Once again, a poster, SR, confronts us with the question of the nature of human embryos. Because they don't look right. Because they can't do enough.
There's no question that the embryos involved are human embryos. They were created purposefully and intentionally. Human gametes were used, without question. If human cloning is ever successful, then human nuclear material will be used. They are no more "use" to the researchers than the animal embryos that SR mentions, if we don't know whether they are human or not!
If not at fertilization (or generation, in the case of asexual reproduction), then when?
There is no other clear moment when we can say that this organism, this human being did not exist before, but there is this human being here, now.
The embryo is organized. He or she is an organism. His or her parents are human. He or she is a human. And he or she deserves the same protection from intentional, institutional killing orenslavement that the rest of us cherish and depend upon in order to have the time, technology and knowledge to carry out the very science that we are discussing.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
What are human embryos?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Unfortunatly, its not so clear. Your arguement contains a simple flaw - essentially, you argue that on a continum, one end must be identical to the other because if you pick any two close-together points on it, they are effectively indistinguishable. 'A is almost exactly identical to B, which is almost exactly identical to C, and so on through D to Z... therefor A and Z must be the same.' In this case, A is a baby (Which no reasonable person will deny is human) and Z is the freshly-fertalised embryo.
What we need to settle this is a definition of what it is about 'human' that grants the protected status. What is it that makes the killing of a human immoral, but the slaughter of a cow for its meat acceptable? Answering this question clearly rather than relying on it as a base assumption would be a step towards producing a generialised moral framework for dealing with issues such as this.
Whatever the answer, it cant be genetic - its clear, to me at least, that genes themselves are irrelivent. It is the functions they perform that matter. Perhaps some measure of brain functionality? The ability to form memories? Once that question is resolved, deciding at which point an embryo aquires that property is relatively simple.
My point in the earlier post is that whatever this mysterious property is, at that stage of development, it is not exclusively human. The human embryos posess nothing different from animal embryos except a large quantity of human genetic material awaiting the right time to start guiding further development.
Conversation with you is most enjoyable :)
I'm glad that you recognize the continuum of an individual's life.
As it says at the top of the page, we're the only species having this conversation.
If we ever run into another species that requires us to explain why we protect our children and each other more than we do cows and horses, I hope that I get a chance to point out that the countries and societies with the best lifespan, most leisure time, higher and more equal educational opportunities, innovation and even more stable economy are among the ones which afford those legal protections that prevent intentional killing to an ever wider spectrum of the species than those who limit that protection to gender, religion, or particular blood lines.
The very ability that you and I have to spend time talking like this is a benefit of protecting our right not to be killed.
Taxonomy works when it comes to endangered species. Crack the egg of a bird on the Endangered Species list and you'll find that it doesn't matter that the bird embryo or fetus can't survive outside the egg. You've still broken the Endangered Species Act.
As far as we know, we're the only ones who value justice, truth, beauty, and love. Robert Spitzer, author of Healing the Culture, points out that a four year old human has a concept of "That's not fair." (Even you do, as you try to make it fair to treat embryonic humans the same as embryonic cows and horses.) Dr. Spitzer also points out that no other species has the equivalent of a member who will die for art, who actually envisions the future and ways to change it.
Those of faith believe that we are created in the Creator's image and that we can't divide that image. But you don't need faith to understand that there is significance to the human species that's not found in others.
I think perhaps you are deliberately missing the point in denying the existence of the qualitative difference between an embryo and a baby.
Arguably a human embryo has more "value" than the embryo of an animal or even a mature animal, but I think that to suggest that it is equivalent to a full developed term baby is short sighted at best.
An embryo may have the potential to become a human, but it is not "human" in the way a baby, or child or adult is. The supposition that we should treat all organisms that are genetically Homo sapiens from a health care perspective the same way lacks pragmatic insight and is not grounded in reality. We do not, for example, treat someone at the end of their life the same as someone who is otherwise young and healthy - and nor should we at that.
Regards,
Michael Tam
vitualis' Medical Rants
Well said, Michael.
The ideals of art, sacrifice, compassion and debate make for a good speech, Life. But they are not particually usful in solving any real issues. They cant be measured or defined easily, and they fail one vital test - they dont apply to newborns, whose thinking abilities are extremally limited. Below those of many animals, I would estimate. The moral consequences of this problem are clear, and unacceptable. Yet so is an arbitary boundry. No, I think that is the wrong path...
Michael might be on the right track though. It does make an intuitative sense - if you wish to provide a way to measure a continuium, you use a continuous scale.
Here is one idea - uniqueness, or the capability thereof. That does sound like a good candidate. Individual human minds are unique (Purely physical things would be a bit superficial). They have their own memories, personalities and ways of thinking which are lost at death. Its continuous too - now we have embryos that do have some moral value. Zero at conception, and then increasing at a varying rate until some point after birth. Though by birth, already very high. And in general, the capability to express individualism shows a close correlation to how people might subjectively evaluate the relative right to exist.
Yet again, genetic individualism doesn't count. Though once the genes start producing an individual brain, that does.
Michael is also right to point out the flaws of the insta-baby school of thought. Its not at all realistic. Its not consistant. And it tends to close options off from consideration. Besides, it has undesireable negative impacts on the morality of IVF. Lots of embryos produced in excess there.
Post a Comment