Aquinas, Thomas. De Potentia Dei. (Genova, Italy: Marietti)

Feinberg, Joel. 1980 . Abortion. In Matters of Life and Death, ed. Tom Regan. New York: Random House.

Ford, Norman M. 1989. When Did I Begin?: Conception of the Human Individual in History, Philosophy and Science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Gregory R. and David Rasmussen. 2000. Rand on abortion: A critique. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 1, no. 2 (Spring): 245-61.

Sturtevant, 1996. F. M. Letter to the Editor. The Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1994, p. A11.

Taylor, Michael A. 1981. Human generation in the thought of Thomas Aquinas: A case study on the role of biological fact in theological science. S.T.D. diss., The Catholic University of America.

Wallace, William A. 1995. St. Thomas on the beginning and ending of human life. In Autori Vari. Sanctus Thomas de Aquino Doctor Hodiernae Humanitatis. Studi Tomistici 58. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Pp. 394-407. Reprinted at htttp://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/wallace3.htm.

[1] If one were to think that only Left wing ideologues invoke political correctness, this is a clear example of how those on the Right do so as well. Using “unborn child” emotionally loads the debate in ways that “fetus” does not – the colloquial usage leaves open whether fetuses are actual or potential human beings. (“Foetus” or “fetus” means “coming into being” in reference to animals and humans. See The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1039.) Of course, all sides to a controversy attempt to slant language to serve their goals. But it becomes political correctness when others are being pressured to accept this language, especially in the major media.

[2] I discuss the issue, including evidence for, of the initial diversity of American culture, pace Pat Buchanan and pals, in Tibor R. Machan, Classical Individualism (London: Routledge, 1998), Chapter 6, ” America’s Founding Principles and Multiculturalism.”

[3] Philosophers such as Tom Regan argue this, as does Peter Singer who defends a kind of liberation of animals on utilitarian grounds. Professors of law such as Steven Wise of Harvard join them, as do many celebrities and activists.

[4] St. Thomas discussed the process of human generation in four places: In 2 Sent., d.18, q.2, aa.1,3; Summa contra gentiles 2, cc. 86-89; De potentia Dei, q.3, aa.9-12; and ST 1a, q.118. See an analysis of this by Taylor 1981. For a paper that relates Thomas’s teaching to modern embryology, see Ford 1989, 19-64. See, also Wallace 1995. (I borrow Wallace’s reference to Aquinas’ discussion of quickening and such without having verified them.)

For one relevant passage, see Thomas Aquinas, De potentia Dei, q.3, a.12, which reads as follows: “Secundum quod Philosophus probat in XV De animalibus, semen non deciditur ab eo quod fuit actu pars, sed quod fuit superfluum ultimae digestionis; quod nondum erat ultima assimilatione assimilatum. Nulla autem corporis pars est actu per animam perfecta, nisi sit ultima assimilatione assimilata; unde semen ante decisionem nondum erat perfectum per animam, ita quod anima esset forma eius; erat tamen ibi aliqua virtus, secundum quam iam per actionem animae erat alteratum et deductum ad dispositionem propinquam ultimae assimilationi; unde et postquam decisum est, non est ibi anima, sed aliqua virtus animae” (quoted in Wallace, 407). In English, ” as the Philosopher proves in On Animals XV [=Of the Generation of Animals I, 18 and 19], seed is not separated from that of which it was actually a part, but from what was superfluous in what had been digested, which was not yet completely assimilated. No part of the body is actually perfected by soul unless it is completely assimilated, which is why semen prior to emission was not yet perfected by soul in such wise that soul would be its form, but there was in it some power thanks to which by the action of soul it was altered and led to a disposition close to ultimate assimilation, hence after emission there is not soul in it but rather some power [effect] of soul. [Trans. Ralph McInerny]”

[5] What contemporary Roman Catholics say is this: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.” Catechism of the Catholic Church (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1994), Par. 2270.

Now this claim is ambiguous for several reasons and begs the question, to boot. “Every innocent being” may mean all living beings capable of sinning but not having sinned, in fact; or it could include all living beings without sin, including animals other than human beings. However, there is another problem with this view as part of Roman Catholic doctrine: If at birth we are sinful – that is, are possessed of original sin – and need to be baptized so as to be cleansed of our original sin(s), then from conception until baptism we are not “innocent beings.”

A Roman Catholic says that “Abortion is wrong because it is an act that runs counter to natural, eternal, and divine law. That is, abortion is wrong for the same reason many sins are wrong. Abortion is murder, which Aquinas rules to be one of those sins that cannot be justified by any means or circumstances” (ibid.) and http://www.catholic-forum.com/luxveritatis/donumsanctum/abortion.htm. Aquinas cannot be interpreted as simply holding that all abortions are murder, granting though, as we must, that he did hold that murder is a sin of the highest order. Most pro-choice advocates agree with him and with pro-life advocates on that. The dispute centers around whether in early pregnancy the woman carries a human being or, instead, a human fetus (and, thus, only a potential human being).

[6] For a superb discussion of these matters, see Amartya Sen, Reason before Identity (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).