I wish it didn’t need repeating (but we’ll repeat it until it doesn’t): human life begins at conception.
(via Matthew Warner)
More at abort73.com…
One of the most influence pro-life essays I’ve read was in grade 12 philosophy class, an essay titled Is every human being a person? by Patrick Lee (IIRC).
So, when I see Patrick Lee’s name as one of the authors of this article, I know it’s worth reading.
For people who advocate the killing of embryonic human beings in the cause of biomedical research, the Holy Grail is an argument that would definitively establish that the human embryo, at least early in its development, is not a living human organism and therefore not a human being at all. The problem for these advocates is that all the scientific evidence points in precisely the opposite direction. Modern human embryology and developmental biology have shown that fertilization produces a new and distinct organism: a living individual of the human species in the embryonic stage of his or her development.
Some proponents of embryo-destructive research are willing to face up to these biological facts. They concede that human embryos are living individuals of the human species, but deny that this gives them the moral status of being persons… There is much to be said against this position, but its defects are philosophical, not scientific. Its proponents recognize that there is no Holy Grail out there to find, and they are willing to defend the killing of human embryos while facing up to the biological facts.
Sound familiar?
But then there are the Grail searchers. These people are determined to prove that what modern human embryology has been telling us is wrong, and to this end they scavenge the fields of molecular biology and human genetics.
It’s a worthwhile read, if you have the patience for a thorough debunking of arguments from those who’d like to rewrite biology textbooks to justify abortion (rather than be honest about things).
Matthew Warner has a great post over at FallibleBlogma.com outlining the scientific basis of the origin of life. Quite frankly, it’s disappointing that it needs repeating, but some people just don’t want to believe it.
“It’s just a clump of cells.” Mmm… yes, as we all are. But, that there’s a unique human life, a new organism, from the moment of conception is not a matter of debate for any man or woman of science.
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
Then, this is where the twist usually comes.
At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.
How often do pro-choicers change the topic mid-debate? It’s important to separate the science from the philosophy. Scientifically speaking, there is no distinction between a human being and a human person.
It’s sad that this needs repeating, but Matthew does a great job of repeating it.
Found this great video via Lisa Correnti:
Dr. Patrick Lee, who holds the John N. and Jamie D. McAleer Chair of Bioethics at Franciscan University of Steubenville, appeared on “The World Over” with Raymond Arroyo on April 24, 2009. They discussed the moral implications of the new federal guidelines from the National Institutes for Health that govern embryonic stem cell research.
This sounds like the same Dr. Patrick Lee I read in high school philosophy (an essay entitled, “Is Every Human Being A Person?”). Unfortunately, the video isn’t embeddable so you’ll have to go here to see it.
Strong words from Monsignor David Malloy, general secretary of the U.S. episcopal conference:
The priest recalled the conclusion of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission appointed by President Bill Clinton, that “because human embryos deserve ‘respect’ as a form of human life, destroying them for stem cells is ‘justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing the research.’”
He went on to note that alternatives are not only available, but have been found to offer the only effective promise for stem cell cures.
Then, responding to Obama’s comments on the issue:
“As [President Obama] noted,” Monsignor Malloy said, “we must not make ‘a false choice between sound science and moral values.’ In fact, these sources of guidance both point in the same direction, away from destructive embryonic stem cell research. His executive order and these guidelines nonetheless insist on a course of action that is both morally objectionable and, increasingly, scientifically obsolete.”
Malloy is obviously alluding to adult stem cells — you know, the ones that don’t involve killing human beings to harvest?
From the CBC: Scientists find potential way to create safer stem cells from skin…
Pluripotent stem cells could offer the treatment potential of embryonic stem cells without destroying a human embryo.
Why must we insist on destroying embryos again?
Peter Steinfels has a good article in the New York Times on the moral issues of the embryonic stem cell research debate, in light of Obama’s announcement to extend funding for embryonic stem cell research. He doesn’t make any moral arguments so much as ask that question that people like, well, Obama, seem too afraid to ask.
On Obama’s unwillingness to actually engage the moral issues:
He acknowledged that “thoughtful and decent people” opposed this research, and he claimed to “understand their concerns.” His own view was that “with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.”
What were those “concerns” that Mr. Obama understood or those “perils” that he would avoid? The president did not say. So one could object that his moral argument stopped in mid-air. How can one evaluate what he called “a difficult and delicate balance” when it is not clear exactly what is being balanced?
And, in the same speech, President Obama is talking about separating science from ideology. Maybe it’s just me, but calling “thoughtful and decent people” ideologues is not exactly a great demonstration that he “understands their concerns.”
On the science side, Steinfels doesn’t really mention the fact that adult stem cells have brought about many cures and treatments, but he does explain how the promise of embryonic stem cells has been greatly exaggerated:
Not long after the death of former President Ronald Reagan, his younger son, Ron, told delegates at the 2004 Democratic convention to imagine “your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital.”
“Sound like magic?” Mr. Reagan said. “Welcome to the future of medicine.”
Scientists who knew better kept quiet.
“People need a fairy tale,” Ronald D. G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained to The Washington Post in 2004.
The part that gripped me most though was the surprisingly appropriate comparison to the war on terror:
“Proponents of embryo research are insisting that because we’re in a life-and-death struggle — in this case, a scientific struggle — anyone who impedes that struggle by renouncing effective tools is irrational and irresponsible,” Mr. Saletan wrote. “The war on disease is like the war on terror. Either you’re with science or you’re against it.”
It’s hard to ask the tough moral questions when former presidents believe that embryos are not fertilized and current presidents merely hand wave at having any sort of meaningful discussion about ethics. But ask them, we must.
What are the “perils” that Obama alludes to? The with-us-or-against-us war-on-terror style attitude is not going to provide answers.
Researchers in Japan have managed to repair hearts in rats using human menstrual blood. The healing cells in question are not stem cells, but they can function very much like them, and with an alleged success rate 100 times higher than stem cells from human bone marrow. Read the fully story here.
Looks like we have another more successful (and less ethically questionable) alternative to embryonic stem cells!
A few quick links…
Non-embryonic sources of stem cells continue to show more and more promise without the ethical concerns. The huge development is in the second link, where the functionality of embryonic stem cells has been achieved without having to destroy embryos!
Now here’s a scary thought – sex selection tests used for selective abortion in Canada. But of course, if you want to cook a frog, you put him in warm water first… This sort of thing is easy for people to accept if they’ve already accepted the idea of abortion-on-demand in general. If elective abortion is permissible, then what’s wrong with opting to perform the procedure for the purposes of sex selection? I find that most people who want to support elective abortion are not willing to support many natural extensions of the idea.
In other news, science fiction ideas are being put into practice in the UK, where human-animal chimeras could be created within months.
I guess almost anything goes when society loses sight of the dignity of the human person and the value of human life.
Blaise Alleyne
Clarissa Luluquisin