Julia Sandoval
ENG CMP 0200
Option #1
February 3, 2009
A Fraction of a Soul?
One of the most interesting subjects Lee M. Silver discusses in his book, Challenging Nature , is the prospect about to what extent conjoined twins are recognized in society as separate persons, or simply parasites to a fully human host. The matter is difficult, considering how sporadically society must deal with such an issue, but nevertheless it must be determined. In some cases the extra mass attached to the host is in fact a fully formed, intelligent being. Yet in others it can be as insignificant as a mass of body tissue, donning some random pieces of human structure, like teeth or hair or nails, found attached the other twin, or even inside, as is the case for a fetus-in-fetu, or a teratoma. The word “conjoin” means simply to join-with. This is strange because there is at no point a joining of embryos. The embryo splits. Either way, the prospect of whether or not these entities have “souls” is both ethically and morally confusing. In cases to determine if it does, it is necessary to realize if the conjoined body has the function of reason and intelligence or not.
When the process of conjoined twins begin, the embryo slightly splits in one place; if it were to fully sever, the result would be in twins; if there are two severs, triplets, etc. This split usually occurs within the first two weeks of maturation of the embryo. According to Silver’s interpretation of the Jewish Religion, the point at which a body receives its soul is at the first breath of life (Silver 10). This would mean then, that during the time at which this particular embryo splits, it is not endowed with a soul yet. The point at which it receives its soul is only at the first breath of life. Yet, ironically, it is in keeping with the Jewish belief that abortion is an option within the time that the fetus is inside the mother’s womb; but the interesting part is after the birth. What would be done if the child is in fact conjoined, but with a nonfunctioning parasitic host? Is it morally and ethically alright to kill this body? If it were apparent before the birth, there is no doubt that in the Jewish religion it would be reasonable to abort the child(ren). Yet in the aftermath, does the same right hold? Perhaps if the nonfunctioning being was never able to breathe its first breath, for the only factor that would determine its possession of a soul would be this one moment in life.
When confronted with the news that she would be birthing conjoined twins, one devout Roman Catholic woman decided, without hesitation, that it would be completely against her religion to abort the fetuses. She went on with the pregnancy and gave birth. However and unfortunately, these conjoined twins were not the same; Gracie was fully functioning, but her attached sister, Rosie, had a body whose lungs and heart collapsed within a short time after having been born. She was then, at that point, considered a human, yet due to her reliability on her sister’s cardiovascular system, posed an enormous threat on both of their lives. This was the point at which she must be considered a parasitic host. The operation, contrary to the mother’s wishes yet crucial to the survival of Gracie, went on as recommended and resulted in the death of Rosie and a fully normal life for Gracie (Silver 160).
But what, exactly, is a “parasite?” Any biologist will tell you that a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host (Dictionary.com). Yet, the tricky aspect concerning whether or not these supposed human beings can ever be attributed to this word, which is usually associated with tapeworms and leeches, lies in their capabilities. If the “lesser” conjoined twin definitely poses a threat to the healthier, and cannot function as a normal being should, the twin is usually considered a “tumor” and is, for lack of a better word, removed. It is contrary to the belief about human existence to even suggest that a fully fledged, living human being of no matter what living capacity should be associated with and determined a “parasite.”
Most people who are uniformed about the facts of conjoined twins, would probably be quick to assume that the easiest way to determine if the parasitic entity is capable of human thought would be to consider if it has a head or not. However, this head might not be fully developed and might not have a brain. Furthermore, this head might be attached to an otherwise normal human, and be just a parasitic mass that causes more difficulties to the cardiovascular system of the more conscious part of the conjoined pair. The soul is something that makes humans different from animals. It endows personality, spirit, upon its body. The soul is indistinguishable and cannot be recognized other than through the emotions and reasoning of its host. If the nonfunctioning conjoined twin is considered a parasite and cannot defend or control itself, it is no more than what can be considered an animal and therefore, it is not worthy of the same rights a fully functioning human being is.
Works Cited
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
in the last paragraph i meant uninformed.
After reading your paper several times and comparing it to the first one, I am beginning to see the strengths and weaknesses of your writing. Once again, your work is technically sound, yet at the end I want significantly more of your ideas with significantly less summarization. Assume the reader is reasonably familiar with the text.
Now on to the content. You indicated that you selected the first prompt, which said something along the lines of "take a passage that contradicts religious belief and describe its effect." I can see that you wanted to incorporate Silver's ideas about the soul, but I think there was a point when focus was lost. The product has very little to do with religion at all, and all, if any, correlation between the conjoined twins/soul argument and future effects is implicit.
I would personally take a stronger portion of this paper and expand it. The section in which you said "[...] in the Jewish religion it would be reasonable to abort the child(ren). Yet in the aftermath, does the same right hold? Perhaps if the nonfunctioning being was never able to breathe its first breath, for the only factor that would determine its possession of a soul would be this one moment in life" could be the foundation of an interesting paper. An example of when science would be arguably more "pro-life" than religious doctrine. Additionally science would be directly contradicting religion and it would be much more feasible to describe any future effects. Hope this helped. Good luck!
Thanks, your feedback helped hopefully my paper is clearer the second time around.
Julia Sandoval
ENG CMP 0200
Option #1
February 3, 2009
A Fraction of a Soul?
One of the most interesting subjects Lee M. Silver discusses in his book, Challenging Nature , is the prospect about to what extent conjoined twins are recognized in society as separate persons, with a soul, or simply soulless parasites to a fully human host. The matter is difficult, considering how sporadically society must deal with such an issue, but nevertheless it must be determined. In some cases the extra mass attached to the host is in fact a fully formed, intelligent being. Yet in others it can be as insignificant as a tumor, donning some random pieces of human structure, like teeth or hair or nails, found attached the other twin, or even inside, as is the case for a fetus-in-fetu, or a teratoma. Either way, the prospect of whether or not these entities have “souls” is both ethically and morally confusing. In cases to determine if it does, it is necessary to realize if the conjoined body has the function of reason and intelligence or not.
Most people who are uninformed about the facts of conjoined twins would probably be quick to assume that the easiest way to determine if the parasitic entity is capable of human thought would be to consider whether it has a head or not. However, this head might not be fully developed and might not have a brain. Furthermore, this head might be attached to an otherwise normal human, and be just a parasitic mass that causes more difficulties to the cardiovascular system of the more conscious part of the conjoined pair. If a “being’s” sole purpose in life is to be a nuisance to its twin, what good does that do? During the existence of mankind people have pondered the questions as to why this, “God, the greater power, supreme being,” would bestow upon its own creation such things as disease, bad luck, and overall hardships. Why would he create a being that does nothing other than to endanger and sometimes prevent the life of its own flesh and blood? This individual, therefore, must not have been meant to live. It is hard to wrap one’s head around the notion that a being was not meant to live, but if its only means of survival is to take away from another’s, it was not fit to survive in the first place.
The word “to conjoin” means simply to join-with. This is strange because there is at no point a joining of embryos. When the process of becoming conjoined twins begins, the embryo slightly splits in one place; if it were to fully sever, the result would be in twins; if there are two severs triplets, etc. This split usually occurs within the first two weeks of maturation of the embryo. Catholics believe that a soul is provided upon conception. But what would they say in this situation? The point of conception for the conjoined part of the embryo simply does not exist. This “conception” that would occur would have to have had occurred after two weeks. This is unnatural and cannot be associated in the same sense as conception.
This Jewish belief about when one acquires his or her soul is based on the passage Genesis in the Bible. However, the same passage in the Bible directs the Catholics’ teachings of the same subject. Catholics believe that one requires the soul upon conception; referring to the point at which Jesus was conceived in Mary’s body and when she was informed of this occurrence immediately by the angel Gabriel.
According to Silver’s interpretation of the Jewish Religion, the point at which a body receives its soul is at the first breath of life (Silver 10). This would mean then, that during the time at which this particular embryo splits, it is not endowed with a soul yet. The point at which it receives its soul is only at the first breath of life. Yet, ironically, it is in keeping with the Jewish belief that abortion is an option within the time that the fetus is inside the mother’s womb; but the interesting part is after the birth. What would be done if the child is in fact conjoined, but with a nonfunctioning parasitic host? Is it morally and ethically alright to kill this body? If it were apparent before the birth, there is no doubt that in the Jewish religion it would be reasonable to abort the child(ren). Yet in the aftermath, does the same right hold? Perhaps if the nonfunctioning being was never able to breathe its first breath, for the only factor that would determine its possession of a soul would be this one moment in life. So technically, by conjoining the two beliefs of the Catholic and Jewish religions, they are reciprocals concerning their perceptions about souls and conjoined twins. If a Catholic embryo (already endowed with a soul) becomes a set of conjoined twins, this second piece of human would not have the soul endowed upon itself during conception. Hence, the soul does not exist for this being and despite their views on abortion, does not technically have the right to live. The Jewish belief, however, deems it plausible that if this extra mass can in fact breathe after being born, no matter how immaterial the being is, it would be wrong in their eyes to abort or amputate the mass. So it is ironic that the Catholic church, being completely against abortion, would be more inclined to terminate the conjoined twin before those of the Jewish religion, even though they have no prohibitions about abortion before the birth.
One devout Roman Catholic woman decided, without hesitation, that it would be completely against her religion to abort the fetuses of her conjoined twins. However and unfortunately, these conjoined twins were not the same; Gracie was fully functioning, but her attached sister, Rosie, had a body whose lungs and heart collapsed within a short time after having been born. She was then, at that point, considered a human, yet due to her reliability on her sister’s cardiovascular system, posed an enormous threat on both of their lives. This was the point at which she must be considered a parasitic host. The operation, contrary to the mother’s wishes yet crucial to the survival of Gracie, went on as recommended and resulted in the death of Rosie and a fully normal life for Gracie (Silver 160).
But what, exactly, is a “parasite?” Any biologist will tell you that a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host (Dictionary.com). Yet, the tricky aspect concerning whether or not these supposed human beings can ever be attributed to this word, which is usually associated with tapeworms and leeches, lies in their capabilities. These lower life forms do not have a soul, according to both Catholic and Jewish religions. If the “lesser” conjoined twin definitely poses a threat to the healthier, and cannot function as a normal being should, the twin is usually considered somewhat of a “tumor” and is, for lack of a better word, removed. It is contrary to the belief about human existence to even suggest that a fully fledged, living human being of no matter what living capacity should be associated with and determined a “parasite.”
The soul is something that makes humans different from animals. It endows personality, spirit, upon its body. The soul is indistinguishable and cannot be recognized other than through the emotions and reasoning of its host. If the nonfunctioning conjoined twin is considered a parasite and cannot defend or control itself, it is no more than what can be considered an animal and therefore, it is not worthy of the same rights a fully functioning human being is.
Works Cited
Silver, Lee. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality.
New York: HarperCollins, 2007.
Chris - You did some good work - this isn't as long as what some people are doing, but it's more focused, with an actual agenda.
Julia - The most potentially interesting part of the paper is the ending. That's where you actually state, relatively clearly, what your own views are. Up until that point, the paper seems mostly like a fairly detailed summary of and response to Silver (one difficulty is that, without going back to the text, I had a lot of trouble deciding when you were summarizing Silver and when you were really adding in your own thoughts. Work on that). At the end, you are responding to everything you've explained, trying to define the soul and draw your own line in the sand based on that definition.
Good! Or, good in principle. The problem here, for me, is that these ideas don't proceed organically in any way that I can see from your explanation of Silver. Rather than starting out with a much briefer explanation of Silver (assuming more knowledge of the text), then explaining in detail why you understand the soul the way you do and why you draw the line where you draw it, we're left to simply guess where your ideas are coming from.
Your ideas are interesting, and your understanding of Silver seems good - what would have made it a cohesive essay, though, is to bridge those too. Given what you know of Silver, why and how do you take the position you take?
Post a Comment