Ensoulment at Fertilization

Ensoulment at Fertilization
Shoemaker stated that the ensoulment concept that humans come into existence through fertilization contains a variety of problems and cannot even be articulately held by religious people. Shoemaker had a perception that religious-based opinions should not be presented in public policy debates, particularly views that are controversial such as the definition of a soul. He stated that citizens ought to appeal solely to the broadly shared values of public reason. The soul is a factor that ensures that the body parts of a human being are unified into one living body.
The problems identified to be challenging the theory of ensoulment in the process of fertilization are monozygotic twinning and totipotency ability of the human embryonic cells’ for approximately sixteen days of development after fertilization (Shoemaker, p.14). This paper discusses the problems posed by these capacities to the theologians’ notion of ensoulment during fertilization. The paper will entail an assumption that souls are construed through Hylomorphism supported by Thomist . The paper will then present an argument why theologians should embrace later ensoulment.
The answers to questions pertaining to ensoulment are varied, ranging from views of a rational soul attained as a human being grows, to the belief of the soul’s pre-existence and the soul’s reincarnation . Ensoulment is defined as the creation of the soul in a human being or any other creature . Ensoulment is often discussed in reference to stem cell projects, and abortion as many theologians contemplate the presence of the souls as the reason infanticide, murder, and abortion are equally immoral (Shoemaker, p.24). Globally , four possibilities have been raised to explain the time in which a human attains a rational soul. One possibility raised is that a soul may be acquired at conception. Another possibility is that ensoulment may occur at a time between birth and fertilization. Another argument is that ensoulment attained at birth while others maintain that ensoulment occurs later after birth.
Cell potency is described as being restricted to the development of an embryo. In the instances of the growing humanoid embryo, embryonic cells are claimed to be totipotent for about four days past the conception date. If provided with the appropriate environment, each cell possesses the unicellular zygote-like ability to develop into a human (Koch, Rose, p.32). However, at around four days after fertilization, the developing embryo is restricted and becomes pluripotent implying that they could develop into numerous types of cells, however, not all, as they cannot develop into a zygote . At this period, towards the end of the third developmental week, one embryo may separate into two or several embryos that are different but genetically identical .
The human embryo has the ability to separate into two or more identical parts either artificially (as in clumps of cells or in the removal of cells that are totipotent) or naturally (as in monozygotic twinning). This explanation is considered, as a sufficient basis for claiming that no human existed during the period and time interval that it is possible for twinning to occur .
Shoemaker defined a soul as an individual and immaterial substance . After exploring in the manner in which his assumptions may be wrong , he concluded that the soul is and must be a link to a physical substance. Shoemaker explored the probability of fusion and fission concerning embryology. The embryo’s split into two parts approximately between the second day after fertilization and the fourteenth day raises problems for individuals and theologians that believe that ensoulment begins at fertilization .
The main issue arises when trying to determine whether two souls reside in a single embryo before the split for some time or whether one sole is added later after the first is acquired. Such contemplations challenge the theologians’ soul theory. A further complication of the matter is Shoemaker’s discussion in respect to embryo fusion (Koch, Rose, p.42). The embryos fuse from two distinct embryos to form a healthy embryo capable of growing and developing into a normal and healthy adult. This situation further creates more problems to the theologian’s ensoulment theory at conception.
Thomistic Hylomorphism stipulates that there exist a material body and an immaterial soul, but the soul is not entirely stuck to the body. Shoemaker was aware of the Thomistic view that the physical body is very necessary (Shoemaker, p.44). Thomas Aquinas argues that humans do not exist until approximately forty for males and ninety days for females after fertilization. He stated that prior to this attainment; the body that exists is not an appropriate repository for the human nature and is animated by a progression of souls until the body is correctly organized. By this argument, Thomistic Hylomorphism maintains that ensoulment is delayed for some time and not attained during fertilization.
Based on Aquinas’ hylomorphic metaphysics, the soul (the substantial nature ) of an animal lacks the special capabilities of the human soul. He explains that the human being’s soul is exceptional in that the soul is a subsistent substance whose well-being is not contained in its unification with the physical body . Though the sole originates from its unification with the physical body, it is capable of existing solely without matter. The independence of the soul from a matter is based on the functions of nature on the soul. Aquinas maintained that activities of a rational soul including will and intellect were not restrained to any section of the body. Based on these provisions, Aquinas argued that a rational soul requires supernatural origins, such as the infusion of the soul into a matter by God . This is due to the perception that a form that has an independent operation from matter cannot be developed from physical matter (Shoemaker, p.56). Fusion and embryonic fission pose numerous challenges to the to the ensoulment version provided by Thomas Aquinas. When two embryos fuse, no physical body is left behind to be occupied by the soul that previously occupied the fertilized cells. The main question raised here is what happens to such a soul? Thomas Aquinas maintained that the soul did not resemble nor was it identical a human being. He argued that a wholesome human being was a complex of matter and form, particularly prime matter. Thomas mentioned that if form and matter were to be separated from the body they could retain some qualities of the man . Nonetheless, they are not identical to the person involved. Therefore, according to him, a dead body is not potentially and not a human being.
The theologians should embrace the later ensoulment theory because Shoemaker provides more reasonable objections to the notion that ensoulment occurs at conception. The major evidence that Shoemaker mentioned in his objection of ensoulment at conception is his nonchalant argument of the fact that numerous fertilized embryos do not implant (Shoemaker, p.68). The fertilized embryos that fail to implant are then consequently flushed from the body during the process of menstruation often before the mother realizes that she is pregnant . Therefore, if theologians acknowledge that ensoulment occurs after the fourteenth day when the embryos can separate into two, or after implantation takes place, their argument would be a reasonable one. However, if the theologians maintain thea viewpoint, that ensoulment is attained conception , based on the above argument by Shoemaker; , then the theologians would be making God a harsh murderer (Koch, Rose, p.64). This is because such action of flushing through the process of fertilization would be arbitrarily removing innocent souls and hindering their existence by condemning them to hell. This would be at the expense of other s that remain before they have earned any merit to earn their existence.
In conclusion, though theologians may differ in their points of view , this paper has attempted to account for each of the explanations raised by the theologians, Shoemaker, and Thomas Aquinas . The arguments acknowledge ensoulment at a later time after fertilization by giving the explanations of fusion, twinning, and fission. Despite these theories, much need to be studied to give a clear understanding of the ensoulment process by considering the theologians’, philosophers’, and scientists’ explanations and understanding of the process of ensoulment. Enough proof has to gather to define the specific date at which ensoulment is attained to avoid speculating whether the fetus and the embryo are human beings or not.

WORKS CITED
Koch, Rose Joanna. A Hylomorphic Account of the Origin of the Human Being at Fertilization. 2005. Print.
Shoemaker, W. David. “Embryos, Souls and the Forth Dimension.” Social Theory and Practice. 2005. Print .