Commonweal
March 24, 2006
When Does Life Begin?
TWO PROLIFE PHILOSOPHERS DISAGREE
Cathleen Kaveny
[Cathleen Kaveny teaches law and theology at the University of Notre Dame.]
My esteemed Notre Dame colleague, John
Finnis, will receive the third annual Paul Ramsey Award for Excellence
in Bioethics from the Center for Bioethics and Culture (CBC), a
conservative Christian think tank. Paul Ramsey (1913-88) was a pioneer
in the field of bioethics. He was also one of my teachers at Princeton.
I wonder whether the CBC would consider Ramsey himself suitable for the
award it issues in his name? Firmly prolife, Ramsey still considered
some questions-such as the status of the early human embryo-to be
legitimately debatable by committed Christians. I’m not sure the CBC
feels the same way. The chair of its nominating committee, C. Ben
Mitchel, has said that denying that the early embryo is a human being
is analogous to denying the humanity of Jews and slaves. Would Paul
Ramsey agree?
I don’t think so. In fact, Ramsey had serious
reservations about the position that individual human life starts at
fertilization-an opinion Finnis shares with the worthy previous
recipients of the Ramsey Award, Germain Grisez and Edmund
Pellegrino-both Catholics. In Ramsey’s classic and wide-ranging essay
“Abortion: A Review Article” (The Thomist, 1973), he engages in
vigorous, detailed, and still-relevant debate with Grisez’s Abortion:
The Myths, the Realities, the Arguments (1970).
In that book, Grisez argues that individual
human life begins when egg and sperm unite, creating a fertilized ovum
(a zygote) with a full complement of forty-six chromosomes. That zygote
then undergoes cell division, becoming an embryo. But there is a
wrinkle to the argument: for about two weeks after fertilization, that
embryo may split, resulting in identical twins. Less commonly, two
embryos may combine, resulting in one individual. As Ramsey notes,
“there is fluidity and indeterminacy in either direction during the
earliest days following conception.” So how do we think about the
various entities involved in twinning and combination?
In the case of twinning, Grisez argues, we
must think in terms of three distinct human individuals. The original
embryo-let’s call it A-is a human individual distinct from its parents.
The twins-let’s call them B and C-are human individuals distinct from
each other and from the fertilized egg from which they sprang. What is
the relationship among A, B, and C? Grisez explains that “we should
think of the twins as the grandchildren of their putative parents, the
individual that divided being the true offspring, and the identical
twins of that offspring by atypical reproduction.” In other words, A is
the child of the parents, and B and C are the grandchildren. This is
odd, since A neither died nor gave birth. Rather, A split through a
form of asexual reproduction. Grisez likens the split to the way in
which “two individual animals of many lower forms of life can develop
by the division of a single, existing individual.” In his article,
Ramsey conjectures, with a note of incredulity, that Grisez must be
talking about halved earthworms.
What about two embryos combining to form one?
Grisez says this involves two individuals, A and B, combining to form
C, who is a distinct new individual. He suggests this scenario is
analogous to that of “a grafted plant.” Ramsey’s response: “With
considerable astonishment we may ask whether any such ‘individuality’
is the life we should respect and protect from conception. In trying to
prove too much, Grisez has proved too little of ethical import.”
Analogies to earthworms and plants seemed
implausible to Ramsey. So did Grisez’s invitation to think of identical
twins as the grandchildren of the woman who gave birth to them.
Grisez’s attempt to preserve the claim that individuated human life
begins at fertilization sacrifices too much of what we know about human
nature-both from a Christian perspective and a scientific one. After
all, human beings reproduce sexually, not asexually. Humans are mortal;
they die and their bodies disintegrate. They don’t split neatly into
two with no loss, cost, or remainder (as in twinning), nor do they
merge fluidly into one another (as in combination).
Ramsey thought it plausible that an
individuated human life does not begin until the possibility for
twinning and combination has passed, a stage called restriction, about
two weeks after fertilization. Assuming Ramsey was right, what does
that mean for research on human embryos that destroys them in the
process? If the embryos have not reached the stage of restriction, such
research would not count as homicide, because it wouldn’t involve
killing a human being.
If it’s not homicide, is such research
morally permissible? Perhaps, given its potential benefits. But not
necessarily. Ramsey was deeply suspicious of the scientific imperative
to manipulate human destiny in the name of progress. He was keenly
aware of the slippery slope such research puts us on. Should the
research prove effective, the inevitable temptation will be to use more
developed embryos and even fetuses in our research to get better
results. On his view, that would be homicide.
Paul Ramsey’s powerful and fearless intellect
led him to differ not only from secular liberals, but also from
religious conservatives. If the CBC issues an award in his name, its
leaders ought to refrain from demonizing as Nazis or slaveholders those
who hold positions that Ramsey himself considered defensible.
_______________
mp
Sunday, March 19, 2006
This post is by Peggy Steinfels, former editor of Commonweal:
March 19, 2006, 3:40 pm
I wonder if you'all saw this item in this week's Word From Rome: John Allen interviews the Jesuit General Hans-Peter Kolvenbach. Among Allen's questions and Kolvenbach's responses are the following.
Allen: One early controversy of his papacy centered on Fr. Tom Reese from America magazine. What are the lessons of that episode for Jesuit-sponsored publications?
Kolvenbach: America magazine, under the competent and
dynamic guidance of Fr. Tom Reese, believed that the best service to a
mature Catholic public was to let the two sides of a controversial
question to defend their views. … However, this orientation did not
meet the approval of some pastorally concerned priests who were worried
about a negative effect on the faith-growth of the Catholics. They
expect that Jesuit publications will offer clear standings to meet the
questions of the day, avoiding confusion and relativism. Unhappily,
instead of changing his policy, Fr. Reese resigned. This episode takes
us back to St. Ignatius when he speaks about sentire cum ecclesia
(feeling with the church). …
Allen: Did the initial concerns about America come from the United States rather than the Vatican?
Kolvenbach? Yes, from clergy outside the Jesuits in the United States, including some in senior positions.
Steinfels: Most issues have three or four sides, not just two. How
can the Catholic church and its tradition have a credible presence in
U.S. culture if it can't even talk about two sides of a controversy,
much less three or four.
America has, in fact, held up well under its new editor,
but if the head of the Jesuits and other senior clergy, i.e., U.S.
cardinals and bishops, think that debate and contestation are not among
the tasks of Catholic journals and intellecutals, they're heads are
deeper in the sand than I believed possible. Not to toot Commonweal's horn, or NCR's, but
there is considerable virtue in publications that are willing and able
to grapple with the dark issues of the day by presenting more than one
side of an issue precisely because they know there are mature Catholics
reading their pages.
More than liberals or conservatives, what the Catholic church needs
are wirters, editors, intelllectuals who make it their business to
sustain a credible Catholicism.
_______________
mp
[From an e-mail message I received:]
On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing
on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie
Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.
At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr.
Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman.
What do you have to say about that?"
Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed
your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not
place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
The room erupted into applause.
_______________
mp