Madam - In his letter supporting embryo destruction, Dr Keith Lockitch (June 27th) appears confused on religion, biology and ethics.
He attributes to the Catholic Church (among other religions) the claim that a human being is "not a biological entity" and is instead "a transcendent soul temporarily trapped in a body". The Catholic Church's Catechism, nn. 362-365, explicitly rejects both claims. Indeed, it is precisely because the Catholic Church takes the "biological" element so seriously that it attributes personhood to the living human being as such.
He holds that an embryo is not a living human being, but a mere "primitive cluster" or "mass" of undifferentiated cells.
Yet the embryo is not any old heap of undifferentiated cells, but a cell-grouping of a very particular kind, or an adult human being would not be its long-term outcome.
He says that an embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being. Yet the living embryo exists and is therefore "actual", so it must be an actual living something, and that can only be human. One can't dodge that by talk about "potential", for the embryo can't be a potential donkey or dahlia: its only potential is human.
He doesn't understand Aristotle's potential/actual distinction.
It's not a way of separating things into two categories, for potential/actual go together, being different aspects of the one reality. The embryo is a "potential" human being only in the trivial sense that it is capable of further development, and that is true of all humans for much of their lives.
Aristotle mistakenly thought that the living embryo or foetus became a human being gradually, going through plant and animal stages first, and his view influenced Aquinas and other Christians. Today, it is curious how that old-fashioned view is still echoed by those who claim that one "becomes" a person or human being by degrees.
It will probably surprise Dr Lockitch and others to hear that the Catholic Church's contemporary clarity in its defence of the human embryo was influenced by the discovery in the 1830s of the ovum and the discovery in the mid-20th century of the presence of the full genetic code for a human being in the embryo. It is precisely the significance of modern genetics that makes it impossible to find adequate reason for withholding the status of person from the living human organism in the early stage of life. - Yours, etc,
Fr SÉAMUS MURPHY SJ,
St Francis Xavier Church,
Gardiner Street,
Dublin 1.
Madam, - Dr Keith Lockitch's spirited defence of embryonic stem cell research prompts two comments.
First, in response to his simple assertion that the embryo is a potential, as distinct from an actual, human being because it is a mass of undifferentiated cells or a primitive cluster of cells, may I quote the controversial philosopher, Peter Singer:
"The liberal search for a morally crucial dividing line between the new-born baby and the fetus has failed to yield any event or stage of development that can bear the weight of separating those with a right to life from those who lack such a right, in a way that clearly shows fetuses to be in the latter category at the stage of development when most abortions take place. The conservative is on solid ground in insisting that the development from the embryo to the infant is a gradual process."
Second, Dr Lockitch asserts that "only the mystical doctrines of religion, which hold that a human being is not a biological entity with certain natural properties. . . but a transcendent soul temporarily trapped in a body, could cloud that distinction [between the embryo and life at later stages of development]." As a member of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, I wrote a dissenting report in which I sought to defend the right to life of the embryo. If Dr. Lockitch cares to read my brief report, available at http://www.dohc.ie/publications/pdf/cahr.pdf?direct=1, he may be surprised to discover that transcendental concepts do not feature in it at all. - Yours, etc,
GERRY WHYTE,
Law School,
Trinity College Dublin.
Madam, - Dr Keith Lockitch seems confused, which is somewhat surprising seeing that he works in an institute devoted to the study of philosophy. He states: "an embryo is a potential, not an actual, human being, just as a canvas is a potential, not an actual, work of art". Is Dr Lockitch not aware that an embryo, in its natural environment, will develop into a baby, whereas a canvas left in a studio will never develop into a painting? - Yours, etc,
Prof WILLIAM REVILLE,
Department of Biochemistry,
University College Cork.