Frustrated in Norman

First I want to thank Richard Stith for his insightful post, and I would be interested in hearing from Jean Porter and others on how they respond to his conclusion (reasoned from science) that “Human beings do develop. To think they are constructed is flat error. This error remains intuitively plausible and has a decent cultural pedigree, so those who make it should not be dismissed as utterly irrational or evil, even though they may seem so from the viewpoint of one who bears in mind the facts of human development. But they are absolutely wrong. We know with certainty that quickening is an illusion, that the child is developing from the beginning, not being made from the outside, for its form lies within it, in its active potency, in its activated DNA. From the point of view of natural science (and natural theology) delayed ensoulment has lost its reason for being and Occam’s razor should cut it out of our debates.”

Michael P., my brother, I must confess to some frustration over my inability to communicate clearly with you. You say: “I infer from what you have said in this exchange with me that you not only believe that Jean's position is not correct but also doubt that it is a reasonable position.  Am I mistaken in my inference that you doubt that Jean's position is reasonable?  Perhaps you are presently agnostic about whether Jean's position is unreasonable; perhaps you need to hear from Jean before you can decide whether her position is, in your view, unreasonable.”

As I tried to make abundantly clear in the post here, I have no idea whether Jean’s position is reasonable or not because she hasn’t offered reasons for her position.  As I argued in my prior post (and you – or anyone else for that matter – haven’t offered arguments as to why I am wrong in my reading of her essay), Jean offers some nice rhetoric, for example:  “if we are to develop adequate and convincing arguments on this difficult issue, we need to engage the arguments of our forerunners in a serious way-especially those arguments that we find most challenging to our own views,” but she fails (in this essay) to give reasons for her own position or to seriously engage her interlocutors.  And, you didn’t make up for her deficiency by providing reasons in your remarks about her essay here, here, and here, preferring instead to rest on her authority as a chaired professor at a prestigious Catholic University who participates in John Witte’s programs.  Reasonable people can be unreasonable at certain times and in certain situations.  I assume Jean is a reasonable person.  But, so for I haven’t seen anything to suggest that her disagreement with George, Finnis, Anscombe, Grisez, Haldane, etc. is reasonable (or unreasonable, for that matter).

I don’t want to set up any straw figures for those on my side of the debate to strike down.  I want to hear the best arguments on the other side and along those lines I suggest that we proceed in two phases.

First, are there serious arguments that George, Stith, the basic texts in embryology, etc are wrong on the science?  In other words, are there serious scientific arguments that the embryo is being constructed from the outside rather than developing from within?  If there are, then let us hear those arguments so we can judge for ourselves who has the better argument.

Second, assuming that the basic texts in embryology have it right – that an embryo is a new and distinct human organism in the earliest stage of development (or at least assuming that it is a plausible conclusion) - let us move to a second inquiry.  If the embryo is a new and distinct human organism, what are the arguments (philosophical or theological) for treating the embryo as less worthy than all other human organisms?  In other words, what are the counter-arguments to the one’s offered by George (here) and others.  Once these are laid out clearly, we can judge for ourselves who has the better argument.

BTW, if one accepts arguendo the materialistic and relativistic premises of Richard Rorty, Peter Singer, etc., then I think arguments in favor of embryonic stem cell research, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia are reasonable, and I am thankful for Rorty and Singer because they are willing to embrace the ugly consequences of their arguments in full.

Good night,

Michael S.