Friday, August 28, 2015

Aborting Aristotle


Aborting Aristotle, by  Dave Sterrett. St Augustine’s Press, 2015, 121 pp, $17.

a review by Edd Doerr

This odd little opus, a review copy of which arrived in  my mailbox unsolicited, is an anti-abortion screed extruded by an evangelical publisher and concocted by a youngish Southern Evangelical Seminary grad who evidently dwells in a rickety Ivory Tower somewhere in the Twilight Zone beyond Cloud Nine. It dwells at length on Plato and Aristotle, as if they were relevant to the subject today, mentions Augustine and Aquinas, neither of whom believed that human personhood begins at conception, and, while abortion is a response to problem pregnancies incurred by the female half of the human population, says not a word about women, women’s rights of conscience, women’s religious freedom, or women’s health. Indeed, no woman is even quoted or referred to in the book. (Has he ever really talked to a live woman?) Nor does the evangelical author discuss the Bible, which does not condemn abortion and actually tends to support the view that personhood begins at birth (see Genesis 1:27 and 2:7) or modern science, which is clear that the functions of personhood are not possible until brain development permits consciousness, sometime after 28-32 weeks of gestation. This opus minimus grandly pontificates on its last page, rather like the mouse with an erection floating down the river on his back yelling “Raise the drawbridge!”: “These classical truths could help progressive [huh?] ethicists who are blinded by an incoherent naturalistic worldview, become more open-minded about the dignity and personhood of unborn human beings.” And to think that real trees were cut down to produce this, uh, book.

1 comment:

Clinton Wilcox said...

Wow...I would personally be embarrassed to attach my name to such a poor "review." I have not personally read this book (though it sounds like you need a huge education in philosophy), but I'll respond to your points here.

"It dwells at length on Plato and Aristotle, as if they were relevant to the subject today,"

Of course they are relevant. Plato and Aristotle taught us of the reality of forms, and teleology in nature (and if you don't believe there is teleology in nature, science is impossible to do).

"mentions Augustine and Aquinas, neither of whom believed that human personhood begins at conception,"

This is misleading. True, they didn't believe personhood begins at conception because the science hadn't yet show that they are human from fertilization. They believed humanity began at quickening because that was then the unborn were definitely ensouled because they could move under their own power. However, they both opposed abortion from fertilization just in case they really were human before that point (and as embryology has now shown us, they are human from fertilization).

"and, while abortion is a response to problem pregnancies incurred by the female half of the human population, says not a word about women, women’s rights of conscience, women’s religious freedom, or women’s health."

I can't speak to the book here, but abortion is not a solution to problem pregnancies. Yes, many women (not all) use abortion to get rid of the pregnancy, but they are in the wrong to do so.

"Nor does the evangelical author discuss the Bible, which does not condemn abortion and actually tends to support the view that personhood begins at birth (see Genesis 1:27 and 2:7)"

This is false. Adam was created outside the womb, so of course God needed him to breathe oxygen through his lungs to survive. The unborn still breathe in the womb, but they breathe through the umbilical cord. It is the way they breathe, not the reality of it, that changes at birth.

"or modern science, which is clear that the functions of personhood are not possible until brain development permits consciousness, sometime after 28-32 weeks of gestation."

Actually, you are confusing a philosophical claim for a scientific one. Embryologists consistently agree without significant controversy that human life begins at fertilization. It is a *philosophical*, not a *scientific* claim, that says consciousness is necessary for personhood. It's also a false claim, because one surely does not lose their personhood whenever they cease to be conscious (e.g. when they fall asleep, enter a reversible coma, or go under general anesthesia before surgery).