Re: [asa] Worthy of response?

Burgy said: *The medical data that indicates fairly clearly that an entity
prior to
implantation is not a person is as follows:*
**
I think that is too strong a statement. The data you cite certainly suggest
that the concept of "personhood" is difficult to apply prior to
implantation. However, the notion of "personhood," IMHO, ultimately is not
something that can be conclusively determined one way or the other by these
sorts of empirical observations. "Personhood" ultimately is an ethical
value judgment based on both present and *potentential* aspects of the
entity. I would argue that the potentiality of a not-yet-implanted human
zygote gives it a kind of dignity that requires us (a) not to discard it
without very good reason; and (b) not to create it without the intention to
bring it to term if possible.

As to "ensoulment," the fact that a zygote that has the potential to split
into two entities before implantation, it seems to me, does not decide the
question one way or the other. If the "soul" is an entirely immaterial
substance that God implants in the womb, and if God knows beforehand whether
a given zygote will split into two entities before implantation, then it
seems entirely possible that God gives that zygote two souls before it
splits, with one going each way as it were. And if the two entities
subsequently fuse, it would seem that God is capable of accounting for that
in advance as well when he does the ensoulement.

But I'd also suggest that the notion of "ensoulement" perhaps isn't very
helpful. It analogizes the soul to a material substance that would be
injected, so to speak, into the zygote / fetus / baby at a fixed time in its
development. That makes what is essentially a spiritual property too much
like something material. Rather than searching for a specific time of
"ensoulment," I'd suggest that we advocate respect for human life from its
very start to its very end -- which means, at least, not taking active
measures to terminate human potentiality.

BTW, I think Dave C.'s comments on the original post about Harris were dead
on.

On 9/3/07, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>
> Merv posted: "On what medical findings would you base your "It would
> seem..."
> assertion in the last paragraph? *IF* a soul is a non-physical entity,
> then how could any medical findings have any bearing? "
>
> Sorry. I thought this data had been posted many times.
>
> The medical data that indicates fairly clearly that an entity prior to
> implantation is not a person is as follows:
>
> 1. The conception process is not an "event," but a process, taking about
> 1 hour to complete from the time the sperm first encounters the egg to
> the time it is complete.
>
> 2. Between 30 and 50% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted.
>
> 3. Between the completion of conception and implantation a fertilized egg
> sometimes splits into two or more entities.
>
> 4. Between the time of splitting and implantation two entities sometimes
> fuse into one.
>
> Based on arguments using the data above the conclusion seems to be that a
> "person" (soul) is not present until -- at the earliest -- implantation.
>
> Assume an entity w/o a soul is not a person and that an entity with a
> soul is a person. Then it can be argued that a moral right to survival
> accrues to the latter but not to the former. In particular, based on
> datum #2 above, it can be argued that God does not take an interest in
> the entities involved in early miscarriages.
>
> Assume (it is argued) that all conceptions result in a person. Assume
> also that innocents attain heaven. It follows that heaven is 30 to 50%
> populated with persons who were never born. Possible, of course. But it
> does not seem likely.
>
> >>Regarding exactly when 'ensoulment' takes place: Is it a peculiarly
> western tendency to see things in terms of "Dedekindian" cuts?>>
>
> I took no position on when ensoulment takes place, whether an event in
> time (God zaps) or a process. I tend to think "process" is more likely
> but either way does not seem to have a bearing on the arguments above.
>
> >>
> Overheard at church: "There are two kinds of people in the world:
> those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.">>
>
> I like that quote a lot.
>
> Thanks
>
> Burgy
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Sep 3 14:41:32 2007