Hello Burgy,
-----Original Message-----
From: JW Burgeson [mailto:hoss_radbourne@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sat 7/27/2002 10:15 AM
To: Adrian Teo
Cc:
Subject: RE: Infusion of the soul as a process
>>It is more more problematic ethically speaking to deny that
personhood
>>begins at
the point of fusion.
>>
That's what is called a claim.
I understand it is your opinion.
Tell me on what basis you would ground it?
If you ground it (as you seem to do) on the resulting ethics,
you have the
cart before the horse.
Burgy
========
Adrian: There is nothing wrong with working your ethics from
consequences, and many people do it. The problem is of course, if
that is your only criterion, then it becomes extremely easy to
justify acts that most peopel would consider unethical.
The problem with the denial of personhood at conception is
not only because one would then have to find some arbitrary point for
personhood to emerge (implantation, age of viability, 3rd trimester,
birth, etc.), but also because the consequences for making an
erroneous assessment leads to the loss of a human life. Here's why:
Either the zygote is a person or not. Furthermore, either we
know what it is, or we don't.
That leaves four possibilities:
A. The zygote is not a person and we know that.
B. The zygote is a person and we know that.
C. The zygote is a person and we don't know that.
D. The zygote is not a person and we don't know that.
Now, if A is true, then the destruction of these early cells
is permissible. However, no one knows for sure that A is true.
If B is true, and we destroy the zygote, we have committed murder.
If C is true, and we destroy the zygote, we have committed
manslaughter. It is like the hunter shooting at something moving in
the bushes, and it turns out to be his partner.
If D is true, and we destroy the zygote, because we don;t
know for sure that it is not a person, we have committed criminal
negligence. It is like shooting blindly into the bushes without
making sure there is no one there.
Even if we don't know whether A,B,C, or D is true, there is a
greater likelihood of us committing a condemnable act than not if we
choose to destroy the zygote.
But based on reason, we can be quite sure that personhood
begins at the point when there is the full complement of human
genetic material set in place and motion. Even if one grants that it
is a process that may take up to a few hours, by virtue of the fact
that no one can determine the exactly when the process completes, any
ratioanl, moral individual would choose to err on the side of
caution. Furthermore, from divine revelation, we know that personhood
begins in the womb, and that the killing of innocent lives is
prohibited. We also know that (at the earliest) in the 6th month of
Elizabeth's pregnancy, Mary conceived. She then visited her cousin a
short while later (can't be more than 3 months or the baby would have
been born). Therefore, Mary was at the most 3 months pregnant, but
probably earlier. Elizabeth greeted Mary as if she assumed that a
life had begun in Mary's womb. Therefore, the boundary has to be 3
months or less.
Furthermore, Christians have traditionally held that the
Incarnation took place at the point of Mary's conception. It is also
the tradition of the vast majority of Christendom to protect life
from the point of conception (and condemn abortion) because to the
consequence for error is too severe. Caution is always preferred in
such cases of uncertainty.
Then there are also the metaphysical arguments that I will
not get into for now.
Blessings,
Adrian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 27 2002 - 21:23:53 EDT