But let's pause briefly here. I have indicated above that a woman should have the right to decide if she wants to experience conception or not. In this way I am suggesting that she should play an active role a co-creator of human life with God, the source of life and all existence.
Next, we should turn to the pre-Christian philosophers Plato and Aristotle for our vocabulary for lifeforms, because the Christian tradition of thought centuries ago borrowed certain terminology from them. The Greek word for lifeform used by Plato and Aristotle is transliterated into our alphabet as "psuche or "psyche " as in the English word "psychology. The Greek term is rendered in English as "soul.
Plato and Aristotle work with the body/soul distinction, as it is known in philosophy. The body without the soul is a corpse. Incidentally, your brain is going to be in your corpse after your soul has departed. The distinctively human soul is the true efficient cause of human rationality. But the brain is the instrumental efficient cause. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate the difference. If I flip a light switch from the "off position to the "on position and the light goes on, then the electric current is the true efficient cause of the light going on. But the switch is the instrumental efficient cause.
Because Plato and Aristotle work with the body/soul distinction, they represent the nonmaterialist philosophic tradition of thought. By contrast, the materialist tradition of philosophic thought maintains that there is no body/soul distinction because all is matter.
Now, Plato and Aristotle also understood the distinctively human soul to be the source of human rationality. To be sure, they acknowledged that we are akin to animals in many ways. But they also thought that we are different from other animals. Aristotle famously defined us as rational animals. In part, we are animals. Both Plato and Aristotle thought this. But they both thought that our human rationality sets us apart from infrahuman animals.
The work of the late neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean about our triune human brain suggests a certain parallel with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. They thought we are like animals in two certain important ways: (1) the desiring part of our human psyche and (2) the spirited part of our human psyche (Greek "thumos ). In Plato's dialogue the "Phaedrus the imagery of two horses is used to represent these powerful animal drives in our human psyche. The two strong horses are pulling a chariot that represents our body. The charioteer, who represents human rationality, must work to control the two strong horses and try to direct them to work together somehow. In this way the life of virtue is represented as a never-ending struggle by the charioteer/reason.
Based on careful dissection of animal brains, MacLean identifies our core human brain as the paleomammalian brain. The paleomammalian brain is the brain of what Plato and Aristotle refer to as "thumos, the spirited part of our human psyche, the part involved our fight/flight/freeze responses. MacLean also identifies another part of our triune human brain as the neomammalian brain. So two of the three parts of the human brain identified by MacLean are also found in animals. Thus the human animal is an animal, to state the obvious.
MacLean identifies the neocortext as the distinctive part of our triune human brain, the part not found in infrahuman animals. I would align the neocortext with the rational part of the human psyche discussed by Plato and Aristotle.
Centuries ago, the Roman Catholic tradition of thought borrowed the body/soul distinction from Plato and Aristotle and carried it forward over the centuries. The soul was thought to be immortal, but the body in some glorified way would be re-united with the soul at the final resurrection at the end-time. But in the Roman Catholic tradition of thought, the threefold psyche discussed in Plato's "Republic and "Phaedrus became fourfold: (1) intellect (i.e., rationality, reason), (2) will (i.e., the capacity to make choices), (3) concupiscible appetites or tendencies (i.e. the desiring part), and (4) irascible appetites or tendencies (i.e., the spirited part, "thumos in Greek).
Walter J. Ong, S.J. (1912-2003), has suggested that the body/soul distinction can be reconciled with evolutionary theory. The entire physical cosmos and the matter out of which our bodies are composed developed over millions of years, including developments of our infrahuman animal ancestors. In this view, God's act of creation involved creating the specifically human soul, thus transforming our infrahuman ancestors into human beings with rational souls.
In any event, we should now turn our attention to conception through natural processes. At the moment of conception, the zygote is formed. This is an infrahuman lifeform. Next, if all goes well, the embryo is formed. It is still an infrahuman lifeform. Next, if all continues to go well, the fetus is formed and develops. It is still an infrahuman lifeform.
But is it murder to deliberately destroy the zygote through human agency? Is it murder to deliberately destroy the embryo through human agency? Is it wrong to deliberately destroy the fetus during the first trimester through human agency? No, no, no. By definition, murder involves the deliberate taking of an innocent human life by a human being. But no distinctively human soul = no human being = no murder.
But the fully human lifeform does not emerge until the moment of ensoulment with the distinctively human soul. As we noted above, the distinctively human soul is the efficient cause of human rationality -- the brain is the instrumental efficient cause. But the neocortex in the fetus is a relatively late development. As a result, it is hard to imagine that ensoulment with the distinctively human soul occurs at the moment of conception, as some Roman Catholics in recent years have suggested it does.
Thomas Aquinas, the famous thirteenth-century Roman Catholic theologian, held that ensoulment occurs at birth (assuming live birth). Moreover, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion established viability (i.e., the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb) as the standard for establishing the life of the fetus. For all practical purposes, what the Supreme Court meant by viability can be understood to be equivalent with what Aquinas meant by live birth. Ensoulment = viability. Conversely, viability = ensoulment.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion in the first trimester. In the first trimester, the fetus is not able to live outside the mother's womb. Moreover, in the first trimester, the neocortex has not been developed in the fetus. The fetus in the first trimester is a lifeform, but it is an infrahuman lifeform. The fetus does not become a full-fledged human being until the moment of ensoulment with the distinctively human soul.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion in the first semester as a woman's right. It's her body, so it's her call. This reasoning is truly revolutionary because it overthrows centuries of laws based on patriarchy.
Next, we should turn to the pre-Christian philosophers Plato and Aristotle for our vocabulary for lifeforms, because the Christian tradition of thought centuries ago borrowed certain terminology from them. The Greek word for lifeform used by Plato and Aristotle is transliterated into our alphabet as "psuche or "psyche " as in the English word "psychology. The Greek term is rendered in English as "soul.
Plato and Aristotle work with the body/soul distinction, as it is known in philosophy. The body without the soul is a corpse. Incidentally, your brain is going to be in your corpse after your soul has departed. The distinctively human soul is the true efficient cause of human rationality. But the brain is the instrumental efficient cause. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate the difference. If I flip a light switch from the "off position to the "on position and the light goes on, then the electric current is the true efficient cause of the light going on. But the switch is the instrumental efficient cause.
Because Plato and Aristotle work with the body/soul distinction, they represent the nonmaterialist philosophic tradition of thought. By contrast, the materialist tradition of philosophic thought maintains that there is no body/soul distinction because all is matter.
The work of the late neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean about our triune human brain suggests a certain parallel with the thinking of Plato and Aristotle. They thought we are like animals in two certain important ways: (1) the desiring part of our human psyche and (2) the spirited part of our human psyche (Greek "thumos ). In Plato's dialogue the "Phaedrus the imagery of two horses is used to represent these powerful animal drives in our human psyche. The two strong horses are pulling a chariot that represents our body. The charioteer, who represents human rationality, must work to control the two strong horses and try to direct them to work together somehow. In this way the life of virtue is represented as a never-ending struggle by the charioteer/reason.
Based on careful dissection of animal brains, MacLean identifies our core human brain as the paleomammalian brain. The paleomammalian brain is the brain of what Plato and Aristotle refer to as "thumos, the spirited part of our human psyche, the part involved our fight/flight/freeze responses. MacLean also identifies another part of our triune human brain as the neomammalian brain. So two of the three parts of the human brain identified by MacLean are also found in animals. Thus the human animal is an animal, to state the obvious.
MacLean identifies the neocortext as the distinctive part of our triune human brain, the part not found in infrahuman animals. I would align the neocortext with the rational part of the human psyche discussed by Plato and Aristotle.
Centuries ago, the Roman Catholic tradition of thought borrowed the body/soul distinction from Plato and Aristotle and carried it forward over the centuries. The soul was thought to be immortal, but the body in some glorified way would be re-united with the soul at the final resurrection at the end-time. But in the Roman Catholic tradition of thought, the threefold psyche discussed in Plato's "Republic and "Phaedrus became fourfold: (1) intellect (i.e., rationality, reason), (2) will (i.e., the capacity to make choices), (3) concupiscible appetites or tendencies (i.e. the desiring part), and (4) irascible appetites or tendencies (i.e., the spirited part, "thumos in Greek).
Walter J. Ong, S.J. (1912-2003), has suggested that the body/soul distinction can be reconciled with evolutionary theory. The entire physical cosmos and the matter out of which our bodies are composed developed over millions of years, including developments of our infrahuman animal ancestors. In this view, God's act of creation involved creating the specifically human soul, thus transforming our infrahuman ancestors into human beings with rational souls.
In any event, we should now turn our attention to conception through natural processes. At the moment of conception, the zygote is formed. This is an infrahuman lifeform. Next, if all goes well, the embryo is formed. It is still an infrahuman lifeform. Next, if all continues to go well, the fetus is formed and develops. It is still an infrahuman lifeform.
But is it murder to deliberately destroy the zygote through human agency? Is it murder to deliberately destroy the embryo through human agency? Is it wrong to deliberately destroy the fetus during the first trimester through human agency? No, no, no. By definition, murder involves the deliberate taking of an innocent human life by a human being. But no distinctively human soul = no human being = no murder.
But the fully human lifeform does not emerge until the moment of ensoulment with the distinctively human soul. As we noted above, the distinctively human soul is the efficient cause of human rationality -- the brain is the instrumental efficient cause. But the neocortex in the fetus is a relatively late development. As a result, it is hard to imagine that ensoulment with the distinctively human soul occurs at the moment of conception, as some Roman Catholics in recent years have suggested it does.
Thomas Aquinas, the famous thirteenth-century Roman Catholic theologian, held that ensoulment occurs at birth (assuming live birth). Moreover, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion established viability (i.e., the ability of the fetus to live outside the mother's womb) as the standard for establishing the life of the fetus. For all practical purposes, what the Supreme Court meant by viability can be understood to be equivalent with what Aquinas meant by live birth. Ensoulment = viability. Conversely, viability = ensoulment.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion in the first trimester. In the first trimester, the fetus is not able to live outside the mother's womb. Moreover, in the first trimester, the neocortex has not been developed in the fetus. The fetus in the first trimester is a lifeform, but it is an infrahuman lifeform. The fetus does not become a full-fledged human being until the moment of ensoulment with the distinctively human soul.
The 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalized abortion in the first semester as a woman's right. It's her body, so it's her call. This reasoning is truly revolutionary because it overthrows centuries of laws based on patriarchy.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
