Embryos More Than "Potential" Human Beings
Apparently the Wall Street Journal editorialized that embryos are not yet human beings, that is, the are only potential human life. I didn't see the editorial. But I did see this excellent letter to the editor, published in response. I don't know who James J. Johanik of Chicago is, but he sure nailed it:
"Human, All Too Human
Letters to the Editor, Wall Street Journal
August 5, 2006
In your July 22 editorial 'Splitting Stem Cells,' you say that embryos 'have the potential to be--but are not yet--human beings.' You then go on to defend your statement by citing this opinion as the so-called 'dominant view' of the public. Your opinion and its defense is politically correct but falls short; it is an argument many on the left will gladly accept today and build on in future attempts to erode the moral fiber of this nation for the sake of personal convenience.
"You see, no matter how you cut it, being alive and being human are binary functions; you either are or you are not 'alive,' and if alive, you either are or you are not 'human.' Ask scientists what constitutes life and from them you will deduce that an embryo used for stem-cell research--effectively a fetus outside the womb--is distinguishable from inorganic material, has the all the necessary building blocks for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and by definition is deemed to be 'alive.'
"The next question we must ask is whether we are dealing with life in the general sense or specifically a human life. To be 'human' means to have the unique characteristics of the Homo genus. At any point along the continuum of human development, from zygote to adult, the characteristics of all stages of such development are undeniably and uniquely Homos, or human; just in the same manner the development of a dog is uniquely Canis and the bird Aves. At the moment of conception, in or out of the womb, two living human-derived cells unite to form a living human zygote, with gender determined and all the necessary building blocks for development into infant, adolescent and adult human life present. This zygote does not have the ability to become anything other than a human.
"Look at the issue from another angle. If such life is not human at the point of conception, at exactly what point in time do we determine when human life begins? Even if you were to hone in on a specific period of human development, there are an infinitesimal number points along the continuum by which you will have to make a determination as to when it is and when it is not 'human.' This leaves much in the hands of relativism and is a slippery slope. What may conveniently work today will at some point in the future be challenged if and when another medical or economic convenience necessitates such a review.
James J. Johanik
Chicago"
I wish I was smart enough to write that.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:41 PM
14 Comments
14 Comments:
A zygote, fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus is one thing (and I don't believe it is a "person," either, whose "rights" supercede the woman whose rights are being overriden if one is referring to outlawing abortion), but somebody who is already born IS a person, no matter how much you want to pretend a profoundly disabled person is not.
It's sick and crass to advocate medical killing of the disabled just because that person is taking up a hospital bed. That's absolutely sick.
Winston Jen: You continue to demonstrate why eugenics and euthansia are joined at the hip.
Of course a human embryo in the womb is human life. But the question is, should human life at this stage of development be ascribed significant moral standing? James J. Johanik's letter does nothing to answer this question.
Welcome, Aeolus: You are correct. But the first step in our ability to come to a conclusion about moral status is to state the proper scientific facts about the biological nature of the entity. Often, pro cloning or ESCR types try to short circuit this crucial first step by claiming, erroneously, that an early embryo is not a human life, but that it is mere cells or smaller than a period, or isn't human because it doesn't have arms and legs.
But embryology text books state, accurately, that a new human life comes into existence upon the completion of fertilization. Thus, we have to accept that point, and then turn to the question about whether the human life in question has moral status, and if not, why not, and then, when does moral status attach, etc.
I believe the point of the letter was to establish the first point, not end the discussion.
Aeolus: "Of course a human embryo in the womb is human life. But the question is, should human life at this stage of development be ascribed significant moral standing? James J. Johanik's letter does nothing to answer this question."
The real problem here is one of definitions. I suspect that when the editorial refers to "human being," it really means "person" rather than "member of Homo sapiens." Johanik assumes in contrast that the editorial is attempting to erect a *biological* divide between already-born humans and embryonic humans. He's not necessarily mistaken in doing that, though, because some people do indeed act as if there is a biological distinction. Clearly, there isn't -- all of us here were embryos at one time, after all.
But Johanik does actually answer Aeolus' question, at least implicitly. It does have "significant moral standing" since he obviously considers "personhood" to be an inherent quality of any human being, rather than one that must be earned.
Winston: "No, the moment when a fetus develops consciousness at the end of the 2nd trimester is a good point to determine when it becomes a "person"."
You keep referring to this as if it's a bright, distinct, unquestionable dividing line, but as I've said before it's not. Is consciousness simply awareness? Is it mind -- whatever that is? Is it any sort of brain tissue function, or is it only higher forms of brain activity? Can a consciousness disappear and then return later? These questions are constantly debated in neurology and cognitive science, and there is not much consensus. Draw the line at the "end" (whenever exactly that is!) of the second trimester if you'd like, but don't pretend doing so eliminates the problem Johanik points out.
Winston: "So would you sacrifice your life for someone like Terri Schiavo? Someone whose brain only performed autonomous functions according to the autopsy?"
You seem to assume that the opposition to euthanizing Schiavo rests solely on her medical condition. That may be true for some, but you are ignoring the issue of consent (strangely, since you emphasize it so much otherwise). One argument against euthanizing her is that it was not clear what her wishes were in such a situation, and in that case, society was required to err on the side of caution rather than take action based on what someone else assumed she wanted.
Think of the situation where an unborn person (a "pre-person") needs surgery - as has happened several times in recent history.
How can you justify the surgery? Wasting resources on a non-person?
It only makes sense when you accept the humanness of the "pre-person".
"We don't have funerals for every miscarraige, do we?"
Irrelevant. We could decide, as a society, to stop holding funerals for anyone under five years of age. That would be our decision, but it wouldn't negate the personhood of the three-year-old girl who was hit by a car.
Ever see the movie NELL? Jodie Foster portrayed a woman who lived her whole life in the woods. Didn't pay taxes, had no social security number, and if she were to die there would be no funeral. So does that mean she's not a human being?
The government does not dictate biology. The only mistake these letter-writers ever make is by using the euphemism "human life" when they should use the more accurate term "human being," because we know from basic science that this is who a human embryo is.
"We don't have funerals for every miscarraige, do we?"
Irrelevant. What if we decided that it were simply too morbid to have a funeral for anyone younger than five years old? Would that mean that the three-year-old girl hit by a car isn't actually a human being?
Or: consider the movie, NELL. Jodie Foster portrayed a woman who lives her whole life in the wild. She has no social security number, she pays no taxes, she's not in any U.S. census, and if she were to die, there would be no obituary or official "funeral" (especially if she's still living alone). So...does that mean she's not a human being? Funerals are cultural events; they do not dictate biology.
"One argument against euthanizing her is that it was not clear what her wishes were in such a situation, and in that case, society was required to err on the side of caution rather than take action based on what someone else assumed she wanted."
This is precisely my argument. It doesn't matter if the autopsy suggested she'd "never be herself again" (despite the smug claims by those who still don't understand the issue that this was the central question). Too many people figured that THEY wouldn't want to go on living in that condition and then made the leap that no one ELSE would, either.
"We don't have funerals for every miscarraige, do we?"
We should.
My wife miscarried our third child a few years ago, about 10 weeks into the pregnancy. After the D&C there was no "body" to hold a formal funeral for, just some bits of unidentifiable tissue. Still, we named her Rachel, had a Mass said for her, purchased a small wooden box from a craft store, and gathered her remains. She is now buried in the same family plot as a prominent local pro-life activist.
Recently, my wife was praying with friends, and one of them had a curious urge to tell her, "Rachel's OK." It made no sense to my wife's friend, but she said it anyway... and cue the tears.
No platitudes, please. Rachel was (and is) a real person. Believe it.
"Many pregnancies end in a miscarraige, and not all fertilized eggs successfully implant."
In other words: they die of natural causes, as most of us will someday. According to your reasoning, that means WE aren't human beings, either, and that we should be permitted to kill one another.
"Irrelevant. The people in your examples have already been born and already have a conscious mind."
I was addressing the argument that embryos aren't human beings because we don't always hold funerals when they die, or sometimes aren't even aware when they die. Funerals are for the living; they don't determine who is and who is not a person.
If there were a fire, and there were someone in a hopeless coma in danger, I certainly would risk my life to try to save that person.
I am a human being, and therefore I recognize the dignity of other human beings even if they are helpless. Especially if they are helpless. To do otherwise is foolish as well as wrong. It would be telling anyone who comes down the pike that they have the right to kill me whenever I should happen to be at their mercy.
Personally, I would rather have to die trying to save someone than be killed. I'm fairly sure this is true for most of us. Therefore, I do not support euthanasia or abortion.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home