Chimerism


#21

Yeah, it’s conceivable. If it were true, though, it really gives us a different interpretation as to what a soul is.


#22

I see what you’re saying, but then what would happen if you were to split those two embryos before they fused? Wouldn’t they have two separate souls? I know you would then say that if God knew ahead of time that they would be split, then he would have provided them with two souls. I couldn’t argue with that, but if that were the case, then it would leave even more questions open such as if God knew ahead of time that a child was going to be aborted, would he give that child a soul? Ultimately, it would mean that an embryo does not necessarily have a soul.


#23

…yeah, I think it is (inconceivable), actually. Souls are not a kind of body.
You can take it to the Philosophy forum or an Apologist for confirmation, but I think that’s right.

What makes you so certain that no death was involved?

I don’t think it’s absurd or unlikely that the soul of one embryo would leave its body while the other takes of control of the fused new whole. So if all I meant by “death” was the separation of the spiritual soul from the body, then yes, I think I would say that death has, in some rare manner, taken place. It’s just that the death of this one embryo occurs simultaneously with the other taking control of their body.

Likewise, in the case of an embryo splitting to form identical twins, I would say that the original soul remains with one of the bodies, while God infuses a new soul into the new one. Which person stays, which one leaves? I think that’s up to God… but then again, that’s nothing new.

I’m more or less with you on this one. Makes sense to me.


#24

That is why the “process” is sacred. This may mean going back (or perhaps refining) to Aquinas thoughts on the “process” not forgetting that every step in the process is sacred because of the finality.

The word “child” here refers to the fulfilment and God would have given a soul regardless of the human intervened or natural abortion. However the two embryos which are “meant” to be fused are yet in the process of becoming a “child”. Note I am not saying an embryo is not a child because of that was the only embryo to be formed finally as a child then so it is.

I agree this is a very interesting discussion. All truth is God’s truth. One beauty I see here is the necessity of God’s sustainenance at any step in the process. Man has always much more to learn.


#25

Because biologically, no cells die in the process. A chimera grows up with two unique sets of DNA, so the resulting chimera is not twin A or twin B, but a combination of the two.

I know what you’re saying, though.


#26

I’m not sure I follow.

This may mean going back (or perhaps refining) to Aquinas thoughts on the “process” not forgetting that every step in the process is sacred because of the finality.

Aquinas didn’t believe in the soul entering at conception. He believed the soul entered at the moment of quickening. (Is this what you’re referring to?)

The word “child” here refers to the fulfilment and God would have given a soul regardless of the human intervened or natural abortion. However the two embryos which are “meant” to be fused are yet in the process of becoming a “child”. Note I am not saying an embryo is not a child because of that was the only embryo to be formed finally as a child then so it is.

Well if by “meant” to be fused, you mean it happened naturally without human intervention, then I would ask about spontaneous abortions, which happen naturally about 25%.

I agree this is a very interesting discussion. All truth is God’s truth. One beauty I see here is the necessity of God’s sustainenance at any step in the process. Man has always much more to learn.

Indeed, there’s always more to learn. :slight_smile:


#27

On the same topic, I don’t believe that the Catholic Church teaches anywhere that a soul enters at conception.

Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.


#28

Any more so than the physical co-mingling gives us a different interpretation of what a body is?


#29

I don’t think the two are comparable.


#30

What is the nature of the Soul?

Answer that and you will have an answer to all else.

God breathed life into Adam, I could have sworn the word for Breath can mean the same as Spirit and The Word.
Does this not mean a “spark” of the Divine is in all of us from Conception?
That is not to say we are partly Divine ourselves, but we are all a Temple to the Divine Spirit. A Temple we are all charged not to defile with sin.

So if thats the case, does not the term Spirit and Soul pertain to two different things?

Or is this a misreading of breathing life to man? The Spirit of God does not enter man at conception, but rather a soul is placed there?

OR God only breathed life into Adam. Only Adam. But this, erm, Breath of Life multiplied from generation to generation, like a flame from a flame. But if so, this flame cannot be unique, else an offsprings soul would be a template of the parents. Which again says the breath of Life is separate to the Soul.
Unless that is to say, very crudely, just as Microsoft Word has a blank template for all New Documents, perhaps it is this that is passed from parent to offspring. This template is then “written” upon as life progresses - a new file/Soul.
Sorry about the crudeness of the analogy.

How would this handle Chimeras, or indeed identical twins etc etc?
To roughly run with the above analogy, Merging a blank document. Copying a template…

While I truely believe a Soul is present at conception, it may not in itself start to develop, start to be “written” until later.

Hmmm I dunno, this would take a long time to sort out. I may and most probably are completely wrong. I always get the feeling God is looking down, smiling at us (me) but shaking His head - “where do they get these ideas from!!”


#31

different sets of DNA. Two living embryos become one embryo which grows into one human being.

I don’t get it.

A person is much more than his/her DNA.

If you get a blood transfusion with my blood, or receive a transplanted organ is another DNA not “living” inside of you at that point? Does it redefine who or what you are?

If where there were two now there is one, then how did one not “die”?

Unless the person has two minds and two souls then one of the two did not live.

I guess there is another alternative and that is that “both” died and a third person came into existence?

Chuck


#32

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.