shalom,
George

I would agree that every cell may have the potential to be a person but until such time as a process is in motion (ie in the natural sense conception), which uninterrupted will end in a person then I see no need to postulate on individual cells or eggs or sperms ie on its own an egg has no chance of becoming a person. Conception is different for once that is set in motion it will end in a person unless someone actively intervenes to stop it. Intervention in that instance I would see as robbing that process of its potential

[George Murphy]

I would agree that every cell may have the potential to be a person but until such time as a process is in motion (ie in the natural sense conception), which uninterrupted will end in a person then I see no need to postulate on individual cells or eggs or sperms ie on its own an egg has no chance of becoming a person. Conception is different for once that is set in motion it will end in a person unless someone actively intervenes to stop it. Intervention in that instance I would see as robbing that process of its potential

Every cell in the body has the potential of being returned to the status of a fertilized (not unfertilized) embryo.

What you're in effect doing is trying to distinguish between different degrees of potentiality. That allows you to avoid some grotesque conclusions but I don't think the argument will hold up.

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

Every cell in the body has the potential of being returned to the status of a fertilized (not unfertilized) embryo.

What you're in effect doing is trying to distinguish between different degrees of potentiality. That allows you to avoid some grotesque conclusions but I don't think the argument will hold up.


but there is a difference because one is not an actualised potential (ie a sperm or egg or cell) and one is (a conceptus)

[George Murphy]

but there is a difference because one is not an actualised potential (ie a sperm or egg or cell) and one is (a conceptus)

No. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the embryo becomes a human person T days after conception. (T = 14 is about the time of formation of the primitive streak & was taken as the limit for research on embryos by the Warnock & Donaldson committees in the UK.) It is at that point that the potential of the embryo is actualized. Again, you are trying to distinguish between different degrees of potentiality but it's hard to see how to do that.

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

No. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the embryo becomes a human person T days after conception. (T = 14 is about the time of formation of the primitive streak & was taken as the limit for research on embryos by the Warnock & Donaldson committees in the UK.) It is at that point that the potential of the embryo is actualized. Again, you are trying to distinguish between different degrees of potentiality but it's hard to see how to do that.

Shalom,
George

I see what you are saying but I would not agree because from conception you have a real expectation of a person resulting (ie Suzie is with child)whereas before you have a potential expectation which my never even actualize(ie if Mary doesnt take her contraceptive she might conceive). I agree it is drawing the line and as you say there are people in the faith who would possibly see the use of contraceptives as wrong. I think if a line must be drawn then this is a place where there clearly is a discernable difference and which we can be objectively appreciated...moreso I would say than saying where/when personhood begins.

[infide]

My last post is hardly the totality of what I've said in this thread. Why don't you go back & read earlier posts before commenting further? My response to Anoetos, while phrased sarcastically, makes a point. Yours is incoherent.

Shalom,
George

I read the thread before i posted, thank you very much.

And how, again, is my point incoherent? Because you are just SO sure that ESCR will result in cures? No scientist in their right mind would conclude such a thing. It is very possible that one day, say 200 years from now they will find something. Its just as possible that tomorrow they develop something from the ESC that they have for research right now.

But unlike the mere possibility found in the prospects of ESCR, the extremely high probability that an embryo will grow into a person who will be an active and fruitful member of society is undeniable.

You want the remote possibility to trump the very high (and to me much more valuable) probability of the living, breathing, human person.

Further, since it is just as remotely likely that the embryo could grow into a person who would have the intellect to cure one of the same diseases you are concerned about, the remote possibility that ESCR actually will provide some benefit to society becomes a moot point.

peace,
jd

[George Murphy]

I read the thread before i posted, thank you very much.

Could have fooled me. If you paid any attention to my original post you would have seen that (1) my intention was not just to present arguments but to suggest things that needed to be considered & (2) that they hardly "amount to some political talking point[s]" - unless that's your way of characterizing anything you don't agree with.


And how, again, is my point incoherent? Because you are just SO sure that ESCR will result in cures? No scientist in their right mind would conclude such a thing. It is very possible that one day, say 200 years from now they will find something. Its just as possible that tomorrow they develop something from the ESC that they have for research right now.

I have said nothing to indicate that I'm "so sure" that cures will result but have spoken about the possibility of such therapies.

But unlike the mere possibility found in the prospects of ESCR, the extremely high probability that an embryo will grow into a person who will be an active and fruitful member of society is undeniable.

You want the remote possibility to trump the very high (and to me much more valuable) probability of the living, breathing, human person.

2 different arguments seem to be confused here. What was under discussion in the post to which you responded was the argument that we should err on the side of safety if we weren't sure that the embryo at a particular stage of development was a person. It either is or isn't & but we have no way of quantifying how likely it is that one or the other is the case. OTOH we do know that there are possibilities for therapies which are hardly "remote" since some therapies with adult stem cells have had success in treatment of leukemia &c.

This is different from the argument Abigail has been presenting, that we should respect the potential of the early embryo to become a person even if that potential may not be actualized at a given moment. Erring on the side of safety isn't the issue here. In any case, the probability of the early embryo becoming a "living, breathing, human person" is not "very high." Something on the order of 75% of embryos are spontaneously aborted before implantation. (Cf. Joseph Panno, Stem Cell Research [Facts on File, 2005], p.77.)

I don't "want to trump" anything. I'm not crusading for hES research but am trying to get people to consider the issue seriously. Most are not doing that but are simply trying to defend a view that seems to be based on gut feelings.

Further, since it is just as remotely likely that the embryo could grow into a person who would have the intellect to cure one of the same diseases you are concerned about, the remote possibility that ESCR actually will provide some benefit to society becomes a moot point.

Sure. & it's possible that an embryo that isn't destroyed may grow up to be an abortionist. "Erring on the side of safety" shouldn't be absolutized, which was my point to begin with.

Shalom,
George

[magus]

Dear George;

The question you raise is, I agree, a serious one, and one that should be treated as such. But let me ask you this; do you really want us to provide a human viewpoint/definition of personhood? Instead of the divine one?

Let me put it another way. Do you really want a human definition of sin/God/salvation/repentence rather than the divine one? Assuming, of course, that the Bible is the source of our divine viewpoint. As you do not say whether you are a Christian or not, this may be a rather large assumption for you to swallow. However, I must insist that you allow me my assumption, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The reason I ask is this. Humans are notorious for changing our minds. Is a newborn baby a person? Based on what criteria? What about a fellow in a vegetative/comatose state? A hydrocephalic child? An acephalic child? Is the CNS/brain the sole criterion for deciding? Remembering that once the brain was thought to be an organ for cooling the blood!

Or maybe not the brain alone, but a demonstration of intelligence. Fine, so do we now say anybody with an IQ of 120 or above is a person? And from 60-119 is a sub-person? and anything below 60 isn't a person at all? So Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't people, since they don't demonstrate intelligence sufficient to the purpose.

Or maybe a person is defined as either; 'an individual who is self-sufficient or capable of being self-sufficient, or under the care/guardianship of such an individual'. In which case, dogs and cats could conceivably become persons, while poor orphans living on the streets aren't.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Far better that we accept the Biblical standard, that you are a human being from conception, and your 'personhood' begins the instant sperm and ovum become a zygote.

The next question then becomes; are all persons to be treated equally under the law? And the answer to that should be a resounding YES, but we know that sadly, that is never the case. But that doesn't mean a person isn't entitled to it.

So, please don't say that it's bumper sticker mantras that Christians chant when we stick to this position. Scientific view change all the time, but the Bible and the God it reveals does not.

I once heard of a fellow by the name of Dr Josef Mengele, a German physician during the Nazi period. Using Jews and other 'undesirables' as his experimental test subjects, he managed to conduct quite a fair amount of 'medical research'. Now, you may think that this is an unfair comparison, since what he was actually doing was simply inhumane and barbaric to boot, but the point remains. Experimentation on people became much more regulated after that, I can tell you.

The reason that we use birth to mark the formal beginning of a being's life is because it's convenient. Dates of conceptions are not always known (in fact, almost never). People spend different amounts of time in their mother's womb - it's not always 9 months to the day. The birth, however, suffers no such unequivocality. It's a pretty obvious event, and once that can be timed somewhat precisely. But a human being is a human being from conception to death, and all human beings are persons, according to the Bible. It's time we accorded and recognised this, before we go down the slippery slope of shifting ethics that led to Mengele and his ilk.

Magus

[George Murphy]

Dear George;

The question you raise is, I agree, a serious one, and one that should be treated as such. But let me ask you this; do you really want us to provide a human viewpoint/definition of personhood? Instead of the divine one?

Let me put it another way. Do you really want a human definition of sin/God/salvation/repentence rather than the divine one? Assuming, of course, that the Bible is the source of our divine viewpoint. As you do not say whether you are a Christian or not, this may be a rather large assumption for you to swallow. However, I must insist that you allow me my assumption, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.

The reason I ask is this. Humans are notorious for changing our minds. Is a newborn baby a person? Based on what criteria? What about a fellow in a vegetative/comatose state? A hydrocephalic child? An acephalic child? Is the CNS/brain the sole criterion for deciding? Remembering that once the brain was thought to be an organ for cooling the blood!

Or maybe not the brain alone, but a demonstration of intelligence. Fine, so do we now say anybody with an IQ of 120 or above is a person? And from 60-119 is a sub-person? and anything below 60 isn't a person at all? So Down's Syndrome sufferers aren't people, since they don't demonstrate intelligence sufficient to the purpose.

Or maybe a person is defined as either; 'an individual who is self-sufficient or capable of being self-sufficient, or under the care/guardianship of such an individual'. In which case, dogs and cats could conceivably become persons, while poor orphans living on the streets aren't.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Far better that we accept the Biblical standard, that you are a human being from conception, and your 'personhood' begins the instant sperm and ovum become a zygote.

The next question then becomes; are all persons to be treated equally under the law? And the answer to that should be a resounding YES, but we know that sadly, that is never the case. But that doesn't mean a person isn't entitled to it.

So, please don't say that it's bumper sticker mantras that Christians chant when we stick to this position. Scientific view change all the time, but the Bible and the God it reveals does not.

I once heard of a fellow by the name of Dr Josef Mengele, a German physician during the Nazi period. Using Jews and other 'undesirables' as his experimental test subjects, he managed to conduct quite a fair amount of 'medical research'. Now, you may think that this is an unfair comparison, since what he was actually doing was simply inhumane and barbaric to boot, but the point remains. Experimentation on people became much more regulated after that, I can tell you.

The reason that we use birth to mark the formal beginning of a being's life is because it's convenient. Dates of conceptions are not always known (in fact, almost never). People spend different amounts of time in their mother's womb - it's not always 9 months to the day. The birth, however, suffers no such unequivocality. It's a pretty obvious event, and once that can be timed somewhat precisely. But a human being is a human being from conception to death, and all human beings are persons, according to the Bible. It's time we accorded and recognised this, before we go down the slippery slope of shifting ethics that led to Mengele and his ilk.

Magus

Yes, I am a Christian, & yes it would be great if we had the divine definition of personhood. Unfortunately we don't, & your statement that "and your 'personhood' begins the instant sperm and ovum become a zygote" is not something that can be gotten out of the Bible with any directness. I noted in my OP some of the problems that our knowledge of embryological development raises for this claim. Have you considered them?

I am quite aware of the dangers of commodifying human life which embryonic stem cell raises. I did not start this thread with the intention of just knocking out all objections to such research. I think that at the very least we ought to try to get a lot better understanding than we now have of what can be done with adult stem cells before we continue further with embryonic ones.
But such research is going on in other parts of the world, like it or not, its results will affect us, like it or not, & there will be ongoing pressure for the US government to fund such research. If Christians are going to make any long term impact here it won't be enough just to keep repeating "life begins at conception" as if that settled the issue. We have to investigate the scientific and theological aspects of the question and do so honestly and with an open mind. That is what I was trying to encourage. I haven't been very successful so far.

Shalom,
George

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Certainly "life begins at conception" in the sense that at conception (which is not an instantaneous process) a genetically unique human organism comes into being. But is it a human person at that time? Consider the following. (I use the word "embryo" throughout though some would want to use terms like "pre-embryo" or "conceptus.")Here's a hypothetical dialogue:

Fran: I'm going to destroy this embryo.
Jo: Don't do that, it's homicide.
Fran: No it's not, this is just an embryo.
Jo: yes, but it's a human embryo, and life begins at conception.
Fran: Are you saying this is a person?
Jo: What? No, I'm saying that life begins at conception, not personhood.

So even if the claim is made that the embryo isn't a person, it's not clear why that poses a problem for the one who objects on the grounds that life begins at conception.
Even after the first couple of divisions of the fertilized ovum, there is a possibility of twinning - i.e., of the embryo becoming two (or more) persons. Does this mean that one person has become two? (& it should be noted that this process could be induced artificially, making problematic a claim that there were perhaps two souls in the original ovum which destined it to split.)That would be aproblem if one is an anthropological dualist. But one can certainly be a Christian who thinks that life is sacred without being an athropological dualist.

And again, the one who says that life begins at conception might not be talking about "persons."
At very early stages of development an embryo has no brain - & in fact there has been no differentiation to produce neural cells. The classical definition of "person" (Boethius) is "an individual substance of a rational nature." Can we say that something with no brain has a rational nature?No. But then, most robust definitins of a person also exclude a new born infant. Now, I'm happy to say "OK, using that definition, an ambryo, and a new born, are both not persons." But if that's the term we're going to use, it's not what a person is talking about when they say that life begins at conception and so it's wrong to destroy embryos. Or at any rate they needn;t mean that.

The way to avoid this problem is for the conservative to just say that killing humans is prima facie wrong, regardless of whether they have the psychological features to qualify as persons yet or not.

[magus]

The whole issue of personhood is a legal one; basically, if someone is not a person, then that particular someone doesn't qualify for the legal protections awarded to people. It would simplify the law a great deal if it took the stance that human beings in whatever shape or form are people. human being=person, iow.

As for what the Bible says of the whole matter; whether or not you are a Calvinist or an Arminian, I think it's safe to say that you'd agree God knew (and chose) you before time began. i.e., God treated us as people even before our conception. More, He treated us as individuals before we were a blink in our parents' eyes.

Not a direct statement from God, but then again, children were precious to the Hebrews (and most ancient cultures).

Love in Christ,
Magus

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The whole issue of personhood is a legal one; basically, if someone is not a person, then that particular someone doesn't qualify for the legal protections awarded to people. It would simplify the law a great deal if it took the stance that human beings in whatever shape or form are people. human being=person, iow.Yes, that would work too. Basically what I was getting at is, forget the person/non person thing, and just think about human beings. Whatever we think of them as, use a category that includes all of us. Finer psychological distinctions and qualifications have nothing to do with the biblical prohibition on homicide. Even though newborn babies aren't persons in the modern philosophical sense of the word, they are certainly covered by "you shall not commit murder" in Exodus.

[George Murphy]

Yes, that would work too. Basically what I was getting at is, forget the person/non person thing, and just think about human beings. Whatever we think of them as, use a category that includes all of us. Finer psychological distinctions and qualifications have nothing to do with the biblical prohibition on homicide. Even though newborn babies aren't persons in the modern philosophical sense of the word, they are certainly covered by "you shall not commit murder" in Exodus.

There are so many dodgings of the issue in these posts by magus & theonomy that I hardly know where to begin. & I wonder if it's worth beginning because all I'm getting in this thread is responses from people who start with the assumption that embryos deserve the same protections as full grown human persons & then try to figure out a reason why. & the reasons aren't very good. The Bible is referred to generically but no specific texts are cited. The problems of twinning & chimerism are avoided by claims that these are only a problem for anthropological dualists - which is amusing since I'm not one of those. The whole issue of personhood is dismissed as a modern legal concept although in reality it's an old philosophical & theological one. God's foreknowledge is introduced but with no consideration about what God has foreknown. (I.e., at what stage of our development did God in eternity see us as persons? The question isn't avoided. & BTW, Lutherans are neither Calvinists nor Arminians.)

O Freunde, nicht diese Toene!

Shalom,
George

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

"Dodge?" Which issues did I address badly? If your complaint is just that I never addressed every issue, then I hope you'll forgive my failure to be exhaustive.

Of course personhood is a theological and philosophical issue, my point is merely that defending the embryo need not depend on the claim of personhood. If that's such a terrible point to make, then I apologise for darkening your thread with my presence. I will leave you alone. I must say however, what a way to make guests feel welcome!

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

And how, again, is my point incoherent?Hi infide. I wish I had done as you had done, and read the thread before posting. I could have learned from the way your genuine contribution was treated, and stayed away. Bless you brother.

[Howie]

George Murphy:

I have read and reread all the posts in this thread and am amazed that no one has actually gone to the scriptures to support their beliefs. The question at hand is, “When does human life begin?” I look to the Book of Genesis when God created Adam.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is only after God had formed the man that he breathed into him and then the man became a living soul. The body that God had formed was not a living soul. I find that distinction fascinating. It definitely does not support the contention that life begins at fertilization or conception because that is the initial stage of the formation of the body. The question then becomes, “At what point does God ‘breathe’ into that which was formed and it becomes a living soul?” That discussion is off topic. For purposes of this thread, I think Genesis 2:7 opens up the clear possibility that that which is formed (the zygote or embryo) may very well not be a human soul.

[George Murphy]

"Dodge?" Which issues did I address badly? If your complaint is just that I never addressed every issue, then I hope you'll forgive my failure to be exhaustive.

Of course personhood is a theological and philosophical issue, my point is merely that defending the embryo need not depend on the claim of personhood. If that's such a terrible point to make, then I apologise for darkening your thread with my presence. I will leave you alone. I must say however, what a way to make guests feel welcome!

I didn't realize that as the initiator of a thread I was supposed to offer milk and cookies to everyone who posted in it.

The reason you dodged the issue is that "Life begins at conception," which is what your arguments boil down to, is not an answer. I agreed in my opening post that at conception the embryo is human life. The cells of your body are alive and human, & probably have the same potential as a single cell embryo.

"But there's a difference!" Indeed. But what? & is it a difference that demands protection of one & not the other?

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

George Murphy:

I have read and reread all the posts in this thread and am amazed that no one has actually gone to the scriptures to support their beliefs. The question at hand is, “When does human life begin?” I look to the Book of Genesis when God created Adam.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

It is only after God had formed the man that he breathed into him and then the man became a living soul. The body that God had formed was not a living soul. I find that distinction fascinating. It definitely does not support the contention that life begins at fertilization or conception because that is the initial stage of the formation of the body. The question then becomes, “At what point does God ‘breathe’ into that which was formed and it becomes a living soul?” That discussion is off topic. For purposes of this thread, I think Genesis 2:7 opens up the clear possibility that that which is formed (the zygote or embryo) may very well not be a human soul.

Thank you very much for doing some thinking about the issue & not just quoting slogans.

The old idea that "quickening" of the fetus happens at some point after conception when God gives it a rational soul is related to the kind of consideration you suggest. But I think we need to be careful. The picture we have in Genesis (& I think it is a picture & not an historical account) is of God enlivening something that previously wasn't alive - i.e., dust. But the statement that I've said isn't an adequate response to questions about embryonic personhood, "Life begins at conception," is nevertheless true. The embryo is living human tissue from the time of conception.

Modern translations render the Hebrew nephesh chayah in Gen.2:7 as "living being" (NIV, NRSV) or "living creature" (NEB) instead of KJV's "living soul." The idea is not so much that something entity - a soul - is added to what previously existed as that that previous entity - in that case the figure formed from dust - became alive. So if the embryo is indeed alive from conception on, perhaps we have to say that the point in its development that corresponds to Gen.2:7 is conception.

But as I said, I don't think this is an historical account of the origin of the 1st human so I don't know that this argument is compelling.

Shalom,
George

[Howie]

George Murphy:

I do not necessarily read Genesis as a factual account either, however, if one doesn’t, the question still remains, “Why is the account of the creation of man broken down into stages?” Are the stages simply poetic images with no deeper meaning? That seems to be a “dodge”. Does the word “'adamah” translated as ground really mean “material world”? It can be translated as “earth” which is what God just created a few “days” earlier. Also, if you look at Genesis 1:20-25 you will see that all animal life was “brought forth” by the earth or the water. All plant life was brought forth from the earth (Gen 1:12). So the creation of man from the earth is simply in keeping with all other creation. The major difference is that in the case of man, God fashioned the man himself.

You also give a very limited translation to the Hebrew word “nephesh”. It means much more than life. It means the essence of one’s being. In fact, though it is most often translated as “soul” it is also translated as “heart”, “desire”, and even “mind”. So, it is a valid interpretation to say that what the verse means is that God fashioned the material vessel of man (the body) just like he did all other life on earth, from the ground, but in this instance he fashioned man with his own hands. After he fashioned the material vessel (man’s body) He then did something to man he did not do to the other living creations; he breathed into man something that made him different. Call it a soul, a spirit, an essence. Perhaps God breathed into man that which Jesus referred to as “the kingdom of heaven.”

If we are looking for Biblical grounding of belief, I don’t think it is appropriate to brush off the creation story when we are talking about the creative process of procreation. We have to address why it is broken down into steps.

Also, slightly off point, but germane is that it is a fact that the sperm and the ovum are alive prior to their joining. So the comment that “Life begins at conception” is obviously not true. Two life forms come together and create another life form.

[Darth Executor]

Let me translate what Theonomy asked and YOU dodged in fewer words: why does it need to be a "person" to deserve protection?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Let me translate what Theonomy asked and YOU dodged in fewer words: why does it need to be a "person" to deserve protection?
Thanks Darth. My head's getting a little tired from launching into so many solid brick walls around here lately, and I've only just properly returned! That's precisly the issue. I was pointing out that the comments about pesonhood may be exactly where the problem is, and was swiftly accused of doding the issue.

It seems that once a person knows the way that he likes to aproach an issue, any questioning of the presuppositions underlying that approach are seen as evasion because they don't go down the path he sees as being the most important. I wish you well on your endeavour.

[George Murphy]

George Murphy:

I do not necessarily read Genesis as a factual account either, however, if one doesn’t, the question still remains, “Why is the account of the creation of man broken down into stages?” Are the stages simply poetic images with no deeper meaning? That seems to be a “dodge”. Does the word “'adamah” translated as ground really mean “material world”? It can be translated as “earth” which is what God just created a few “days” earlier. Also, if you look at Genesis 1:20-25 you will see that all animal life was “brought forth” by the earth or the water. All plant life was brought forth from the earth (Gen 1:12). So the creation of man from the earth is simply in keeping with all other creation. The major difference is that in the case of man, God fashioned the man himself.

You also give a very limited translation to the Hebrew word “nephesh”. It means much more than life. It means the essence of one’s being. In fact, though it is most often translated as “soul” it is also translated as “heart”, “desire”, and even “mind”. So, it is a valid interpretation to say that what the verse means is that God fashioned the material vessel of man (the body) just like he did all other life on earth, from the ground, but in this instance he fashioned man with his own hands. After he fashioned the material vessel (man’s body) He then did something to man he did not do to the other living creations; he breathed into man something that made him different. Call it a soul, a spirit, an essence. Perhaps God breathed into man that which Jesus referred to as “the kingdom of heaven.”

If we are looking for Biblical grounding of belief, I don’t think it is appropriate to brush off the creation story when we are talking about the creative process of procreation. We have to address why it is broken down into steps.

Also, slightly off point, but germane is that it is a fact that the sperm and the ovum are alive prior to their joining. So the comment that “Life begins at conception” is obviously not true. Two life forms come together and create another life form.

1st, I don't know what gave the impression that I was "brushing off" one of the creation stories. We can take it quite seriously, & even think that it provides some guidance in dealing with the present question, without thinking that it gives an unambiguous answer.

2d, I certainly agree that living things are described in both creation stories as being brought forth from the materials of the world, as a number of the church fathers pointed out. I have often emphasized this in discussions of evolution.

3d, your statement, "He then did something to man he did not do to the other living creations; he breathed into man something that made him different," is open to question. The creation of the other animals isn't described with the detail devoted to the 1st human but the same phrase, nephesh chayah, is used of them in 2:19. & in Ps.104:29-30 it is God's ruach, the divine spirit, which gives life to all animals, not just humanity. What distinguishes the human from the animals in Gen.2 is not the way in which they're created but the fact that God addresses the human.

I'm not sure where this takes us in the discussion about the embryo & I'm a little rushed now.

Shalom,
George

[George Murphy]

Let me translate what Theonomy asked and YOU dodged in fewer words: why does it need to be a "person" to deserve protection?

No, I don't think I dodged anything though I probably wasn't explicit enough. I had already said that the embryo was human life from conception on. What he was doing was just saying, "OK, so it should be protected." Why?

Lots of things, including human things, are alive that we don't assume deserve the protection accorded to adult humans. There has to be some criterion. Theonomy says that "human beings" deserve protection but that's just using the phrase "human being" instead of "person."

Again, my point is not to try to show that embryos don't deserve protection. But more careful thinking is required about why they do. This is not just a theoretical argument. If embryos are to be accorded some degree of protection then the case has to be made in the public arena.

Shalom,
George

[Darth Executor]

No, I don't think I dodged anything though I probably wasn't explicit enough. I had already said that the embryo was human life from conception on. What he was doing was just saying, "OK, so it should be protected." Why?

Lots of things, including human things, are alive that we don't assume deserve the protection accorded to adult humans. There has to be some criterion. Theonomy says that "human beings" deserve protection but that's just using the phrase "human being" instead of "person."

Again, my point is not to try to show that embryos don't deserve protection. But more careful thinking is required about why they do. This is not just a theoretical argument. If embryos are to be accorded some degree of protection then the case has to be made in the public arena.

Shalom,
George

You attacked a straw man. I didn't say an embryo should be protected. I asked why it needs to be a person to be protected.

[George Murphy]

You attacked a straw man. I didn't say an embryo should be protected. I asked why it needs to be a person to be protected.

& also with you - I didn't say it had to be a person to be protected.

Of course the question of when it is a person is interesting in itself. But beyond that, any argument that the embryo should be protected involves some implicit or explicit criterion, call it "personhood" or "being a human being" or "ensoulment" of whatever. I am trying to get people to take seriously questions about the point of development at which the embryo should be protected or, to put it the other way, up to what point destruction of embryos for research &/or possible therapies might be allowable. I am not unsympathetic to claims that the answers to those questions are "from conception" and "not at all." But some reasons ought to be given beyond "Just because."

Shalom,
George

[Darth Executor]

& also with you - I didn't say it had to be a person to be protected.

Of course the question of when it is a person is interesting in itself. But beyond that, any argument that the embryo should be protected involves some implicit or explicit criterion, call it "personhood" or "being a human being" or "ensoulment" of whatever. I am trying to get people to take seriously questions about the point of development at which the embryo should be protected or, to put it the other way, up to what point destruction of embryos for research &/or possible therapies might be allowable. I am not unsympathetic to claims that the answers to those questions are "from conception" and "not at all." But some reasons ought to be given beyond "Just because."

Shalom,
George

Actually I don't like the use of the word "personhood" because it implies that the human needs a functioning mind of some sort which, to me, is quailty that a good chunk of living creatures posess. Why randomly pick the mind? Why not say a human deserves to live when it has a functional reproductive system rather than a functinal brain? The fact is, there is no point at which all humans become individuals. Some will split while they are one cell. Some will merge later on. For me, if the human is at a stage of development (embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult, old person, etc.), then nobody has the right to stop it. Arguments like "it could split" and "it could be spontaneously aborted by the mother" sound silly. The child could get hit by a car, can I kill it and collect the insurance? In short, I don't differentiate between stages of development because I have no reason to do so. If I think killing adults for selfish purposes is wrong, I plan on being consistent and apply this across the board.

[George Murphy]

Actually I don't like the use of the word "personhood" because it implies that the human needs a functioning mind of some sort which, to me, is quailty that a good chunk of living creatures posess. Why randomly pick the mind? Why not say a human deserves to live when it has a functional reproductive system rather than a functinal brain? The fact is, there is no point at which all humans become individuals. Some will split while they are one cell. Some will merge later on. For me, if the human is at a stage of development (embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult, old person, etc.), then nobody has the right to stop it. Arguments like "it could split" and "it could be spontaneously aborted by the mother" sound silly. The child could get hit by a car, can I kill it and collect the insurance? In short, I don't differentiate between stages of development because I have no reason to do so. If I think killing adults for selfish purposes is wrong, I plan on being consistent and apply this across the board.

"Person" need not mean having a functioning mind, though Boethius' definition points in that direction. It would be much more interesting to pursue a relational understanding of "person" because, among other things, that's in accord with the way the term is used in some trinitarian theologies. (E.g., Aquinas' statement that the divine persons are "subsistent relations.")

& if one is going to pursue some understanding of personhood then considerations about twinning & chimerism are relevant because they raise questions about what happens to putative persons at that stage. If not, not. OTOH the possibility of spontaneous abortion doesn't really affect the issue of personhood. It is, however, rather odd to think that if (N.B.) embryos are thought to have souls from conception on, 50-75% of those in heaven (or the limbo of infants for RCs) will be those who have never seen the light of day & in fact have had no cognitive experience at all.

Your criterion of "being at a stage of development" is just a variation on "life begins at conception." & again I see no compelling reason for adopting it.

Shalom,
George

[Darth Executor]

"Person" need not mean having a functioning mind, though Boethius' definition points in that direction. It would be much more interesting to pursue a relational understanding of "person" because, among other things, that's in accord with the way the term is used in some trinitarian theologies. (E.g., Aquinas' statement that the divine persons are "subsistent relations.")

Interesting but ultimately flawed. Comparing a finite being with an infinite one isn't the smartest thing to do.

& if one is going to pursue some understanding of personhood then considerations about twinning & chimerism are relevant because they raise questions about what happens to putative persons at that stage.

Have you considered that perhaps their souls were not complete beforehand? Or perhaps their souls "fuse" together? Nature isn't perfect. Mistakes happen and mistakes may extend to the spiritual realm as well.

If not, not. OTOH the possibility of spontaneous abortion doesn't really affect the issue of personhood. It is, however, rather odd to think that if (N.B.) embryos are thought to have souls from conception on, 50-75% of those in heaven (or the limbo of infants for RCs) will be those who have never seen the light of day & in fact have had no cognitive experience at all.

Unless their souls are recycled. Or perhaps they die because a soul is not attached to the embryo in time. It's a gray area and I don't know about you but I don't demolish a house unless I know there isn't anybody in it.

Your criterion of "being at a stage of development" is just a variation on "life begins at conception." & again I see no compelling reason for adopting it.

It's not a variation. It does however, put the burden of proof on you to explain why I should treat a human being differently just because it didn't reach an arbitrary stage of development that you conjured out of thin air.

[George Murphy]

Interesting but ultimately flawed. Comparing a finite being with an infinite one isn't the smartest thing to do.

Perhaps you've forgotten that humanity is supposed to have been created in the image of God.

To the extent that the concept of "person" is used both for the trinitarian persons and for humans - as indeed it is - then the analogy is of interest. But a relational concept of person doesn't in fact depend upon the trinitarian concept. H. Richard Niebuhr's The Responsible Self would be of interest here. Closer to the present subject, Duane Larson made use of related ideas in his contribution to the ELCA's _Human Cloning_ volume.

Have you considered that perhaps their souls were not complete beforehand? Or perhaps their souls "fuse" together? Nature isn't perfect. Mistakes happen and mistakes may extend to the spiritual realm as well.

Unless their souls are recycled. Or perhaps they die because a soul is not attached to the embryo in time. It's a gray area and I don't know about you but I don't demolish a house unless I know there isn't anybody in it.

So you're prepared to consider what Christians have generally seen as a highly questionable view - reincarnation (if I understand your idea of recycling correctly) - in order to defend your claim. I find that interesting.

It's not a variation. It does however, put the burden of proof on you to explain why I should treat a human being differently just because it didn't reach an arbitrary stage of development that you conjured out of thin air.

There is no "burden of proof" on me. In the 1st place, as I've said here several times, I am not trying to "prove" that destruction of embryos is OK.
2d, since all you've done is make an assertion, no burden would be imposed on me if I were to argue otherwise.

Shalom,
George

[spitndirt]

Perhaps you've forgotten that humanity is supposed to have been created in the image of God.

To the extent that the concept of "person" is used both for the trinitarian persons and for humans - as indeed it is - then the analogy is of interest. But a relational concept of person doesn't in fact depend upon the trinitarian concept. H. Richard Niebuhr's The Responsible Self would be of interest here. Closer to the present subject, Duane Larson made use of related ideas in his contribution to the ELCA's _Human Cloning_ volume.



So you're prepared to consider what Christians have generally seen as a highly questionable view - reincarnation (if I understand your idea of recycling correctly) - in order to defend your claim. I find that interesting.



There is no "burden of proof" on me. In the 1st place, as I've said here several times, I am not trying to "prove" that destruction of embryos is OK.
2d, since all you've done is make an assertion, no burden would be imposed on me if I were to argue otherwise.

Shalom,
George
Hello

Sorry for interjecting into this conversation but 'when life begins' is just too hot a
topic to pass up. I have a veiw that has entered into my thoughts from time to time. It couldn't be proven scientifically, but maybe it would fit into Christion thought.

Consider this pattern: In the beginning [God] created the heavens and the earth - two places. One of which -the earth- was 'viod, empty, without form... where [darkness] covered the surface of the deep...' And God said, ' Let [there] be Light....' And light went forth into 'the earth' to fill it with the wisdom of God by which it would then be ordered and formed.

The likenesses: The creation of man, the process of [procreation]. the coming of Christ into the world, and also the conversion of the believer - by which is seen from hindsight this pattern 'in the rest.'

Now, I haven't nailed this down completely but I would think that [darkness] would represent the [soul] - since in the beginning it was distinguished from the light and remained. This provides an answer to this question: If 'God is' prior to creation, how can 'we be' within creation and yet [not] be God - since one identity is the source of all things. In other words, darkness, which is [not God], would make room for another identity - by God, of God, but [not God], and only sustainable within a finite space.

Now enter the womb. Consider the ovum and what it consists of. It is, in my uneducated speculation (not a scholar), a single cell containing 1/2 of the information necessary for life. This 1/2 would represent [darkness] since it is 'dead' so to speak without the other 1/2 of the information needed. What is left within this ovum, then, is 'space' for the the other 1/2 of the information needed for [life]. Then comes 'the seed'. When it penetrates the cell it takes it's place and makes alive that which was dead - the ovum. This would be the path taken also by 'Light' in the beginning - bringing life and all of it's attributes into creation; form, order....and the like. 'Breath' is the same to the [formed dust] - making man 'a living soul'.

Conclusion: Life begins at conception. Does this make sense? I also think that when one is physically born he enters into the world, which is itself [the womb of the Spirit] wherein is 'the seed' of the Word of God able to convert sinners (our hearts being spiritual ova)....I dunno, seems to fit the pattern.

Peace in the Lord

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, I don't think I dodged anything though I probably wasn't explicit enough. I had already said that the embryo was human life from conception on. What he was doing was just saying, "OK, so it should be protected." Why?No, I didn't say that. The issue of personhood had been raised as though it were morally relevant to whether or not the embryo should be protected, and I merely asked the question of why this is so, suggesting that it wouldn't follow from the fact that an embryo lacked personhood that it didn't warrant protection.

[Darth Executor]

Perhaps you've forgotten that humanity is supposed to have been created in the image of God.

Perhaps you've forgotten that I don't have immortality and superpowers of any sort.

To the extent that the concept of "person" is used both for the trinitarian persons and for humans - as indeed it is - then the analogy is of interest. But a relational concept of person doesn't in fact depend upon the trinitarian concept. H. Richard Niebuhr's The Responsible Self would be of interest here. Closer to the present subject, Duane Larson made use of related ideas in his contribution to the ELCA's _Human Cloning_ volume.


Very interested but again, unrelated to the point at hand. Yes, the Trinity is composed of 3 persons. So?

So you're prepared to consider what Christians have generally seen as a highly questionable view - reincarnation (if I understand your idea of recycling correctly) - in order to defend your claim. I find that interesting.

I never said I held this view. I don't even know if those aborted embryos have a soul to begin with. The difference is that, like I said, I don't demolish houses unless I know there's nobody in them.


There is no "burden of proof" on me. In the 1st place, as I've said here several times, I am not trying to "prove" that destruction of embryos is OK.

Then what are you trying to prove?

2d, since all you've done is make an assertion, no burden would be imposed on me if I were to argue otherwise.


I've not simply made an assertion. Let me make it simple:

1 God said not to murder.
2 I have no reason to differentiate between different stages of human development
3 Therefore I have no wish to kill a human at any stage of development unless given a really good reason to do it (IE: mother's life is in danger).

[George Murphy]

Perhaps you've forgotten that I don't have immortality and superpowers of any sort.

Quite irrelevant to the point that persons exist in communion.

Very interested but again, unrelated to the point at hand. Yes, the Trinity is composed of 3 persons. So?

Yes, I see that anything that might cause you to do some thinking about this subject with an open mind is irrelevant. I won't trouble you with such things again.

I never said I held this view. I don't even know if those aborted embryos have a soul to begin with. The difference is that, like I said, I don't demolish houses unless I know there's nobody in them.

Sure sounded as if you were "prepared to consider" this, which is what I said.

Then what are you trying to prove?

I was trying to get people to think &, in particular, think theologically. Sorry I failed.

I've not simply made an assertion. Let me make it simple:

1 God said not to murder.
2 I have no reason to differentiate between different stages of human development

Having brushed aside all the reasons to make such distinctions with speculations about splitting souls &c.

3 Therefore I have no wish to kill a human at any stage of development unless given a really good reason to do it (IE: mother's life is in danger).

& what constitutes a "really good reason"? Jews say that God has given humanity the mandate of tikkun olam, "repairing" or "straightening" the world.
Regenerative therapies developed from embryonic stem cells might be part of this. But as a wild guess, you'll make a non-assertion that this can't be so.

Shalom,
George

[Howie]

Hello

Sorry for interjecting into this conversation but 'when life begins' is just too hot a
topic to pass up. I have a veiw that has entered into my thoughts from time to time. It couldn't be proven scientifically, but maybe it would fit into Christion thought.

Consider this pattern: In the beginning [God] created the heavens and the earth - two places. One of which -the earth- was 'viod, empty, without form... where [darkness] covered the surface of the deep...' And God said, ' Let [there] be Light....' And light went forth into 'the earth' to fill it with the wisdom of God by which it would then be ordered and formed.

The likenesses: The creation of man, the process of [procreation]. the coming of Christ into the world, and also the conversion of the believer - by which is seen from hindsight this pattern 'in the rest.'

Now, I haven't nailed this down completely but I would think that [darkness] would represent the [soul] - since in the beginning it was distinguished from the light and remained. This provides an answer to this question: If 'God is' prior to creation, how can 'we be' within creation and yet [not] be God - since one identity is the source of all things. In other words, darkness, which is [not God], would make room for another identity - by God, of God, but [not God], and only sustainable within a finite space.

Now enter the womb. Consider the ovum and what it consists of. It is, in my uneducated speculation (not a scholar), a single cell containing 1/2 of the information necessary for life. This 1/2 would represent [darkness] since it is 'dead' so to speak without the other 1/2 of the information needed. What is left within this ovum, then, is 'space' for the the other 1/2 of the information needed for [life]. Then comes 'the seed'. When it penetrates the cell it takes it's place and makes alive that which was dead - the ovum. This would be the path taken also by 'Light' in the beginning - bringing life and all of it's attributes into creation; form, order....and the like. 'Breath' is the same to the [formed dust] - making man 'a living soul'.

Conclusion: Life begins at conception. Does this make sense? I also think that when one is physically born he enters into the world, which is itself [the womb of the Spirit] wherein is 'the seed' of the Word of God able to convert sinners (our hearts being spiritual ova)....I dunno, seems to fit the pattern.

Peace in the LordFirst, thank you for bring up Genesis again. I have been saying that when one is discussing this subject one must start as the book of Genesis: “re’shiyth”: in the beginning. For a believer in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that is the Creation accounts of Genesis.

That said, I do disagree with the conclusion you draw. In the first place, and I have mentioned this as well previously, human life does not “begin” at conception. Both the ovum and sperm are alive. These two human organisms come together and form a third human organism which is often referred to as a zygote. That is the scientific reality. The metaphysical question posed here is: when does that newly formed human organism become a human being?

I have referred to Genesis as well where the creation of man is divided into stages: first, the formation of the body, second, the breathing upon by God and finally, then to coming to life. Both the scientific reality that “life” existed prior to conception because the ovum and sperm are alive and Biblical implications of the creation of man need to be given more importance in discussions like this than they normally are.

[George Murphy]

First, thank you for bring up Genesis again. I have been saying that when one is discussing this subject one must start as the book of Genesis: “re’shiyth”: in the beginning. For a believer in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that is the Creation accounts of Genesis.

That said, I do disagree with the conclusion you draw. In the first place, and I have mentioned this as well previously, human life does not “begin” at conception. Both the ovum and sperm are alive. These two human organisms come together and form a third human organism which is often referred to as a zygote. That is the scientific reality. The metaphysical question posed here is: when does that newly formed human organism become a human being?

I have referred to Genesis as well where the creation of man is divided into stages: first, the formation of the body, second, the breathing upon by God and finally, then to coming to life. Both the scientific reality that “life” existed prior to conception because the ovum and sperm are alive and Biblical implications of the creation of man need to be given more importance in discussions like this than they normally are.

2 brief comments:

spitndirt: As I understand it you've presented essentially an allegory for the beginning of life, with darkness representing the ovum & light representing the sperm. The problem with allegories is that you can make anything represent anything unless there are some controls on the process. This isn't to say that allegory is completely invalid - Paul develops one in Gal.4:21-31. But there he tells us what represents what.

Howie: It's true that sperm & ovum are alive before fertilization. But they aren't individuated & are genetically & physically (for the sperm at least till ejaculation) simply parts of persons who already exist. A significant change does take place at conception, even if one doesn't think that a new person or soul comes into being then.

In general: Genesis of course is important but it would seem to me that the conception of the Word in the womb of Mary gets us closer to something theologically significant here. But of course the uniqueness of that conception has to be kept in mind.

Shalom,
George

[spitndirt]

First, thank you for bring up Genesis again. I have been saying that when one is discussing this subject one must start as the book of Genesis: “re’shiyth”: in the beginning. For a believer in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that is the Creation accounts of Genesis.

That said, I do disagree with the conclusion you draw. In the first place, and I have mentioned this as well previously, human life does not “begin” at conception. Both the ovum and sperm are alive. These two human organisms come together and form a third human organism which is often referred to as a zygote. That is the scientific reality. The metaphysical question posed here is: when does that newly formed human organism become a human being?

I have referred to Genesis as well where the creation of man is divided into stages: first, the formation of the body, second, the breathing upon by God and finally, then to coming to life. Both the scientific reality that “life” existed prior to conception because the ovum and sperm are alive and Biblical implications of the creation of man need to be given more importance in discussions like this than they normally are.
Hey Howie,

Thanks for your response. "...ovum and sperm, alive..." Yes I agree. I did confess that I hadn't completely nailed this all down yet. That being said, I see that you are placing the zygote in the 'third' place while I was narrowing it down to itself. The question is then when does this third one becomes a [person]. I still say at conception (if not before, when including the parents) since, even though the ovum and the sperm are 'living cells', they have not yet fulfilled their intended purpose. it is obvious that the ovum isn't a person, neither is the sperm. When I say 'the ovum is dead (so to speak)' I mean in relation to the 'new creation' - same as unregenerate man prior to the 'Word of God' (seed) penetrating the human heart thereby bringing forth conversion. So I conclude that just as the man is 'transformed' at regeneration, so too the ovum is 'transformed' at conception, OR, rather, the ovum (and sperm) dies at conception and the zygote (person) is born - maybe this is a better way to put it. I don't know, but is new and unique DNA born at this moment?

Since in your example you have comprehended also the 'parents' have you considered the parallel of marriage in relation to this topic? The vows are taken, husband and wife are pronounced, and the two become [one] flesh (a new person, so to speak) - and as proof there comes the product of marriage which is 'a child' of them both, making the invisible reality finally a literal one.

George; Yes I agree....which is why I started by saying '...this couldn't be scientifically proven'. In fact, given the bias within the scientific community I doubt even with absolute material proof staring them right in the face they would confess life at conception - they would be shown to be wrong and if wrong, guilty of the unthinkable. This is the reality since they have not erred on the side of caution to begin with. If they were honest they would take the pro-life position until they could prove that life DIDN'T begin at conception. Which, in of itself, is futher proof to me of my position.

Thanks for your replies. This is a weighty topic worthy of our consideration.

Peace in the Lord, guys

[Howie]

2 brief comments:

Howie: It's true that sperm & ovum are alive before fertilization. But they aren't individuated & are genetically & physically (for the sperm at least till ejaculation) simply parts of persons who already exist. A significant change does take place at conception, even if one doesn't think that a new person or soul comes into being then.

In general: Genesis of course is important but it would seem to me that the conception of the Word in the womb of Mary gets us closer to something theologically significant here. But of course the uniqueness of that conception has to be kept in mind.

Shalom,
GeorgeFirst, thank you George for your thoughts.

I have actually studied embryology and am familiar with Grobstein’s concept of individuation and “preembryo” and the biology that supports his contention as well as Kischer’s and other's dissents. After wading through stacks of articles in publications like JAMA, The N.E. Journal of Medicine and The Journal of Fertility & Sterility, I came to the realization that science is not now and perhaps is not meant to be a determinative factor with regard to the question of when human life begins. It may simply be “beyond the pay grade” of science. I can say with certainty that, if it is beyond science’s “pay grade”, it is definitely beyond possibility for theology to attempt to use science to determine when human life begins. Each discipline should stick to their area of expertise. Theology needs to help give science and society the metaphysical framework within which to grapple with these issues. If we attempt to wrestle with them as though we were scientists, we are, I am sorry to say, just bags of hot air. If we are Christians we must do our best to frame the issue from the perspective of the Bible as understood through the teachings of Jesus Christ. To do less is to shirk our responsibility.

All the best.

[Howie]

Hey Howie,

Thanks for your response. "...ovum and sperm, alive..." Yes I agree. I did confess that I hadn't completely nailed this all down yet. Just to clarify, I am reluctant to frame the reproductive process in terms of “places”, however, since that is minor and probably tangential, I will use your concept, with the caveat that it does not reflect my thought on the subject.

The question is then when does this third one becomes a [person].I still say at conception (if not before, when including the parents) since, even though the ovum and the sperm are 'living cells', they have not yet fulfilled their intended purpose. it is obvious that the ovum isn't a person, neither is the sperm. The same can be said of a fertilized ovum (although, again, the terminology and analysis of the process as you delineated it does not reflect my thoughts). The fertilized ovum has not fulfilled its “intended purpose”. The fertilized ovum isn’t a person.

When I say 'the ovum is dead (so to speak)' I mean in relation to the 'new creation' - same as unregenerate man prior to the 'Word of God' (seed) penetrating the human heart thereby bringing forth conversion. So I conclude that just as the man is 'transformed' at regeneration, so too the ovum is 'transformed' at conception, OR, rather, the ovum (and sperm) dies at conception and the zygote (person) is born - maybe this is a better way to put it. I don't know, but is new and unique DNA born at this moment?I understand your point and I appreciate that you are basing your belief on theological doctrine – and I do believe that the subject needs to be grappled with on the metaphysical plane, not the scientific plane, by those of us whose area of study is theology and metaphysics. I would not take issue with a minister preaching exactly what you outline. I would not take issue with a priest or rabbi or Imam counseling woman from the point of view of your belief.

The problem is, that for the most part, the reason this subject is so often discussed is that there are interests that want to petition government to control the process.

Author Daniel Boorstin made a wonderful statement with regard to obstacles to understanding and discovery. He said, “The problem is not ignorance; the problem is the illusion of knowledge.” I think we may be in the same situation here. My belief is that no one really knows when the fertilized ovum is “breathed into” by God and, if there is anyone who may know, it is the pregnant woman. I believe that God gave her dominion over the ovum for reasons we cannot know and do not understand. We can aid, comfort and nurture the female, but dominion was given to her. We need to trust in God and trust his decision to place the ovum (both fertilized and not) within the female.

All the best.

[George Murphy]

First, thank you George for your thoughts.

I have actually studied embryology and am familiar with Grobstein’s concept of individuation and “preembryo” and the biology that supports his contention as well as Kischer’s and other's dissents. After wading through stacks of articles in publications like JAMA, The N.E. Journal of Medicine and The Journal of Fertility & Sterility, I came to the realization that science is not now and perhaps is not meant to be a determinative factor with regard to the question of when human life begins. It may simply be “beyond the pay grade” of science. I can say with certainty that, if it is beyond science’s “pay grade”, it is definitely beyond possibility for theology to attempt to use science to determine when human life begins. Each discipline should stick to their area of expertise. Theology needs to help give science and society the metaphysical framework within which to grapple with these issues. If we attempt to wrestle with them as though we were scientists, we are, I am sorry to say, just bags of hot air. If we are Christians we must do our best to frame the issue from the perspective of the Bible as understood through the teachings of Jesus Christ. To do less is to shirk our responsibility.
All the best.

Your knowledge of embryology no doubt exceeds mine. My scientific training is in physics & while I try to be reasonably well informed in other areas of science because a lot of my ministry deals with theology- science issues, I don't claim to be an expert on everything.

I agree that science can't answer the crucial question here. It can tell us that the embryo is alive & has a distinctive human genotype from the time of conception. But it can't tell us when the embryo is a "person" or has a "soul" or bears "the image of God" because those just aren't scientific concepts.

I think that science can give us information that is relevant to the question. E.g., a theologian has to take seriously the possibilities of twinning & chimerism & the high rate ofg spontaneous abortion that have been mentioned here, & ask if his/her concept of "person" or "soul" or "image of God" are consistent with those data. Science itself can't answer the questions but what it does tell us shouldn't be ignored.

Shalom,
George

[Howie]

Hey George,

I agree. Science can give us information, but only about the physical or material world. Questions regarding when a fertilized ovum becomes a person is beyond the scope of science and may very well be beyond that of the human intellect.

It is often very difficult for those who have spent their lives studying something to acknowledge that they do not know. That is where we who have dedicated our lives to the study of scriptures find ourselves. So, what do we do? We turn to another discipline to support us: Science. The truth that we are terrified of is the unknown; the fact that we do not know and the possibility that we cannot know when a fertilized ovum becomes a person.

In my discussions with ministers and theologians of various Christian denominations it took us the longest time to admit that the first theological issue that must be grappled with is the question of why God chose to give the female of our species dominion over the ovum, both before and after it is fertilized. When I first brought this up in discussions, it was only female scholars who took my point seriously. Slowly, and mostly through their efforts, others began to understand their reluctance to grapple with that most obvious of truths. We will fight for ID being taught in schools and cite Genesis and we will formulate the doctrine of original sin citing Genesis to support that doctrine, but we will not give the account of the Creation in Genesis the importance it merits when we discuss when life begins – which is the essence of Genesis. And we do not acknowledge that the Creator must have had a reason for placing the ovum inside the female. I think we get so enamored with our own minds and so captivated with our ability to wax eloquent and so emotionally locked into certain positions that the basic simple truths pass beneath our raised noses.

All the best.

[George Murphy]

Hey George,

I agree. Science can give us information, but only about the physical or material world. Questions regarding when a fertilized ovum becomes a person is beyond the scope of science and may very well be beyond that of the human intellect.

It is often very difficult for those who have spent their lives studying something to acknowledge that they do not know. That is where we who have dedicated our lives to the study of scriptures find ourselves. So, what do we do? We turn to another discipline to support us: Science. The truth that we are terrified of is the unknown; the fact that we do not know and the possibility that we cannot know when a fertilized ovum becomes a person.

In my discussions with ministers and theologians of various Christian denominations it took us the longest time to admit that the first theological issue that must be grappled with is the question of why God chose to give the female of our species dominion over the ovum, both before and after it is fertilized. When I first brought this up in discussions, it was only female scholars who took my point seriously. Slowly, and mostly through their efforts, others began to understand their reluctance to grapple with that most obvious of truths. We will fight for ID being taught in schools and cite Genesis and we will formulate the doctrine of original sin citing Genesis to support that doctrine, but we will not give the account of the Creation in Genesis the importance it merits when we discuss when life begins – which is the essence of Genesis. And we do not acknowledge that the Creator must have had a reason for placing the ovum inside the female. I think we get so enamored with our own minds and so captivated with our ability to wax eloquent and so emotionally locked into certain positions that the basic simple truths pass beneath our raised noses.
All the best.

We seem to be largely in agreement on the subject of the thread. Just 2 comments -

1) I think it would be hard to argue that when life begins is "the essence of Genesis" - unless by that you mean the basic claim that the God of Israel is the creator of life.

2) I definitely do not fight for the teaching of ID in schools as science, though I think it could be helpful for students to know about the social, political & religious debates surrounding evolution & creation.

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

I think that science can give us information that is relevant to the question. E.g., a theologian has to take seriously the possibilities of twinning & chimerism & the high rate ofg spontaneous abortion that have been mentioned here, & ask if his/her concept of "person" or "soul" or "image of God" are consistent with those data. Science itself can't answer the questions but what it does tell us shouldn't be ignored.



How do you make decisions on who is going to twin and who is going to abort etc? Even if the science were eventually pretty accurate to anticipate such things it would never be 100% and there would always be a chance you were sacrificing some embryos who had every chance of becoming people. Knowing the future is for God, so I think we are always on shaky ground when we start trying to operate in that role.

[George Murphy]

How do you make decisions on who is going to twin and who is going to abort etc? Even if the science were eventually pretty accurate to anticipate such things it would never be 100% and there would always be a chance you were sacrificing some embryos who had every chance of becoming people. Knowing the future is for God, so I think we are always on shaky ground when we start trying to operate in that role.

That isn't really the point of introducing the issues of twiining & chimerism. (Spontaneous abortion is different.) The point of those 2 possibilities is not that we can decide before they happen that twins or chimerism will occur but that the very possibility of such phenomena raises some doubts about the appropriateness of speaking about the early embryo as a single person, or indeed as a person at all.

Shalom,
George

[Abigail]

That isn't really the point of introducing the issues of twiining & chimerism. (Spontaneous abortion is different.) The point of those 2 possibilities is not that we can decide before they happen that twins or chimerism will occur but that the very possibility of such phenomena raises some doubts about the appropriateness of speaking about the early embryo as a single person, or indeed as a person at all.

Shalom,
George

No, I think (ie with twinning)we can speak of it as a single person until such time as another person initiates and then we have two people. Adam was a single person before Eve was taken out of him and then there were two. Though I know we hold a different view of the Genesis account, I think you can appreciate the same thing with cloning. The body without the soul is dead...so a living body is evidence of a soul