Some quibbles:
Why does self-development entail continuity of being?
Actually, when it comes to reasoning to the existence of a human being, or personhood, I think proceeds as follows: there are no external natural agents causing development (as efficient causes or movers), therefore therefore there is continuity of existence, therefore development is an operation of the conceptum itself.
I conclude that pro-choice folks think pro-life claims regarding embryos to be not only wrong but also absurd whenever they think (even unconsciously) that embryos are under construction in the womb.
I don't think pro-choice people even carry their thinking this far--it's mostly a matter of comparison of either structures or of powers, and then making a judgment.
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 animation (quickening) is no longer needed to explain human development, and Occam’s razor should cut it out of our debates.
The activated DNA is not the form of the thing. This is reductionism again, identifying the formal cause with the matter (or a particular part). And, as I've said before, there is no reason why some intermediate form cannot be responsible for development, possessing the vegetative and sensitive parts but no rational part. At least no one has given the argument why this is not possible. Occam's razor should, in fact, would confirm this possibility rather than deny it.
No comments:
Post a Comment