The Ethics of Medical Homicide and MutilationO'Malley, Austin
Religion
The Ethics of Medical Homicide and Mutilation
O'Malley, Austin
Medical ethics
The question is evidently one of the greatest importance. If the
rational soul does not enter until the ovum has developed into
an embryo, or only after the embryo has passed on into the fetal
condition, the destruction of this ovum, by artificial abortion
or otherwise, would be a very different act morally from such
destruction after the soul had turned the new growth into a living
man. If the product of conception has first only a vegetative vital
principle, and this is later replaced by a vital principle that is
merely sensitive, and this again is finally superseded by a rational
vital principle, the destruction by abortion or otherwise of the
vegetative or sensitive life would not be a destruction of a rational
life. In this hypothesis the killing of the embryo would be a great
crime, because the embryo would be in potency for the reception of
human life, but the act would not be murder.
The discussion concerning the moment the human soul enters the body
is older than Christianity, and it was taken up by many of the early
Greek and Latin Fathers of the Church, and revived again and again
down to the present day. Plato thought the soul enters at birth;
Asclepias, Heraclites, and the Stoics held it is not infused until
the time of puberty; Aristotle[15] said the soul is infused in the
male fetus about the fortieth day after conception, and into the
female fetus about the eightieth day.
[15] _IX, De Animalibus_.
Tertullian,[16] Apollinaris, and a few others advocated
Traducianism,[17] or a transmission of the spiritual soul by the
parents. He said souls are carried over by conception and by the
parents, so that the soul of the father is the soul of the son, and
from one man comes the whole overflow of souls. St. Augustine used
the metaphor, one soul lit from another as flame from flame, without
decay in either. Augustine was in doubt as to the origin of the
soul, and inclined to traducianism, because it seemed to him better
to explain the doctrine of the transmission of original sin. "Tell
me," he wrote to St. Jerome in 415,[18] "if souls are created singly
for each person born to-day, when do infants sin so that they need
remission in the sacrament of Christ, sin in Adam from whom the flesh
of sin is propagated?... Since we cannot say that God makes of souls
sinners, or punishes the innocent, nor may we hold that souls even of
infants which without baptism leave the body are saved, I ask you how
that opinion can be defended which thinks that all souls are not made
from the single soul of the first man, yet as that soul was one to
one man, these are particular to particular individuals."
[16] _De Anima_, cap. 27.
[17] From _tradux_, a planted vine-shoot made to take root.
[18] Migne, vol. xxxiii, col. 720.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account