Now, I have been thinking about this during the last couple of weeks and looked for some kind of documentation, I could not find much, so, dear reader, you will have to be patient and read my reasoning.
It is quite easy for a Catholic to follow the usual way a Catholic would debate against abortion, that is using theological descendent (from God to the creation) arguments, but what if the debate should be brought to a secular society like ours, more biased towards the 'how' rather than 'why'?
The problem is mainly legal.
As far as I know Western legislation aknowledges the right to exist to human beings as such. So, clearly, an abortion is possible only if the organism is not recognised as a human being.
I see the point: it's quite easy to assert that an organism that does not look as a human being is not a human being. I see how it is even possible to build a large consent based on such cathegorisation. I mean Turing devised his test on intelligence using a behavioural framework. If it looks intelligent as a human being, then it is intelligent.
But how is that measurable? Yes, you can measure time, but it sounds unconvincing to me that it is time that decides whether an organism is a human being or not. Just give it enough time and you will have human beings even from stones...
And if, after 20 years the organism still does not behaves like a human being, it is not a human being and can be distroyed without any problem.
Well, then here we are: the argument that uses the DNA to define a human being. A human being is an organism (and not an organ), whose cells are built on a human DNA.
It's a clear, simple, measurable definition. No theological argument is needed, it may even be argued that it's self evident. It even subsumes the way moral cases like genetic engineering and in vitro fertilisation should be considered.
However, there are several problems, as far as I can see, that this approach discloses.
First, and most important, it is not true that a cell has a DNA from the conception (it was shocking reading it, but there is a measurable grey zone before the DNA appears). Certainly even acknowledging the DNA definition would be a big progress, but I see the need of providing such simple and measurable criterion to recognise a human organism.
Second, and quite relevant from the theological point of view: accepting the DNA definition means that God is ready to put a soul inside an organism with a human DNA. So read, honestly, seems really strange. Theoretically we could create in laboratory a cell and a human DNA from inorganic material (it's just theoretical and hypothetical, right?). So that would be a human being with a soul. Very strange...
Furthermore, suppose that one day we will meet other non human civilisations (Again, it's just a theoretical hypothesis, right?), organisms that are not based on DNA, do we want to rule out the possibility that they could love God as we do?
Puzzling. I am sure somebody, in the Catholicism, already wrote about all these issues (in a synthetic way), but who? Any interesting readings about the topic (I mean one single exhaustive book)?
Boeciana said...
It is worth noting that 'the usual way a Catholic would debate against abortion' is not actually theological. Guardian columnists just think it is, because they don't (as far as I can tell) ever listen to views with which they disagree. The 'usual arguments' precisely involve a) natural law and the necessity of the assumption that all human life is valuable (which has, despite what you say, I think, de facto vanished from European legislative process), and b)the question of when human life begins, which can be logically answered only by 'at conception', which nowadays we can more clearly describe by noting that this is the point at which a genetically discrete being comes into existence. Which is pretty much your DNA argument.
The problems with getting secular types to acknowledge these are:
a) they don't listen in the first place, but assume that you are being irrational;
b) as you say, they measure humanity in terms of 'conformity to current norms of adult human behaviour', and refuse to think through the logical and ethical implications of this position;
c) they don't actually think that human life has a right to exist as such, especially not if it is a difficult life or if it causes inconvenience to other lives;
because d) materialism is fatal to the human intellect, basically...
So yes, you raise fair points - and as to whether a synthetically-produced embryo is ensouled, well, I don't know and I suspect it's none of my business, but that doesn't help you much - but when it comes to confronting the secularists, the major problem at the moment is that they simply will not listen to reason, and certainly won't engage with it rationally. Which would be quite funny, if it didn't have such murderous results.
Oh, and you're certainly welcome on Saturday!
Galilei said...
On a. of the second paragraph: well, I know it very well: it seems to be a universal reaction nowadays to any Catholic debate.
On b. of the first paragraph: I may be picky, but I was just trying to understand whether there is a measurable way of defining 'at conception', that is whether you can recognise such state just looking at the cell, without any other knowledge about it. I don't think it is irrelevant, because if you cannot recognise such state, you may argue that you could do whatever you want with that cell, and if you freeze it, it could survive for several years without the possibility of giving it any human attribute.
But probably, as you say, this is matter for biologists.
I will be happy to attend the mass on Saturday, and I am in doubt on whether I should make my attendance known to somebody else.
Cheers.
Boeciana said...
Le Living Scotland, c'est moi...
Well, not really. C'est moi et les autres. But no further notice needed.
I don't know anything about identifying cells either! But, interesting as such issues are, for purposes of arguing with the secularists, they are irrelevant.
' if you cannot recognise such state, you may argue that you could do whatever you want with that cell' - but in all current actual scenarios, said cell is either within the privacy of the womb, or is the result of the artificial introduction of sperm to ovum or nucleus to cell or whatever. Anyone involved jolly well knows the process from which the tiny new human creature has arisen, so they know that conception has taken place, and whether or not they would recognise the zygote if they bumped into it isn't really the point. Compare the 'all early embryos look alike so what's the difference?' pro-choice argument. It doesn't matter if a human embryo looks like a badger embryo; the one born of human parents (or, if you prefer, all the necessary human genetic material) is human, the other not, whether or not you can tell just by looking.
Maybe I'm missing your point. The issues you raise may well become more significant; but there's no point focussing on them at present, I think. (I've had too many pub arguments sidelined that way...!)
Pax et bonum!
Galilei said...
Well, in the current situation you can freeze an ovum whether it is fertilised or not and being able to recognise its state it is important. But, I repeat, probably, a biologist would immediately see the difference. Worth to be investigated further.
Cheers.
