10.05.2015 Views

Human Dignity and Bioethics

Human Dignity and Bioethics

Human Dignity and Bioethics

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Commentary on Dennett | 97<br />

that we associate with freedom <strong>and</strong> reason. On this approach the<br />

soul can be understood not as a separate entity that comes to occupy<br />

the body, but as the genetic information contained in the DNA that<br />

provides the dynamism for the development of a human organism.<br />

The view just presented is not only consistent with present-day<br />

science, it also allows us to see that talk about “a mere bundle of living<br />

human tissue becoming a person” is a remnant of the rejected dualistic<br />

metaphysics. This discredited picture requires one substance, “a<br />

mere bundle of living human tissue,” what biology textbooks would<br />

more accurately call “an embryo” or “a fetus,” <strong>and</strong> a second item that<br />

was not previously there, not even in latent form, that provokes a<br />

drastic change, a change that ex hypothesi does not preserve the substance’s<br />

identity. Since the previously existing organism continues to<br />

exist after the arrival of the new item, the resulting “person” would<br />

be a new entity, a composite of the body <strong>and</strong> something arriving at a<br />

later point in time.<br />

It makes much better sense to accept the scientific evidence, under<br />

the assumption that each one of us is essentially an integrated<br />

human organism. On this view, the gradual changes that take us to<br />

adulthood seem to preserve identity (we say that it is the same organism<br />

that is growing <strong>and</strong> maturing), <strong>and</strong> those changes may be interpreted<br />

as a successive activation of functions that were already latent<br />

“in the genes.” None of this is old myth, <strong>and</strong> all of it is consistent<br />

with present common knowledge.<br />

Let us press on <strong>and</strong> ask whether contemporary science shows<br />

gradualism or a clear articulation at the inception of a human life.<br />

Since I am not a scientist, I am here relying on biology <strong>and</strong> embryology<br />

textbooks in use at American universities. 3 The picture that<br />

emerges, in summary, is this: through meiosis human organisms produce<br />

gametes, that is, cells that have half the st<strong>and</strong>ard number of<br />

human chromosomes. Each gamete (either sperm or egg) is a specialized<br />

cell that lies at the end of a line of development <strong>and</strong> is thus<br />

unipotent. By itself it cannot go any further. Neither an egg nor a<br />

sperm is an organism, <strong>and</strong> each of them is destined to die within a<br />

short period of time. If, however, a sperm manages to penetrate the<br />

zona pellucida of the egg <strong>and</strong> the two fuse, then a radical change takes<br />

place: a new cell emerges that st<strong>and</strong>s at the beginning of a line of development.<br />

It has the full complement of human chromosomes <strong>and</strong>

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!