Overwhelming series of good posts here. Quick replies:

1. I’m offended at the woman who not only broke Catholic rules by taking communion, she had the nerve to comment about it disgusting her.
2. There are some really sick people in the world. To treat children like that is sub-human.
3. They are nuts in Spain. When apes start to speak for themselves, then we can give them similar rights.
4. Democrats must be in charge in New Jersey.
5. Yeah, the baby gets the worst of it.
6. Oregon is a messed up state. Also very liberal and anti-life.
6.

1) Some people are so self-centered. I bet if I went in and lit all the candles on a menora or accidently served pork to a Muslim she’d be the first person calling me insensitive…
2) I read that story yesterday, and it sickens me. Not only because someone would force a kid to do that, but also because there is a market for that sort of thing in the first place…
3) I don’t think any animal should be tortured, but that doesn’t mean they need freedom of speech. Should they have the right to bear arms too? I wonder, while Spain was protecting the free speech of apes, how much aid they sent to the Darfur region to alleviate the human suffering there?
4) All these states spending all this jack for a “promising” field of study that hasn’t produced squat. Who says snake oil went out of style?
5) What Think said.
6) In the article the lady says too much information too soon. Sorry to disagree, but knowledge is power, and all those teens having abortions probably didn’t know enough before they slept with someone. It is important to talk to your kids often. Having said that, a school handing out morning after pills? Without a parent’s consent or knowledge? What is wrong with the parents in Britian? They should be up in arms about this…
7) This topic kills me…

While we’re doing singular comments….
1. This could be used as a springboard to discuss the different theologies of the Eucharist. I agree however, that she acted totally inappropriately in several ways.
2. Can I add an ‘it’s about time”?
3. I’d want to read the whole article before commenting. On the face of it, I want to say, “huh?”
4. Would it be possible to have a serious discussion about stem cell research without it turning into a pro-life/pro-abortion food fight?
5. Actually, this is more important than it sounds: to state explicitly what many have said for years that there ARE long-term psychological issues related to abortion for the women involved.
6. Again, I’d want to read the whole article first. However, I’m with those who think that MORE information is better than LESS. There are surprising numbers of pregnant 12 year olds out there.
7. The gist of the article is really about the dollar value being placed on life. Come on people, haven’t you heard (and read) in THIS blog space every time the cost of medical care comes up people write, in essence, that if you can’t afford treatment or insurance you should just go home and die?

hs, on #4:

Depends on what you mean about serious. I am opposed to abortion and stem cell research that arises from embryos because I believe those are unique human life and therefore deserve the full protection of the Constitution. DNA is used to identify us in a court of law, yet an embryo with it’s own set of unique DNA is not a person? How is this possible? This is not even a religious issue with me, it is strictly legal and medical…

Tim, I would suggest that the “problem behind the problem” with embryonic stem cell research is this: What about the ethics of in-vitro fertilization that creates many more embryos than will ever be implanted? Is it ethical to leave those embryos in cold storage for long periods of time? Especially since we don’t know what the long term viability of a frozen embryo is? Here are the choices that I see (none of which are all that great, ok?): Choice 1: stop doing in-vitro fertilization until we can insure that there will be no ‘extra’ embryos. Choice 2: Make a conscious choice to immediately kill off unused embryos. Choice 3: Keep the unused embryos in cold storage indefinitely, at unknown financial cost and unknown risk to the embryos. Choice 4: Do something potentially useful with the unused embryos in an attempt to get something positive. Any other choices out there?

To those who say, “what cure has been found with stem cell research?” I say this: We’re looking at YEARS of research to learn the beginnings of how they work. Don’t expect instant results. It doesn’t work that way.

No, I realize that this type of research will take years to develop anything. But this not a new concept. In started in the 80s. Cloning is an offshoot of this and we’ve been hearing about it for years. They have been looking into this for 20 years now. I’m not saying nothing can become of this, but 20 years is a decent length of time in terms of medical research.

Not this will surprise you but I have a big problem with in-vitro. Not about helping people become parents (even though there are plenty of kids to adopt), but about creating all these other unique human lives that are then discarded. I understand the issue you raise with long term viability, but don’t these human lives at least deserve a chance? If people create embryos they should implant them and let nature take its course.

What it comes down to hs is this: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should extend to all, and since the only real definition of the beginning of human life that has any firmness to it (in my opinion I should add) is a unique set of DNA, I don’t see how destroying a unique person, no matter how small, justifies tearing them apart for the possible benefit of others. Others, I might add, who have at least had a chance to breathe the air and see the sky.

There have been more and more advances in the use of non-embryonic stem cells, and hopefully that research will find the golden egg and we won’t have to discuss this topic anymore because we won’t need to.

Hmm… In vitro fertilisation, stem cell research, life at conception. Amazingly, situations appear in nature that do not fit very well with our theological assumptions. Consider this case, as documented in the medical journal referred to below: 10 years ago, a married couple that had difficulty getting pregnant chose to use in vitro therapy. Three separate embryos (consisting of 4 cells per embryo) were implanted in the mother. A month later, ultrasound showed one fetus. After the child was born, at 6 months of age, the left testis had still not descended. Surgical exploration revealed that the left ‘testis’ was actually an ovary with a fallopian tube attached. Karyotyping demonstrated that the child had both XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomes. A series of genetic tests revealed that the child was the result of the merging of two embryos.

Here are some questions that vex me:
1. If human “life begins at conception”, should we suppose that is the point when a person has a “soul”?
2. If a conceived, fertilized egg, is considered to be “fully human”, with a soul, then does the child described above have 2 souls?
3. Consider the opposite, much more common case of the identical twin. In that case, the original embryo is split in half, and 2 people develop. Does each twin, therefore, have half of a soul?

Food for thought.

Reference: Strain, L; Dean, J C S; Hamilton, M P R and Bonthron, D T - “A True Hermaphrodite Chimera Resulting from Embryo Amalgamation after in vitro Fertilisation”, New England Journal of Medicine, 338, 166 - 169, (1998).

Benja, interesting, provocative questions to be sure.

The question you’re asking is, perhaps, this: at what point do we become human? The whole of the anti-evolution/pro-life theological argument is that we are more than a collection of 46 chromosomes properly arranged. That at some point, God intervenes and injects us with a soul, with a conscience, with the ability to ASK these questions.

First: with identical twins. Most of us have known identical twins in our lives, and most all of us would agree that they are very definitely individual people. So, they don’t ’share’ a soul. They are unique people, even with identical genes.

The case you cite: I’d never heard of that one. It’s certainly interesting. Again, I’d suggest that this person has a single personality, a single soul.

I can think of a couple of Biblical references that might give some insight into the question. Unfortunately, they don’t give a uniform answer.

GEN 2:7 “Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Suggests that the soul enters the body at the first breath…the instant of separation from the mother.

There is a verse in the Psalms (sorry, I can’t find it this morning) where the Psalmist writes about how God knew him while he was still in his mother’s womb. So, this moves it earlier.

An arresting story comes from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 1: When Elizabeth the kinswoman of Mary was pregnant with John the Baptist and in her 6th or 7th month. Mary, having conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit goes to visit with Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth hears Mary’s voice she states that the child within her womb ‘leaped for joy’. Which again, suggests that the unborn child has a soul at that point.

I would make this suggestion: That the soul comes into being when the brain has developed to a point where the possibility of reasoning ability exists. Specifically, when the pre-frontal cortex has started to develop. This is the point at which the human brain departs from and exceeds the brain development of the lower animals.

This suggestion, of course, suggests that the soul is a function of the Brain. I’m not convinced of that, but there is certainly evidence that there is a specific part of the brain that is involved with spiritual seeking.

Benja, I do not share hs’ fascination of your point. In fact, your “point” doesn’t really challenge my DNA idea at all. Having both XX and XY chromosomes does rarely happen, a natural occurance even if it started out from in-vitro. But their DNA is still unique, is it not? Some people are born “identical” (I put that in quotes because there is growing evidence that these twins might have small differences in their DNA and are not truly “identical”), but again that is a natural happening.

While I understand the point you are getting at I think it is ultimately unimportant since the soul is not based in science or law. Since it is a faith-based idea it will never be defined unless all people agree on the definition, and we all know that will not happen.