Madam, - In his comments on Dr Stephen Sullivan's earlier letter, Rev Vincent Twomey (May 3rd) makes some curious assertions.
Firstly, he accuses Dr Sullivan of failing to distinguish between human life in general and the individual human being. As the life of the individual has its origins in pre-existing life, it is surely up to Dr Sullivan to present this aspect of the issue - as it is up to Dr Twomey to present the issue from the standpoint of the particular life. To present such a complex issue from either perspective is not to fudge it.
Secondly, Dr Twomey defines personhood as a capacity for relationship. Coming from one who has a background in moral philosophy this is a strange definition. Surely personhood is that which distinguishes people from other forms of life, particularly animal life. Yet animals have a capacity for relationship.
While there is no general agreement as to what a person is, it seems that definitions centre on those properties which we particularly associate with human beings, such as an awareness of self as a continuing subject of thought, or a capacity for higher-order thought.
Dr Twomey then further asserts that defining personhood is a matter for philosophy and theology, not science. While the question of what moral status human life has at any stage of its development may be primarily a philosophical one, science can do much to elucidate the issues. It can do much more than establish whether the particular embryo is human, as Dr Twomey asserts. How a human life develops from before conception to adulthood and what moral properties we ascribe to it at different stages should be informed by a scientific understanding of the processes involved.
As the whole process is essentially a developmental one, there are no magic moments. For this reason the assertion that life begins at conception is unscientific. There is no precise moment at which human life or personhood begins.
This is a perspective that in recent times is largely shared by the better-informed of strong religious convictions. Twenty years ago I attended a lecture in UCG by the distinguished moral philospher Prof Elizabeth Anscombe. In response to a question as to when life begins Prof Anscombe caused the mouths of her (largely Opus Dei) audience to drop when she said she didn't know. Yet the late Prof Anscombe was a devout Catholic and, therefore, deeply opposed to stem cell research. What is significant is that she did not base her opposition on a specious and contestable assertion as to when life begins.
For me it is far-fetched to think that a fertilised ovum in the period following fertilization has significantly greater moral status than a sperm or ovum prior to it. For this reason, as long as stem cell research is motivated by a concern to improve the quality of human life and combat disease, it is surely morally justified. - Yours, etc,
FRANK FALLS, Baldham, Bavaria, Germany.