Related Links
Scientific and
Philosophical
Expertise:
An
Evaluation of the
Arguments
on
"Personhood"
|
by Teresa Iglesias, D.Phil
Fellow of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
University Lecturer in Philosophy and Medical Ethics at University
College, Dublin, Ireland
One of the most fundamental questions that is increasingly
facing bioethicists and society alike is the question, "What does it mean
to be human?" "In what consists the act of being human?" "Is my humanity a
'bodily' humanity?" In every area of philosophical concern we are always
thrown back to these basic questions.
I hold that every human being is a human person, and every
human person is a human being. I also hold that the existence of a human
being, say my own existence, began when my bodily existence began, that is
when I was conceived.
There are some who do not maintain that human beings are
human persons as I do. These differences in view indicate that here we are
faced with a problem about the recognition of what we take human beings to
be as we experience them, and so as we experience ourselves. Obviously,
the facts, say, about our embryonic beginnings--as much as the beginnings
of other animals--are well known to biologists and to most of us; the
facts are the same, they are written in good biology books. Yet these
facts, these realities, are seen to be different, interpreted to be
different; so different that some would say: "now at that stage there is a
human being in its embryonic form." Another would say, "there is no human
being at all; we have only a blob of cells," while still others would say
"we have a potential human being, but not a full human being." Now if the
account of the facts is biologically the same, for we do not quarrel much
about the facts, but we quarrel a lot about their interpretation, then
there must be a question concerning 'the vision,' the manner of 'seeing'
the facts, the manner in which the same reality is interpreted. What is it
that underlies this difference in interpretation? What makes our vision
differ?
Reality, the concrete material world of things and human
beings is not anyone's property; it is there for everyone to pay attention
to, to become aware of. But for human beings, this awareness is not only a
matter of physical vision, not only a matter of intelligence but also a
matter of will and of imagination. For some it appears impossible to
imagine themselves as embryos. We must challenge our poor imagination with
our intelligence and allow it to see beyond only what we want to see. The
human being by his or her free will can pay attention, or listen, or want
to be aware, or not at all. I am confident enough to say that "lack of
awareness is the root of all evil;" this lack, of course, may be
deliberate or not. The effort to 'pay attention to reality' is an effort
not only of intelligence but also of will. By this attention truth is
born; it dawns on us, i.e., reality is manifested to us.
So let me draw your attention to three fundamental aspects
of the human being to which we have to pay attention in order to see them
in relation to the kind of beings we are: (i) the human being is bodily,
organic, physical, (ii) the human being is also an
integrated-unity-of-life, a living being, a living whole, a one, an
individual; and (iii) the human being is a being with a temporal
continuity, a being with a history, a being in time.
Every one of us has a history; the most basic aspect of
our history is our bodiliness--the fact that we are embodied beings,
living physical organisms. Our organism begins at conception, and is then
genetically constituted, and in that very fact endowed with human powers
and potential for growth. The historical continuity of embodiment, say,
about myself, can be traced back to conception when I was constituted
organically as a zygote, and then embryo, fetus, infant, child, and now an
adult who is still here. I have been the same being all the way through.
So in bodily terms I can rightly and truly say, "look, I am here, as a
female being, and I began as such a bodily being at conception." "Yes,"
you may say, "but as an intelligent being, or as a free being, you may not
have begun there." My response to such an assertion is, "Why not?"
Note this: At conception, I was endowed with a physical
organism that had the actual inner power to become what I am now. That
power was there from the beginning. The development of a living organism,
of a living being, is indeed a process, but the being itself with the
process of coming-to-be-an-adult has been there all the time. The being
has been total, one, yet developing all the time. Living beings, and so
human beings, are not like machines or houses, that come to be by
installments. You may have half a clock, or half a house constructed, but
you cannot have half of a dog, or half of a human being. Either we are
fully present or we are not present at all.
Let me now draw your attention a little more to the idea
of the human being as a unity, and organic whole. Every living being is
generated as a whole, grows as a whole, moves as a whole, relates to
others as a whole, dies as a whole. The early embryo as a living whole is
a stable organism. As I have said elsewhere:
The kind of life that a zygote or an embryo has, because of the power
it actually possesses is personal power, is personal life, the life of a
personal being. By this inner power the zygote turns into the adult
person. And clearly, the presence of personal powers must be attributed
to a personal subject, they belong to someone, they are of someone, they
are of a personal being.2
What I have sought to offer is an outline of why I believe
human beings and human persons are one and the same. It is my belief that
it is impossible to separate the two without doing an injustice to the
logic of life. If we fail to follow that logic, no matter if it leads us
to a conclusion that we don't want to see, we empower tyranny over the
weak. And once that tyranny is unleashed, as we know, it can be almost
impossible to undo the harm that comes from it. CBHD
|
