Brainstorm

[Excited Penguin]

At the moment of conception it is, biologically, a human entity. I don't know of any other fair way to define that point other than by what it actually is. It would just be arbitrary otherwise, and when it comes to defining another being's humanity, history has shown us that being arbitrary on this can lead to horrific things. (think holocaust, slavery, the slaughtering of indians in the new world, etc... all in the name that these people weren't actually "human")

But why at the moment of conception? Do we consider a sperm quasi-human, prior to this?

I think we should consider whether it can suffer and maybe think(or be self-aware) in any way before we actually define it as a person and consider it with the same dignity we consider other humans. Otherwise we are merely talking about its potential to become a human being.

[Catholic_Lady]

At the moment of conception it is, biologically, a human entity. I don't know of any other fair way to define that point other than by what it actually is. It would just be arbitrary otherwise, and when it comes to defining another being's humanity, history has shown us that being arbitrary on this can lead to horrific things. (think holocaust, slavery, the slaughtering of indians in the new world, etc... all in the name that these people weren't actually "human")

But why at the moment of conception? Do we consider a sperm quasi-human, prior to this?

I think we should consider whether it can suffer and maybe think(or be self-aware) in any way before we actually define it as a person and consider it with the same dignity we consider other humans. Otherwise we are merely talking about its potential to become a human being.

Because at the moment of conception a brand new set of human DNA is formed. A sperm is just a sex cell from the man's body, it isn't its own separate entity. 

To address your last paragraph though, a human fetus begins to feel pain about midway through the second trimester... at least as far as we can tell, though it could be before that. But I don't think the ability to feel pain should be the indicator to being human. If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

[Excited Penguin]

At the moment of conception it is, biologically, a human entity. I don't know of any other fair way to define that point other than by what it actually is. It would just be arbitrary otherwise, and when it comes to defining another being's humanity, history has shown us that being arbitrary on this can lead to horrific things. (think holocaust, slavery, the slaughtering of indians in the new world, etc... all in the name that these people weren't actually "human")

It's arbitrary either way, until you actually define what a human being is and why do we care about human life.

Is it fair to say that we care about human life in general because of its ability to suffer, and in particular, we care about it over other animal life because of its ability to think and be self-aware?

[Aroura]

@CL, I have a question.  Do you agree with the church that women can never have authority over man?
If so, why?

The reasons the church gives are because is says so in the bible. The reasons the bible gives are because women are inherently less able and less godly than men. It also claims that women who make any attempt to teach in a church of god are "deceptive", "deluded", "blasphemous", "puffed up", "heretical", "shameless", etc.

Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church admits all of this on its own answers page:
Women and the Priesthood

p.s. This question occurred to me reading your responses in another thread, but I did not want to clutter up that thread.  It seemed better suited here.  If this isn't the place, I can ask elsewhere.

[Excited Penguin]

Because at the moment of conception a brand new set of human DNA is formed. A sperm is just a sex cell from the man's body, it isn't its own separate entity. 

Ok, I agree with that. But we're still talking about it's potential to become something more here, if you wish.

To address your last paragraph though, a human fetus begins to feel pain about midway through the second trimester... at least as far as we can tell, though it could be before that. But I don't think the ability to feel pain should be the indicator to being human. If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true, but then humans that can experience pain take precedence over human fetuses that can't. Would you agree with that or not and why?

[Excited Penguin]

Thanks for the lesson in biology, btw.

[Catholic_Lady]

I honestly can't answer that last question without referring back to my religious beliefs that human life has inherent value and dignity regardless of whether it is fully self aware, mentally handicapped, or otherwise too young for full awareness.

I believe this is true for all non human life as well, but perhaps to varying degrees. Nonetheless I think it is more wrong for a human to kill another human than it is for a human to kill a fish, for example, because we're going against natural law by killing our own species. Then again, natural law is also a religious concept so I don't know how else to explain it without turning back to my beliefs, since a that point it becomes a matter or moral objectivity.

[Catholic_Lady]

@CL, I have a question.  Do you agree with the church that women can never have authority over man?
If so, why?

The reasons the church gives are because is says so in the bible. The reasons the bible gives are because women are inherently less able and less godly than men. It also claims that women who make any attempt to teach in a church of god are "deceptive", "deluded", "blasphemous", "puffed up", "heretical", "shameless", etc.

Do you agree with this?

The Catholic Church admits all of this on its own answers page:
Women and the Priesthood

p.s. This question occurred to me reading your responses in another thread, but I did not want to clutter up that thread.  It seemed better suited here.  If this isn't the place, I can ask elsewhere.

What teaching are you referring to? The school principle of my Catholic grade school was a woman, and she was the boss to a few male teachers. There's nothing in Church teaching that says woman can never have authority over men. 

As for women being priests, the way it was explained to me is that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women as priests because only men have the ability to bring forth spiritual life. Much like only women can bring physical life (being pregnant and giving birth). It isn't because men are better than women or women are better than men... but rather that they each have a different role when it comes to the life giving aspect of God's plan for us. 

By the way "Catholic Answers" is a very traditional, conservative site. I'm not saying they give incorrect answers. The answers they give are correct, but the way it is worded, the way it is put together, and the reasons they give are pretty much the more conservative approach to everything. Kind of like Fox News covering a specific story... the facts they give may be correct, but the way things are put together definitely "lean" a certain way. For a more objective look at Church teaching, see the Catechism.

[Catholic_Lady]

Because at the moment of conception a brand new set of human DNA is formed. A sperm is just a sex cell from the man's body, it isn't its own separate entity. 

Ok, I agree with that. But we're still talking about it's potential to become something more here, if you wish.

To address your last paragraph though, a human fetus begins to feel pain about midway through the second trimester... at least as far as we can tell, though it could be before that. But I don't think the ability to feel pain should be the indicator to being human. If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true, but then humans that can experience pain take precedence over human fetuses that can't. Would you agree with that or not and why?

I don't think so. I think it depends on which "rights" are taken away. If a woman allows the fetus to live, her right to not be pregnant for 9 months will be violated. But if she does not allow the fetus to live, its right to life will be violated. The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho. Adoption should always be an option for her and I think we need better programs to help women through this difficult process.

[Ravenshire]

If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.

That argument could logically be used in opposition to the treatment/removal/killing of cancerous growths. Tumors are comprised entirely of cells coded by purely human DNA...

If simply being comprised of human DNA makes you a biological human being, why no funerals after hair-cuts, nail parings or amputations? These are all things comprised of human DNA. After all, we can (hypothetically) make clones from those material since they carry complete DNA.

By that logic, as Sam Harris points out in "Letter to a Christian Nation," (and I'm paraphrasing) every time you scratch your nose you're guilty of mass murder.