<!DOCTYPE html><HTML lang="en"> <head><meta charset="utf-8"> <title>Hershenov (David) & Koch-Hershenov (Rose J.) - Anscombe on Embryos and Persons (Theo Todman's Book Collection - Paper Abstracts) </title> <link href="../../TheosStyle.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../../TT_ICO.png" /></head> <BODY> <CENTER> <div id="header"><HR><h1>Theo Todman's Web Page - Paper Abstracts</h1><HR></div><A name="Top"></A> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PaperSummary_21926.htm">Anscombe on Embryos and Persons</A></th></tr> <tr><th><A HREF = "../../Authors/H/Author_Hershenov (David).htm">Hershenov (David)</a> & <A HREF = "../../Authors/K/Author_Koch-Hershenov (Rose J.).htm">Koch-Hershenov (Rose J.)</a></th></tr> <tr><th>Source: Anscombe and The Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Neumann Press. Eds. John Mizzoni, Philip Pegan, Geoffrey Karabin.. 2016. pp. 143-160.</th></tr> <tr><th>Paper - Abstract</th></tr> </TABLE> </CENTER> <P><CENTER><TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=600><tr><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PaperSummary_21926.htm">Paper Summary</A></td><td><A HREF = "../../PaperSummaries/PaperSummary_21/PapersToNotes_21926.htm">Notes Citing this Paper</A></td><td><A HREF="#ColourConventions">Text Colour-Conventions</a></td></tr></TABLE></CENTER></P> <hr><P><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><u>Authors Abstract</u><FONT COLOR = "800080"><ol type="1"><li>Anscombe's essay  <U><A HREF="#On-Page_Link_P21926_1">The Early Embryo</A></U><SUB>1</SUB><a name="On-Page_Return_P21926_1"></A>: Theoretical Doubts and Practical Certainties (2005) and other works of hers appeal, to a significant extent, to an Aristotelian/Thomistic argument of mediate <a name="1"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1012.htm">animation</A><SUP>2</SUP> (aka delayed hominization). On this view, the growing <a name="2"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>3</SUP> is animated by a succession of souls, ending eventually with the rational soul of a human being. This conforms to her belief that while the <a name="3"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>4</SUP> is an individual thing, an organized body, it is not a human being due to a lack of organs. She also considers monozygotic <a name="4"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1173.htm">twinning</A><SUP>5</SUP> to pose significant problems to the claim that the early human <a name="5"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>6</SUP> is a very young human being. Consequently, she argues, though very tentatively, that the earliest human <a name="6"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>7</SUP> is not a human being. And yet, it nonetheless shares the same life as a future human being. To injure or kill the <a name="7"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>8</SUP> in its mother s womb eight and a half months before it was born would have been to harm it. </li><li>In this paper we argue that it is a common misinterpretation of Anscombe to claim that she maintains that you were never an early <a name="8"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>9</SUP> or <a name="9"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1174.htm">zygote</A><SUP>10</SUP>. You did exist then, just not as a human being. We will present Anscombe s argument and demonstrate her philosophical support of the Church s mandate that we treat <a name="10"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryos</A><SUP>11</SUP> as one of us. Since Anscombe elicits support from Aquinas, whom she deems to be  intrinsically worth referring to in this context , we will then present a Thomistic argument for rational ensoulment at fertilization. This, we will argue, is compatible with the basic tenets of Anscombe s theory, but is distinct from it in that it places the origin of the human being at fertilization. To do so, we will argue that Aquinas neo-Aristotelian <a name="11"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryology</A><SUP>12</SUP> was  as Anscombe notes  erroneous, and that his delay of rational ensoulment is based on this. We will claim that Thomistic metaphysics applied to modern <a name="12"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryology</A><SUP>13</SUP> renders much more plausible the <a name="13"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryo</A><SUP>14</SUP> having a rational soul from fertilization onwards. </li><li>This is true even in cases of monozygotic <a name="14"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1173.htm">twinning</A><SUP>15</SUP>: we will both explain the  problem of <a name="15"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1173.htm">twinning </A><SUP>16</SUP> and offer solutions that are compatible with a Thomistic read of <a name="16"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1243.htm">embryology</A><SUP>17</SUP>. We will suggest that Anscombe overlooked how a hylomorphic account of the existence of two divinely created souls in the <a name="17"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1174.htm">zygote</A><SUP>18</SUP> is more palatable than a purely materialist account of two co-located individuals being present despite the appearance of just one. </li><li>Welcome consequences of our view are that, with monozygotic twining, no human being fissions out of existence when monozygotic <a name="18"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1173.htm">twinning</A><SUP>19</SUP> occurs and there is no need for ensoulment to occur at different times for different individuals. </li><li>Finally, our account, unlike Anscombes s, can unequivocally maintain that we are essentially rational animals because we are <a name="19"></a><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_12/Notes_1265.htm">human animals</A><SUP>20</SUP> at all moments of our existence. </li></ol></FONT><hr><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><B>Comment: </B><BR><BR>See <a name="W3696W"></a><A HREF = "http://www.davidhershenov.com/uploads/1/2/5/4/12544712/dh-anscombe_on_embryos_and_persons.pdf" TARGET = "_top">Link</A>.<BR><BR><HR><BR><U><B>In-Page Footnotes</U></B><a name="On-Page_Link_P21926_1"></A><BR><BR><U><A HREF="#On-Page_Return_P21926_1"><B>Footnote 1</B></A></U>: I don t have  and can t find on-line  this essay, but do have:-<BR>&rarr; <a name="20"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12818.htm">Anscombe (G.E.M.) - Embryos and Final Causes</A>", and <BR>&rarr; <a name="21"></a>"<A HREF = "../../Abstracts/Abstract_12/Abstract_12817.htm">Anscombe (G.E.M.) - Were You a Zygote?</A>"<BR>which Hershenov also references. <BR><BR><FONT COLOR = "0000FF"><HR></P><a name="ColourConventions"></a><p><b>Text Colour Conventions (see <A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1025.htm">disclaimer</a>)</b></p><OL TYPE="1"><LI><FONT COLOR = "0000FF">Blue</FONT>: Text by me; &copy; Theo Todman, 2018</li><LI><FONT COLOR = "800080">Mauve</FONT>: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); &copy; the author(s)</li></OL> <BR><HR><BR><CENTER> <TABLE class = "Bridge" WIDTH=950> <TR><TD WIDTH="30%">&copy; Theo Todman, June 2007 - August 2018.</TD> <TD WIDTH="40%">Please address any comments on this page to <A HREF="mailto:theo@theotodman.com">theo@theotodman.com</A>.</TD> <TD WIDTH="30%">File output: <time datetime="2018-08-02T09:44" pubdate>02/08/2018 09:44:20</time> <br><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_10/Notes_1010.htm">Website Maintenance Dashboard</A></TD></TR> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="#Top">Return to Top of this Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="40%"><A HREF="../../Notes/Notes_11/Notes_1140.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page</A></TD> <TD WIDTH="30%"><A HREF="../../index.htm">Return to Theo Todman's Home Page</A></TD> </TR></TABLE></CENTER><HR> </BODY> </HTML>