Do parasitic twins have souls, and is it moral to remove them?

Take this story for instance:

us.cnn.com/2014/09/09/world/africa/baby-boy-8-limbs-uganda/index.html?sr=fb090914babyboylimbs12pStoryGalLink

Was that little boy’s parasitic twin a live human being with a soul of its own? And if so, was it moral to have removed him since this results in his death?

According to the story, the parasitic twin had no brain and no heart, so the answer is no, no soul of his own.

I read the article, and it tells us that the parasitic twin did not have a heart or a head and it stopped developing while in utero.

I believe that both the Paul and his twin have souls, but when the twin stopped developing he basically died since his body was not able to keep him alive. His soul probably went to Heaven before Paul was born. When Paul was born with extra limbs, the soul of his twin was no longer present inside of his body, so it was moral to remove his limbs.

That is what I think about it, anyway. I could be wrong.

But a newly conceived human has no brain and no heart either… but still have a soul. :shrug:

I respectfully disagree that that would matter. When we are first conceived we have a soul though we have no head or heart. When the first baby split into two babies, they both had souls.

Makes sense.

Amazing they were able to perform such a complex surgery to rectify the situation. Sometimes I am in awe of the good modern medicine can do.

Blessings to the whole family.

Mary.

I suppose it could it be the same situation as with a miscarriage. Or with any other death.

There had been an ensouled person, and the person died.

But how do we know for sure that the parasitic twin was not still alive? Living through Paul’s heart? I don’t think the the article mentions whether or not his twin’s limbs had blood flow through them.

I’m not really sure. I was wondering, when I read the article, if Paul could move his twin’s arms and legs.

In any case, if Paul’s life depended on the removal of his limbs then it would be okay to remove them because the intention would not be to kill his brother, but to allow Paul to live.

I would think though that two human souls could not live in one human body, and since the twin’s body was not capable itself of keeping the twin alive, that the twin did die.

Good point.

There’s a difference.

An embryo has no head or heart, but it can hold life until those structures are developed.

An incomplete fetal body would not hold life if those were absent.

The issue is not what body areas or surfaces are present, but whether it can hold life. If not, there would be no soul, AIUI.

ICXC NIKA

The incomplete fetal body would have been its own embryo at one point. During that time it would have had a soul.

The reason a newly conceived baby does not have a head or heart is due to its developmental stage. The parasitic twin was of an age where he should have had a head and heart. He was, unfortunately, incomplete–in fact, I always thought that a parasitc twin was due to the separation’s being only partial, much less complete than a Siamese twin pair’s separation.

So, at the stage we are discussing, the fact that the twin had no head or heart of its own is germane.

I would think so long as it has its own DNA, it is a human being with a soul.

I don’t know much about how a parasitic twin comes into being, but I was thinking that “twin” means that either:

  1. the first embryo split into two (so at some point it did have a soul inside of its because it would have split at the stage of not yet having a head or heart)

or

  1. that two eggs were fertilized and that while they were sharing the womb (which means both babies definitely had souls)

I believe one of these two things had to happen in order for it to be considered a twin, and either way the twin would have had a soul within its body at some point in time. When the body stopped developing properly, the soul could have left. But this is just skepticism, I do not know what actually happens of course.

No, the question is whether the parasitic twin was alive as opposed to being another partial person’s parts still attached to the baby who was born alive.

In fact, had the separation been successful, the two would have been identical twins with the same DNA. In this case, the separation seems to have been so incomplete that the “parastic twin” never existed as a person, but the cell separation process beginning did cause the extra limbs.

The twin used to have a soul when it was still an embryo because it was alive. However, in the development age when it needs a heart and brain to survive, but doesn’t have any, it can no longer support life. Therefore it’s dead, and it has no more soul. It used to have one, but it is now in the afterlife.

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.