![]() In other words, radical disorganization (absence of coordinated interaction of parts) in an OAR-generated entity leads reasonably and with certitude to the conclusion that this entity is not and was not in its original constitution an embryo, but only a tumor. Again, agere sequitur esse” (706 emphasis added). Austriaco invokes this axiom as the foundation for the central claim of the OAR proposal: “we can reasonably and with certitude conclude that an OAR-generated entity that becomes a tumor is ontologically different from an embryo, because its different organization and behavior shows that it has a different nature. ![]() An examination of Austriaco’s criticism will help clarify further the fundamental question raised by ANT-OAR: what properly defines an organism (embryo), and by what criteria do we distinguish an organism from a non-organism? Of crucial significance here is the Aristotelian-Thomistic axiom, agere sequitur esse, and indeed the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of substance (hylomorphism). Christian Brugger in the present number of Communio. "Austriaco defines being not by what it is, but by what is its first (ontological) effect."įather Nicanor Austriaco concludes his article, “Are Teratomas Embryos or Non-Embryos? A Criterion for Oocyte-Assisted Reprogramming,” 1 with a strong criticism of “A Response to the Joint Statement, ‘Production of Pluripotent Stem Cells by Oocyte Assisted Reprogramming’” 2 for reasons similar to those advanced by E. Winter 2005 Agere sequitur esse: What Does It Mean? A Reply to Father Austriaco
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |