1

In this entry on my blog, I covered, what I think is the principle moral objection to your position:

When you equate people with zygotes, you are, in fact debasing human beings "by debasing Being itself," as R. D. Laing wrote (in the context of patie de foie gras, but the logic applies here). If a human being is defined solely as the "sperm + egg and all cellular subdivisions thereafter, with an abstract 'soul' stamped in for good measure" one is denying the value of human experience in defining humanity- one is objectifying humanity, and therefore debasing the nature of humanity by debasing the confluence of human experience and Being.

Indeed, it is the abstraction via strict equation of concrete, concious, living, flesh and blood people with the idea that anything with human DNA must be human and must be considered exactly the same as concrete, concious, living flesh and blood people is to basically engage in a lie.

There may be moral issues with abortion in some cases, and there may not be moral issues with abortion in some cases. Ditto for stem-cell research.

BTW, the title of this entry is, "Can Embryonic Stem Cell Research be Morally Acceptable?" and you go on and say, "In determining whether this development is consistent with Biblical ethics, however, we need not attempt to appeal directly to scripture. Instead, I suggest we rely on the application of scripture to “hard cases” that have previously been reviewed by evangelical theologians and bioethicists."

To many of us, relying on the opinion of an evangelical theologian might not give a morally acceptable answer- there are in some ways differences in morality between Christians and Buddhists, according to some interpretations of both traditions, and in at least some interpretations, it can be argued Buddhist ethics might be more ethical.

Why limit the

2

Weird. To return to Chesterson's metaphor, my initial impression of the procedure is that it's the equivalent of drawing a line around the playing field with chalk, stipulating that it's a fence, and returning to play. In other words, the premium is placed on making everyone feel ok at the expense of resolving the issue. Perhaps that's the only way to proceed, but it smells self-deceptive to me; that's my initial intuition, and I realize it isn't rigorously reconceptualized, but that'll take more thought (which is in short supply during law school finals).

Off-topic and ad hominem: I've always hated Catholic ethics. There are always odd and arbitrary lines being drawn, which are built up into beautiful, but arguably meaningless, systems. Kinda like spirographs.

Remember spirographs? They ruled.

3

I'm happy with any compromise which permits this potentially revolutionary research to recieve sorely needed funding.

Two minor quibbles:

This recognition that human life begins at conception has naturally led Hurlbut to reject the present techniques for acquiring embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Harvesting ESCs requires that human embryos must be “disaggregated and destroyed” violating the inherent dignity of humanity and removing the meaningful boundary that protects the inviolability of the individual.

Human development could be said in large part to begin at conception. Nevertheless a clump of a few dozen cells is not the physiological equivalent of human life in the context of what most folks mean when they say 'human.

Harvesting ESCs requires that human embryos must be “disaggregated and destroyed” violating the inherent dignity of humanity and removing the meaningful boundary that protects the inviolability of the individual.

This is simply wrong. Current In Vitro Techniques are the source of unused human blastocytes. not ESCR. They will be destroyed regardless if the material is used to produce ESCL's or not. The inability or unwillingness of those who object to ESCR on the grounds it would be the cause of blastocyte destruction to acknowledge this simple fact is both disturbing and injurious to their credibility. But certainly conveneient to their rhetoric.

4

Mumon,

When you equate people with zygotes, you are, in fact debasing human beings "by debasing Being itself," as R. D. Laing wrote (in the context of patie de foie gras, but the logic applies here).

From your comment I take it that you adhere to a California-style “Western Buddhism.” Traditional Buddhist ethics has generally considered the “transmigration of consciousness” to occur at conception. This means that any form of embryo destruction would incur the karmic burden of killing.

Indeed, it is the abstraction via strict equation of concrete, concious, living, flesh and blood people with the idea that anything with human DNA must be human and must be considered exactly the same as concrete, concious, living flesh and blood people is to basically engage in a lie.

I don’t think that any religious tradition considers “anything with human DNA” to be a human being. My hair contains DNA but that does not mean it is equal to a fetus.

To many of us, relying on the opinion of an evangelical theologian might not give a morally acceptable answer- there are in some ways differences in morality between Christians and Buddhists, according to some interpretations of both traditions, and in at least some interpretations, it can be argued Buddhist ethics might be more ethical.

No offense, but I get the sense you are a “cafeteria Buddhist” picking and choosing what appeals to your already established beliefs and rejecting the rest. I was under the impression that you were a Zen Buddhist but you don’t seem to agree with one of the basic ethical tenets: “I will be mindful and reverential with all life, I will not be violent nor will I kill.”

“If a person does not harm any living being…and does not kill or cause others to kill -that person is a true spiritual practitioner.”- The Dhammapada

But to further answer your question, I don’t believe that Buddhism is true so I have no reason to think that its ethics are higher or more ethical than those related to Christianity, which is true.

5

To many of us, relying on the opinion of an evangelical theologian might not give a morally acceptable answer

Certainly true, but missing the point a bit. Mssr. Carter's post is expressly oriented toward moral justification within Christianity.

6

DS: This is simply wrong. Current In Vitro Techniques are the source of unused human blastocytes. not ESCR.

I’m not sure what your trying to say. My statement was, “Harvesting ESCs requires that human embryos must be “disaggregated and destroyed.” That is a fact. It doesn’t matter where the source of the blastocytes came from.

They will be destroyed regardless if the material is used to produce ESCL's or not.

Not necessarily. But even if that were the case it wouldn’t change anything. Every human body will eventually die but we don’t go out and kill people in order to harvest their organs.

The inability or unwillingness of those who object to ESCR on the grounds it would be the cause of blastocyte destruction to acknowledge this simple fact is both disturbing and injurious to their credibility. But certainly conveneient to their rhetoric.

I think you need to check your facts. The process of harvesting ESC entails the destruction of the blastocyte. That’s never been in dispute.

JPE: Certainly true, but missing the point a bit. Mssr. Carter's post is expressly
oriented toward moral justification within Christianity.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that was a peculiar response. While I don't necessarily expect people to agree, I don't think they should be surprised that I approach issues from an evangelical perspective. Besides, if I start titling my post "Stem Cells: The Animist View" I think I'd lose a few readers.

7

Joe,

If Buddhists so clearly place the start of personhood at conception, isn't their position re abortion morally superior to Christian ethics, which has no explicit brightline? Or, to put the question differently, you have argued elsewhere that the people in the OT were somehow ignorant of human development, and this might justify their low regard for fetal life (as in the book of Numbers). Even if Buddhist ethics aren't "true" to you, you have to grant that Buddhists got the "right" answer first, even if starting from the "wrong" premises. Perhaps this is a historical example of the adage, "ignorance is no excuse."

8

Joe Carter:

Thanks for the reply. Permit me to educate you a bit about Buddhism:

From your comment I take it that you adhere to a California-style “Western Buddhism.”

Actually, it's a fairly conservative Rinzai Zen Buddhism, in the lineage of Soen Shaku.

Traditional Buddhist ethics has generally considered the “transmigration of consciousness” to occur at conception. This means that any form of embryo destruction would incur the karmic burden of killing.

Traditional Buddhist ethics has the notion of anatman.

Moreover, the Buddhist precepts are actually not the same thing functionally as the Christian commandments, as espoused by many Christians; nor is the Dhammapada read and understood in the manner in which inerrantist Christians would read the bible.

The precepts are guides for life, not strict, immutable rules to be followed slavishly. You own your adherence to the precepts.

The fact that one can cite words in the Dhammapada does not relieve one from the burden of acting or not acting in this world- it is no refuge. You must rely on yourself. Now in reliance on one's self, one finds that it is essential to follow the precepts, but when the precepts conflict, or when there are dilemmas, one must still be responsible.

Thus, there are cases, in which to cultivate compassion, wisdom and generosity, one must kill. There are cases in which it would be a violation of the precept against killing not to kill. As an example, denial of aggressive pain relief a terminally ill person (something favored by John Ashcroft and Henry Hyde - and I'm not talking about assisted suicide here, but rather their opposition to opiates) would be a violation of the first precept.

But to further answer your question, I don’t believe that Buddhism is true so I have no reason to think that its ethics are higher or more ethical than those related to Christianity, which is true.

This is a good subject for further discussion. But I should point out, it's not really a question of belief...

jpe

So it appears his post is oriented that way. But it does point to the larger question of why should one accept an arguably inferior Christian ethic?

9

What an excellent post, Joe; and I am sure they we are all anxious to read the follow-up. Certainly, in the realm of biotechnology, Christians should be cautious before they pronounce something as a moral abomination. It serves as a kind of stain on our ethical integrity, I think, every time we rush to judgment on an issue that, in the end, we approve. Great examples abound, but Eberhart Shockenhoeff has noted early Christian objections ot organ donation and street lamps. It seems there is a tendency among some Christians to oppose change as immoral when, in fact, it is morally neutral; and while I do not know the status of Saletan's (Slate article) religious affiliations, his objection to the new proposal before the council seems quite Christian and conservative: the Hurlbut approach seems creepy.

That said, this may be an issue where caution is warranted. The procedure Hurlbut describes does, indeed, seem more like a lab experiment than the development of an embryo; but is it possible? As soon as someone pronounces with Verne-like certainty that we can grow spare parts in jars, it is not the fact that spare parts are spare parts that should give us pause, it is the fact that moral boundaries bend quicker than physical ones with reference to material science; and even if the procedure Hurlbut describes is not morally objectionable, the procedure that may arise from what is now a clean and fantastic view may be something utterly different than the initial abstraction.

Give it time, I say. But we should also remember that biotechnological revolutions are coming, and Christians have to find a way to assure that it is possible to participate ethically in these revolutions--no one will have the option of sitting them out.

10

Mumon wrote:

"The precepts are guides for life, not strict, immutable rules to be followed slavishly. You own your adherence to the precepts.

The fact that one can cite words in the Dhammapada does not relieve one from the burden of acting or not acting in this world- it is no refuge. You must rely on yourself. Now in reliance on one's self, one finds that it is essential to follow the precepts, but when the precepts conflict, or when there are dilemmas, one must still be responsible....So it appears his post is oriented that way. But it does point to the larger question of why should one accept an arguably inferior Christian ethic?"

These tenets seem to fly in the face of a position of moral superiority: If your precepts are not "strict immutable rules to be followed slavishly" and you "own" the adherence, then you can only argue that the individuals who do adhere to the precepts have the high ground. An ethic that is optional is not an ethic at all, it's a mere option. What, for example, would be the better guide: 1. A system of rules that mandates stopping at a red light; or 2. A system of rules that makes stopping at the red light optional? Seems that our own legal structure, for both wrongs (malem prohibitum and malem in se) are better served by our Judeo-Christian foundation.

11

An ethic that is optional is not an ethic at all, it's a mere option.

You're unnecessarily presupposing that ethics must take the form of first-order legal commands ("Stop at red lights!"). Many ethics, including Christianity I'd argue, take place at a higher level of generality ("You should drive responsibly."). The Buddhist is compelled to follow these second-order ethical directives, but owns her own acts in the world. If you will, every act is a first-order interpretive application of second-order moral principles.

12

Jim: If Buddhists so clearly place the start of personhood at conception, isn't their position re abortion morally superior to Christian ethics, which has no explicit brightline?
Or, to put the question differently, you have argued elsewhere that the people in the OT were somehow ignorant of human development, and this might justify their low regard for fetal life (as in the book of Numbers).

Two points of clarification need to be made. First, I think Christian ethics does have a bright line of clarification – some Christians just ignore it. Second, Buddhism, like Christianity, isn’t composed of one monolithic unchanging set of beliefs. Not all forms of Buddhist agree that life begins at conception and the ones that do have “updated” their position based on modern embryology.

Keep in mind that the idea of “conception” is a fairly modern notion requiring some understanding of how the human egg is fertilized. Many Tibetan forms, for example, didn’t believe that life began until the second trimester. In that respect, the Buddhist beliefs are similar to OT ones.

Actually, it's a fairly conservative Rinzai Zen Buddhism, in the lineage of Soen Shaku.

I hope you didn’t take offense at my assumption that you were an adherent to a Westernized form. What little I know about Buddhism was garnered from my time spent in Japan. But because the “religion” contains such a diverse range of views, it is hard to extrapolate from one form to another.

Traditional Buddhist ethics has the notion of anatman.

Obviously, I assume you reject that idea. Otherwise it would be difficult to mesh your arguments from yesterday with the idea that there is no reality beneath the illusory appearances that we see in the world.

Moreover, the Buddhist precepts are actually not the same thing functionally as the Christian commandments, as espoused by many Christians; nor is the Dhammapada read and understood in the manner in which inerrantist Christians would read the bible.

That part I was aware of. But I thought that to be considered a “serious” Buddhist, one had to strictly adhere to the five precepts.

Thus, there are cases, in which to cultivate compassion, wisdom and generosity, one must kill. There are cases in which it would be a violation of the precept against killing not to kill. As an example, denial of aggressive pain relief a terminally ill person (something favored by John Ashcroft and Henry Hyde - and I'm not talking about assisted suicide here, but rather their opposition to opiates) would be a violation of the first precept.

That makes sense. But using that same logic, wouldn’t abortion be verboten?

John: I do not know the status of Saletan's (Slate article) religious affiliations, his objection to the new proposal before the council seems quite Christian and conservative: the Hurlbut approach seems creepy.

Saletan’s position surprised me. He is politically liberal and has no qualms about either abortion or ESC. So his “wisdom of repugnance” type of stance seemed to come out of nowhere.

Give it time, I say. But we should also remember that biotechnological revolutions are coming, and Christians have to find a way to assure that it is possible to participate ethically in these revolutions--no one will have the option of sitting them out.

Excellent point. Normally I would say that we should wait and think more about the subject before moving forward. But I’m afraid that many Christians will fall for the same “all or nothing” approach to policy that hurt us on the abortion issue. do we support a position that has the potential for ethical problems just to prevent a known moral horror? It’s a tough call.

Lex: These tenets seem to fly in the face of a position of moral superiority:

Superb rebuttal! I agree completely.

JPE: If you will, every act is a first-order interpretive application of second-order moral principles.

But if I understand Mumon correctly, Buddhists can ignore a general principle (“abortion is a wrongful killing”) for any reason they choose as long as they “own” the action.

13

This is a very insightful and interesting post, Joe. I look forward to your follow-up.

14

I’m not sure what your trying to say. My statement was, “Harvesting ESCs requires that human embryos must be “disaggregated and destroyed.” That is a fact. It doesn’t matter where the source of the blastocytes came from.

I find your statement misleading Joe. You could exhonorate yourself and clear up my concern by stating that you realize that those embryos used for ESCR will be destroyed anyway and that using In Vitro material for ESCR will not increase the number of embryos destroyed based on past experience.

Not necessarily
Yes, necessarily Joe in the actual real world. Embryos chosen for implantation are not destroyed (unless they fail to implant or miscarry in which case they're not definitely not used for ESCR) If some one 'stole' them against the prospective parents wishes and used them for ESCR that would be illegal as hell.
Again your misinformed statements appear to be intentionally misleading.
Let's make it crystal clear; Thousands of blastocytes are destroyed every year as a direct result of being produced for IVF procedure. Whether they get used for ESCR or get turned into Soylent Green, a complete ban on ESCR would not reduce the number. Your reasoning that ESCR causes destruction of embryos is about as farcical as claiming the kid who uses scrap lumber from a construction site to build his fort is killing trees.

15

There's an amazing amount of really shoddy thinking that comes out of the current Council on Bioethics. More and more it seems a collection of idiosyncratic cranks who feel they have a mandate to dictate whatever personally appeals to them as individuals, and no obligation to ground it on anything other than their own emotional inclinations.

Without going into the details of this "altered transfer" proposal, it's obvious that Hurlbut has no grasp of moral reasoning.

First, the analogy he gives is not only tortured but incoherent. (For some reason this Council has a penchant for literary analogies - Kass likes to give reading assignments to fellow Council-members, and they even published their own literary anthology. This is a weakness - it leads them to try to make arguments by citing short stories, which is not a very rigorous way of proceding. Hurlbut just proved it.) The story is unbelievable on its face (anyone who's seen kids on the side of a cliff knows they don't behave this way) - a non-trivial point if we're to take the analogy seriously. More to the point, even the most superficial analysis would note it's the kids' fear that has paralyzed them - not the absence of walls per se. They could manage their situation by: not going close to the cliff (self-restraint); letting those go close to the cliff who want to (personal responsibility); or exploring the cliff and the ocean now that the damn wall is gone. All good options. What Hurlbut wants is a barrier that prevents anyone from doing what some people are afraid to do, which is at the least a controversial option and, arguably, ought to be disallowed. Note, finally, that whether there should be such a barrier or not, and what exactly it should prohibit, depends on what's beyond the wall and whether or not it's actually dangerous. In real-world terms, this means understanding and debating the actual facts of the issue, not citing silly children's stories as a reason not to do so. As has usefully been said about pornography, so it may also be said about scientific research and the moral discourse that shapes it: we should not sink to "limiting the content of adult [discussion] to that which is suitable for children to hear."

As for his "scientific judgment," he fails the most basic test of distinguishing between facts and values.

When I looked at the scientific facts . . . I simply could not think — could not agree that the early embryo was, as some scientists are saying, an inchoate clump of cells. It's a living whole human being.

Though the phrase "human being" is sometimes, confusingly, used to mean "moral person," nobody on any side of the "ends of life" issues has ever denied that a human embryo is biologically human. What some deny is that "being biologically human" means having the same moral standing or moral claims as a more developed, more conscious and self-aware member of the human species. That question - of the circumstances that justify full moral standing - is purely one of moral value. It cannot be answered by any accumulation of scientific facts. (The facts are relevant, in that they tell us whether the conditions identified by our moral values have been satisfied - but they do not determine those conditions.) This is true whether you believe the "threshold" for moral personhood is reached at the moment of conception or at the moment of graduation from college - wherever you think the threshold lies, that determination is a question of values, not of fact. This distinction is elementary in these debates - almost a childishly simple point for anyone knowledgeable about these issues. Yet here we have a member of the President's Council on Bioethics proclaiming his "scientific discovery" that human embryos are members of the human species as if it has some relevance to the question of their moral standing. What a maroon. (As for his claim that the embryo is not "an inchoate clump of cells", it's hard to know what he means or why it matters. "Inchoate" means "unformed" or "unrealized". Clearly, the embryo is not "inchoate" as a clump of cells (it really is a fully formed . . . clump of cells) - but few people would claim that matters. Whether it's a "human being," if he means this in the sloppy sense of "moral person," is again a question of value, not fact - it is a member of the human species, but there is no agreement on how significant that is. It is not self-aware, conscious, or even sentient, and so is certainly "inchoate" as a functioning person - but, once more, if he chooses to ignore this, it can only be on grounds of his personal values, not his scientific knowledge. It's remarkable how much just plain bad thinking he can pack into a few words.)

As for his "altered nuclear transfer" scheme, I don't have much to say about the technicalities. It appears to be just an end-run around the developmental ability of the embryo: use genetic engineering and nuclear transfer to create clones with vital genes crippled; grow those clones into embryos that could not ever develop into full persons (because their genes are crippled); harvest stem cells when the embryos reach the appropriate stage; use genetic engineering to put the missing genes back in the stem cells; then grow the stem cells the usual way in perpetual culture. This gives you normal human stem cells but which came from embryos that would not have developed into normal, viable human fetuses - thus you can claim that you didn't kill anything that would have potentially grown into a full person. There is no advantage to this whatsoever (and a lot of obvious technical disadvantages), other than the fact that the embryo that is killed to harvest the stem cells is genetically non-viable (because you made it from a cell that was genetically non-viable [because you crippled that cell before using it to make the embryo]). I can see that many conservatives would still object to this, but they object to everything and I don't really care. For people who do not object to embryonic research to begin with, this is nothing but a lot of extra work to draw a thin veneer over what was a perfectly straightforward procedure to begin with. (Note, too, for those who are capable of finer distinctions than William Hurlbut, that this crippled embryo is also a "whole human being" and is no less likely to develop into a person than is a non-crippled embryo that is not implanted in a uterus. He has gone to a lot of effort to create a complicated technical procedure that does not address his own objection. Truly a subtle mind at work here.)

Whatever the answer is for this "altered transfer" scheme (I predict it will go nowhere - conservatives will not be able to calm down about anything they can call a "human being", and liberals won't see a need), the thinking that underlies it is remarkably bad. The Council and its members are more and more an embarrassment to the few who still take them seriously. To most serious bioethicists, they remain an amusement.

16

Joe:

Thanks again for the reply.

I hope you didn’t take offense at my assumption that you were an adherent to a Westernized form. What little I know about Buddhism was garnered from my time spent in Japan. But because the “religion” contains such a diverse range of views, it is hard to extrapolate from one form to another.

No problem. Well, that is true, as it is true with many forms of Christianity.
On anatman:

Obviously, I assume you reject that idea. Otherwise it would be difficult to mesh your arguments from yesterday with the idea that there is no reality beneath the illusory appearances that we see in the world.

Uh, no; the concept of anatman means that what we perceive as a "self" is a construct- as is, the notion of "illusion."

When one seriously pursues the notion of who or what they are- and this is reported by mystics of all kinds, Buddhist, Christian, etc., it turns out that what we call a self is indeed a construct, and that the boundaries between "self" and "other" are quite a bit more porous than we are inculcated to perceive.

(BTW, this hits on one of my pet peeves with Christian "apologists" when they try to "answer" Buddhists: the logic and reasoning behind this was figured out centuries ago, and they anticipated the common "objections" given by "apologists."

On the Dhammapada:
That part I was aware of. But I thought that to be considered a “serious” Buddhist, one had to strictly adhere to the five precepts.

Strict adherence to any of the precepts might hinder the cultivation of wisdom, compassion and generosity - for example, if such adherence were cultivating pride (a form of greed). That's why mindfulness is important. Incidentally, this is analogous to the Catholic concept of "excessive scrupulosity" as a sin.

But, in many cases, abortion would be generally verboten, of course. But I can posit cases where it would be a moral action, as well.

And, I might add, legislating against it is something else again.

17

Nice peice KtK. In the US, right now, today, in 2004, the sole source of human ESC material is from IVF clinics who will either make them available for research, or figuratively flush them down the toilet. Thousands are flushed down the toilet every year because of IVF, and even a complete global ban on ESCR enforced with 100% perfection would not change that one bit. Thus, lifting the Fed Funds restriction on ESCR wouldn't ever increase the number of blastocytes destroyed unless that sourcing process was changed. As long as that sole source is left intact, there would never be any increase in the number of blastocytes destroyed. If someone feels destroying blastocytes is the equivalent of murder, then they need to come clean and oppose IVF instead of idly standing by while, in their own admission, thousands of children are murdered each year.

Speaking of child murder, right now, today, in the US, cells are cultivated from blastocytes prior to implantation and used to produce karyotypes so that prospective parents can screen out disjunctive chromosomal disorders like Kleinfelters or Trisomy-21. Those cells could just as easily be used to produce new ESCL's BTW. If you view the use of a single cell or cells, which could theoretically develop into a person (Even though technically this could be construed as cloning), as murder, then you will have to oppose that as well.
It's never as simple as the antiscience crew makes it out or the laughably medivel BEC sucking up to the political conevenience of one man who sits in the oval Office would have anyone believe. History will look back on this period, and this issue in particular and loudly joke "Wht the F were they thinking?". These 'scientists' shilling for the wingers are the same folks who back creationism in many cases. LOL ..They're surely not a 'bold group of scientific pioneers bravely tackling new challenges'.

However, if a compromise can be reached which allows research to go forward unfettered by right wing fanatics, and that compromise addresses the concerns of a sizable minority in the US (Polls conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, PA, on 2001-JUN-20 to 24 A random sampling of 1,022 adults were polled. Margin of error is 3 points. It showed that American adults support stem cell research by about a 2:1 margin. 60% call for government grants. Other polls show similar results. On average it's roughly 60% for, 30 % against), then I'm all for that compromise.

18

Kevin,

There's an amazing amount of really shoddy thinking that comes out of the current Council on Bioethics. More and more it seems a collection of idiosyncratic cranks who feel they have a mandate to dictate whatever personally appeals to them as individuals, and no obligation to ground it on anything other than their own emotional inclinations.

From the fact that you could make such a claim, I take it that you haven’t actually read in detail any of the reports put out by the council.

First, the analogy he gives is not only tortured but incoherent.

No offense, but I think – as we will see – it is your understanding of the analogy that is flawed.

All good options. What Hurlbut wants is a barrier that prevents anyone from doing what some people are afraid to do, which is at the least a controversial option and, arguably, ought to be disallowed.

The analogy of the “wall” is representative of a boundary that protects the inviolability of human life. Now perhaps you think that this should be “diallowed” but I think that while most people might disagree with the moral status due to particular stages of development, they consider the inviolability of the individual is rather a good thing.

Though the phrase "human being" is sometimes, confusingly, used to mean "moral person," nobody on any side of the "ends of life" issues has ever denied that a human embryo is biologically human.

Perhaps you haven’t been reading this blog lately. The denial that an embryo (the stage between fertilization and the eighth week) is biologically “human” is rather commonplace. I hear people claim everyday that the idea that “life begins at conception” is not an indisputable fact.

Yet here we have a member of the President's Council on Bioethics proclaiming his "scientific discovery" that human embryos are members of the human species as if it has some relevance to the question of their moral standing. What a maroon.

I think you’re blind adherence to a particular viewpoint prevents you from seeing the point. If a person believes in the “substance view” of personhood then the issue of whether a human embryo is a member of the human species is absolutely relevant to its moral standing.

Whether it's a "human being," if he means this in the sloppy sense of "moral person,"
is again a question of value, not fact - it is a member of the human species, but there is no agreement on how significant that is.

By your reasoning then, we could conclude that it is not a matter of fact that Caucasian people are “moral persons.” And since it is simply a matter of "value", the morality of killing "whitey" is open to debate.

(Note, too, for those who are capable of finer distinctions than William Hurlbut, that this crippled embryo is also a "whole human being" and is no less likely to develop into a person than is a non-crippled embryo that is not implanted in a uterus. He has gone to a lot of effort to create a complicated technical procedure that does not address his own objection. Truly a subtle mind at work here.)

You should really do your homework before making such a claim. The entity is not a “crippled embryo” because it is not an embryo at all. It is completely incapable of even developing into an embryo. Perhaps if you had bothered to read Hurlbut’s paper before you trashed it you would have realized that.

The Council and its members are more and more an embarrassment to the few who still take them seriously. To most serious bioethicists, they remain an amusement.

That has to be the stupidest remark you’ve ever made. I would put the intellect and respectability of Kass and company against any bioethicist in the country. (Perhaps, you simply prefer Peter Singer?) And outside of his political critics, Kass' standing as an ethicist is really unimpeachable.

You really should refrain from speaking about things you obviously know nothing about.

19

Joe,

As a philosophical curiosity regarding a "substance view of personhood," is there any ontological distinction, in that philosophical framework, between a live body and a dead one? What exactly has "changed" in the substance upon death?

20

Actually human sperm and human ova are alive, and they're both human (obviously) so it's not that "human life begins at conception" it's "potential human starts developing as genetically unique at conception". And conception istelf is a complicated process involving many stages both before and after the genetic material comes into contact though the first mitotic division and beyond. Even after fertilization and until the developing blastocyte differetiates into placental material-definitely not a human life in anyone's book- and embryonic material, you can't even point to a particular cell in a blastocyte and say which is a human cell and which is not. And the human cells might be dformed due to tetragins or mutagens and thus incapable of etting past the initial stages of simple division, which would mean it was never a potential life from the first moment that specific sperm penetrated that specific egg. It's never as easy as you'd make it out to be Joe. And I'd be careful about calling others uninformed on any matter of science given your own track record.

21

By your reasoning then, we could conclude that it is not a matter of fact that Caucasian people are “moral persons.” And since it is simply a matter of "value", the morality of killing "whitey" is open to debate.

One would hope that there was more debate about killing, especially state sanctioned killings of arguably innocent people.

22

Innocent Iraqi children and falsley accused inmates on Death Row don't count as sacred human life among the wingers Mumon. In those cases the ends justify the means.

23

By your reasoning then, we could conclude that it is not a matter of fact that Caucasian people are “moral persons.” And since it is simply a matter of "value", the morality of killing "whitey" is open to debate.

And it is. It's just that there's a broad consensus. If the question is 'Are whiteys morally valuable', you can't really go into the morality lab to run tests to see if whites possess a moral-value-gene. In other words, I took Kevin's point to be that, because there's really no such thing as an expert on ethics that has a privileged relationship to what's moral, the whole notion of a bioethics panel is wrong-headed. They can figure out the science and help parse the technical issues, but they have no more ability to definitively answer the moral questions than anyone else.

24

You should really do your homework before making such a claim. The entity is not a “crippled embryo” because it is not an embryo at all. It is completely incapable of even developing into an embryo.

That's not clear. The example that Hurlbut gives is of inactivating the Cdx2 gene. He writes:

"In experiments with mouse models, when this gene is not expressed there is only a partial and disorganized developmental process resulting in a visibly abnormal blastocyst. Nonetheless, there is the formation of an inner cell mass from which functional ES cells have been harvested."

"a visibly abnormal blastocyst" sounds to me a lot like a "crippled embryo." Since a blastocyst is not the earliest stage of embryonic development, this "visibly abnormal blastocyst" presumably went through a morula stage.

In order to get embryonic stem cells, you need an inner cell mass. Since the inner cell mass consitutes the cells that would develop into a fetus, they are the cells which will become a person -- or are already a person if you believe a person's life begins at conception, prior to the formation of an inner cell mass.

Hurlbut also mentions teratomas. In mice, teratomas were used early on as a source of ES-like cells for chimeric and knockout mouse experiments. But note that those teratomas were produced by implanting a mouse embryo into an adult mouse (for example on a male mouse's testes) and allowing it to grow into a tumor.

25

Innocent Iraqi children and falsley accused inmates on Death Row don't count as sacred human life among the wingers Mumon. In those cases the ends justify the means.

Well, one can hold life sacred and still be utilitarian. The utilitarian-pacifist debate vis-a-vis Iraq isn't whether life is sacred, it's about what to do when two people can be saved at the expense of one life. The sacradness of life is just bracketed in that debate.

26

To clarify my last post a little bit: Hurlbut is talking about creating entities that are so defective that they die very early in embryonic development, but not before embryonic development begins. Some development must occur to get the inner cell mass. If you believe that a person's life begins at fertilization, prior the first cell division, then these little clumps of cells are crippled humans, doomed to die tragically young. There is little moral difference between Hurlbut's proposals and gene modifying a fetus so that it never develops lungs, unless of course, you think there is some moral difference between a conceptus and a fetus.

27

DS: Actually human sperm and human ova are alive, and they're both human
(obviously) so it's not that "human life begins at conception" it's "potential
human starts developing as genetically unique at conception".

I appreciate your taking the time to prove my point to Kevin about how confused people are about when life begins.

Let's begin to clear it up for you by starting with the human sperm. While the sperm cell is alive it is not the beginning of life. It requires that a pubescent male human already be alive before such a cell can even be created. Likewise it requires the presence of an ova before it can combine and form a new life.

From the moment when the sperm makes contact with the oocyte (under normal conditions) the development of a new, living human has begun. There is no subsequent stage that is required before the process can begin. Human life begins at fertilization. That is an indisputable scientific fact.

And conception istelf is a complicated process involving many stages both before and after the genetic material comes into contact though the first mitotic division and beyond. Even after fertilization and until the developing blastocyte differetiates into placental material-definitely not a human life in anyone's book- and embryonic material, you can't even point to a particular cell in a
blastocyte and say which is a human cell and which is not.

You are so confused that I hardly know where to begin. The fact the process may be “complicated” is irrelevant to the question of when life begins, so we can set that one aside. Your claim that the organism is not a “human life in anyone’s book” until differentiation is ludicrous. Perhaps you should actually check a book on embryology before you make such a claim. Even before differentiation – which is merely a state of development – the organism is living. And if you cannot point out a “particular cell” and claim it is a “human cell” then what is it? A chicken cell? A pig cell? How do humans produce cells that are not human?

And the human cells might be dformed due to tetragins or mutagens and thus incapable of etting past the initial stages of simple division, which would mean it was never a potential life from the first moment that specific sperm penetrated that specific egg.

It would also mean that it never attained the status of conception so your point is moot.

It's never as easy as you'd make it out to be Joe.

It may not be easy but a simply look at an embryology textbook should clear up the matter.

And I'd be careful about calling others uninformed on any matter of science given your own track record.

Fair enough. I won’t say that you are “uninformed.” I’ll let your own words speak for themselves.

Nick: If you believe that a person's life begins at fertilization, prior the first cell division, then these little clumps of cells are crippled humans, doomed to die tragically young.

In the process thatHurlburt is talking about, fertilization never occurs. I'll explain more in my next post.

28

Babies born with without brains are human beings too. So are so-called "brain dead" human beings. So I guess the fundies are advocating that we put these human beings in deep freeze indefinitely until we figure out how to grow a new brain for them. After all, they're human beings with the potential for life.

It would be just sick to want to use their organs to rescue a human being who happens to have a brain or isn't brain dead. Wouldn't it?

We have to protect those moral boundaries or the next thing we know we'll be bombing abortion clinics, assassinating doctors, or killing innocent people in other countries.

29

Alright, I have some more time...

Joe it's not my goal to antagonize you. But your phrase that 'human life begins at conception' is simply not accurate at all and I can easily show why. Let me give you some ultra basic background as a polite heads up so you can understand the minefield you're walking into with this phrase. I'm assuming you're being scientific in that claim and not invoking arbitrary untestable and controversial divine decree.

Sperm and eggs in humans are produced by meioses, I'm sure you know that or have at least heard the term. Each cell which will eventually produce eggs and sperm has a full compliment of 23 chromosome pairs. Let's call them 1AB, 2AB, 3AB ... 23AB. Where A and B are the single chromosomes in each pair. When a sperm or egg (I'm going to stick with the egg from here on out, the process as simple as I'm reviewing here is symmetrical) is produced from cells which have a full compliment of 23 pairs, the end result is an egg which has one of the pairs from each of the 23 pairs. But which one of the pairs is random for each egg produced. So one egg might have 1A, 2B, 3B ...23A and another might have 1B, 2B, 3A ... 23A, or any permutation. (Since there are 23 pairs, there 23 factorial distinct permutations; 23 x 22 x 21 ... x 3 x 2 x 1=2.5852016e+22. Which incidentally means that any two humans can potentially produce that many distinct offspring, squared!)

But this process doesn't always go off without a mistake and it's common to end up with an egg which is missing a chromosome, or has an extra one, in a single slot. Instead of 1B or !A, it has 1AB or it has 1 with no chromos at all. If that egg lacks a chromo in a slot, or has an extra (And same for the sperm), that egg will either never produce a human when fertilized, or if it happens to be in a couple of precise slots it will produce a deformed human. Down's Syndrome, or Trisomy 21, is three chromos in the 21st slot and it's one of a handful of disjunctive disorders that doesn't kill the embryo. In most cases in most such disjuncts the embryo will miscarry early on, in some cases depending on the specific slot, the egg will not even make it past a few abortive divisions.

Looking only at those known disjunctive disorders, known slots missing or having an extra chromo, which result in fatality for the blastocyte, that is not a human life. It does not have the genetic material of a human, and it will never develop into a living human being, ever. It is not even a potential human life. Thus your simplistic phrase that 'human life begins at conception' is simply, utterly, fatally, and scientifically, invalid; unless you define human life as a non viable fertilized egg. If you do that, then you've just defined your buddy's Hurl compromise using disabled blastocytes as murder.

This is just one example of things that can wrong in human development because of developmental pathology that cannot, ever, be corrected at this time (Another would be if the egg lacked mitochondria or the mitochondria were patholigical). The medical literature is chock full of pathologies of all kinds which produce the same end result and are inevitable given the initial conditions which exist before fertilization. To correct them we would have to be able to add genetic material from outside of the original set provided at conception.

Moreover, to even be aware of it early on, we would have to take a cell and analyze it, which would destroy it.

Potential human life might began at conception, or human life begins at conception roughly half the time, would be an accurate statements. Yours is not, it's merely an imprecise catch phrase used often as a simplistic soundbite. In this case you used it and seemed kind of almost arrogant about it, even chastizing KtK. I can only guess from your usage and your past writing that you don't have a clue about the most basic facts in development and homology. Or perhaps you just forget. Either way I'd be careful about calling others out.

30

I look forward to the day when the Culture of Life is running on full steam and we are executing criminals as rapidly as possible, including women who terminated their pregancies. No so-called "miscarriage" will go unprosecuted!!! All those women will be brought to justice and executed for the murder of the fertilized eggs in their wombs. WOmen who use RU486 or other kinds of day-after pills will be prosecuted and imprisoned for reckless endangerment -- at least until we develop technology to determine whether in fact one of their eggs was fertilized and killed when they took the pill. In that case, capital punishment is the only answer that shows our respect for human life.

The pile of dead women's bodies will act as a powerful deterrent for young boys and girls. After a short period of time, unwanted pregnancies will decrease to zero and only mentally ill people will have abortions.

What a glorious future it's going to be. Praise the Lord!

31

In the process thatHurlburt is talking about, fertilization never occurs. I'll explain more in my next post.

Please do. Fertilization never occurs if an embryo is generated by somatic cell transfer, but a living organism would result nonetheless.

It would be helpful if you could clarify the difference between the following:

1. A baby born by normal union of egg and sperm
2. A baby born after somatic cell transfer
3. An defective embryo produced by union of egg and sperm which carry cdx2 mutations.
4. A defective embryo generated by somatic cell transfer after inactivation of cdx2.

Thanks.

32

And speaking of the "Culture of Life," as I intimated above here's another violation of the First Precept, thanks to our moralist Republican conservatives...

And, if you're really brave, do a web search on "Drug Free America Foundation" and "Betty Sembler."

If you persevere, you'll find that Betty, and husband Mel, (now ambassador to Italy, thanks to the current occupant of the White House) once ran a string of "concentration camps for teens" called STRAIGHT, Inc.

Culture of Life? More like Culture of Abu Ghraib.

33

A few quotes from embryology textbooks for DS. Just because some human lives begins during twinning or some conceptions don't result in human beings (hydatiform moles) doesn't mean that "human life begins at conception" is a faulty phrase.

For example, striking flint with a rock creates a spark. This doesn't mean that all sparks are created by striking flint with rocks or that everytime a rock strikes flint a spark is created.

"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.

"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."

[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being."

[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)

"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)

34

A few quotes from embryology textbooks for DS. Just because some human lives begins during twinning or some conceptions don't result in human beings (hydatiform moles) doesn't mean that "human life begins at conception" is a faulty phrase.

I agree it doesn't have to be a faulty phrase if everything goes fine. It is however a faulty phrase if certian things go wrong, and things go wrong a lot. So stating categorically that 'human life begins at conception' is simply not accurate. Unless one defines human life so broadly as to include every possible product of the union of any sperm and egg including fatal pathologies which lack the total compliment of genetic material commonly used to assign species identity in labs all over the world. Moreover, Joe was a bit of a prig about it, implying that he somehow has a special scientific understanding unavailable to those of who commented on his topic, as you can see from my comments and from the question Nick asked, Joe hasn't even begun to wade through all the scientific issues. He hasn't a clue and he's simply parroting a soundbite he saw, heard, or read, in a freshman level text or in an RtL pamphlet. Blastcytes aren't people; bottom line. They have no organs, no nerves, no differentation. You call define them as human if you wish, but people they are not. POtential people, in many cases they are. but acorns are not oak trees, eggs are not chicken breast, toddlers are not adults, and blastocyets are not a person. If you doubt me, try taking blood or a pulse from one :)

35

Maybe the phrase "at conception the life of a human being begins" or "99% of all human beings began life at conception" would be preferable to DS.

The whole sperm and ova are human and alive argument is so tired. My arm is human and alive as well. It's merely confusing parts and wholes. Sperm, ova, my arm, etc. are all parts of whole human beings while zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are whole human beings.

36

You ain't making things better Viv. I don't recognize you on this forum, and I could be guessing wrong that you're a member of the religious right. So I'll address this to those who are.

You're forced by your peculiar religoius ideology which mandates for political purposes that blastocytes be defined as potential human life to maintain that human life begins at conception and so to 'destroy a fertlized egg is the equavelent of murder". Fine, but don't kind yourself that your ideology is based on clear science or consistent morality, or even common sense.

You don't have a scientific leg to stand on if you think that a blastocyte is a person, has feelings, has conciousness, etc. Morphologically, an amoeba is a freakin supergenuis compared to a human blastocyte. At least the amoeba can survive and fend for itself. Your alleged human life doesn't have the brains of a jellyfish. Scientifcally, a blastocyte is not a person unless you stretch the definition of person to the point of absurdity.
You don't have a moral case. Anyone on the pro-life side who isn't organizing letter campaigns, lobbying, or shouting in the streets about IVF, is an accesory or complicit, or willing to ignore, mass child murder, using your own definitions.

Yuo dobn't have a poltical case as no politician is going to go up against IVF and abunch of cute photogenic children.

You don't even have the most basic consistency, again forced by your narrow ideology. For you have to claim it's not murder "to kill innocent Iraqi's caught in the wrong place (And Bacchus only knows how many pregant women with unborn Iraqi fetuses and blastocytes inside)" or "it's OK to execute people found guilty of capital murder" for a potentially greater good. But it's not OK to kill blastocytes ... for a potentially greater good here in the US. That won't fly.

Either admit you're politically motivated and yuo don't give a hoot how ludicrously you're going to rationalize your poltiics , provide some science and definitions and stick with them, or apply your morals consistently. Until then you're nothing but an amusing display of human self righteous hypocrisy.

37

"Sperm, ova, my arm, etc. are all parts of whole human beings while zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are whole human beings."

Why did you leave out so-called "brain dead" human beings that Christians readily kill and bury all the time? Why do those human beings have less rights than "zygotes" which have no arms, legs, hearts, lungs, etc., and which (like brain-dead human beings) are not capable of respiring without constant aid from another human being?

Let's go, Jivin J. I assume you are an adult. It's time to put down your script and act like one.

38

Yeah last I checked a severed arm wasn't a whole human being. Maybe I oughta consult those textbooks Joe was suggesting ...

39

Me: There's an amazing amount of really shoddy thinking that comes out of the current Council on Bioethics.

Joe: From the fact that you could make such a claim, I take it that you haven’t actually read in detail any of the reports put out by the council.

I have. I have also participated, with you on this blog last year, in a debate over the members who insisted on including a dissenting appendix to the Council's own first report criticizing its misuse of scientific information, who wrote a second such appendix to its second report and were prohibited by Kass from publicizing it in any way whatsoever, and were then forced off the Council. Even its own members don't think the Council is scientifically responsible, and it has become more slanted since it was established.

Me: Though the phrase "human being" is sometimes, confusingly, used to mean "moral person," nobody on any side of the "ends of life" issues has ever denied that a human embryo is biologically human.

Joe: Perhaps you haven’t been reading this blog lately. The denial that an embryo (the stage between fertilization and the eighth week) is biologically “human” is rather commonplace. I hear people claim everyday that the idea that “life begins at conception” is not an indisputable fact.

But this is clearly an example of the sloppy language I mentioned. Those same people would, presumably, agree that a human conceptus or embryo is part of the human species, and that it is alive (if not, then they're just wrong on scientific - not moral - grounds). What they disagree with is that that makes it a moral person (which they term a "human being" - leading to these kinds of confusions). That claim is a moral one, not a scientific one. I know that "human being" and "human life" are often used as moral categories - I said so explicitly - but only as synonyms for "moral person." If Hurlbut is using that term in this way, then he's using the same sloppy language many non-professionals do, which is disappointing for someone in his position. But he apparently means it as a scientific observation, not a moral one ("I looked at the scientific facts"), and from the scientific observation that an embryo is "human" draws a moral conclusion about
how it should be treated - an extremely bad piece of thinking.

Me: Yet here we have a member of the President's Council on Bioethics proclaiming his "scientific discovery" that human embryos are members of the human species as if it has some relevance to the question of their moral standing. What a maroon.

Joe: I think you’re blind adherence to a particular viewpoint prevents you from seeing the point. If a person believes in the “substance view” of personhood then the issue of whether a human embryo is a member of the human species is absolutely relevant to its moral standing.

As I said in my first response: "The facts are relevant, in that they tell us whether the conditions identified by our moral values have been satisfied - but they do not determine those conditions." You're right that I misused the word "relevance" in the sentence you quote just above; what I meant to say was "A member of the President's Council on Bioethics is proclaiming his 'scientific discovery' that human embryos are members of the human species as if that answers the question of their moral standing." That conclusion - the one Hurlbut clearly was making, since he cites it explicitly as his defense of the "meaningful boundary" against research he objects to - does not follow directly from any scientific fact, and Hurlbut is badly wrong to state that it does (though I was wrong to write that those facts have no "relevance" - they are relevant, but not determinative).

Joe: By your reasoning then, we could conclude that it is not a matter of fact that Caucasian people are “moral persons.” And since it is simply a matter of "value", the morality of killing "whitey" is open to debate.

Close, but this requires some careful parsing. "Facts" are propositions that are inherently true, or, if you like, things about the world that are "just true." Facts can be derived from direct observation (making allowance for sensory illusions), or from logical deductions based on other facts. And, broadening the term slightly, we are entitled to call "facts" anything that seems irrefutably true on whatever grounds (but not simply because we just happen to really strongly believe them).

Now, it (almost certainly) is a fact that Caucasians cannot be killed out of hand, but it is not a scientifically observable fact that that is true. It is a truth that derives from a set of beliefs and assumptions - many of them moral values and principles, not scientific observations - about what justifies killing. We accept this conclusion as a fact because it derives from things no rational person would be tempted to deny. But it is only a "fact" for this reason. There is nothing about white people you can observe and then on that basis claim it's wrong to kill them - not the fact that they're white, the fact that they're human, or even the fact that they're conscious, self-aware humans. Some of that may or may not be relevant, but we need a moral framework to give us conclusions from it.

For this reason, you can't kill white persons for no good reason, but you can kill or experiment on embryonic non-persons for almost any reason. The difference arises from the moral principle we adopt (the definition of moral personhood) and also from the scientific facts in each case (adult humans have capacities and features that embryos do not).

It's a simple rule, really: you should have reasons for what you believe. And for conclusions that rely on non-observable premises like moral principles, you need to explain what those reasons are and make an argument for them that convinces other rational people. To claim you can just take a scientific fact and from it draw a moral conclusion is to be very muddle-headed about what a "fact" is.

Joe: You should really do your homework before making such a claim. The entity [created by "altered nuclear transfer"]is not a “crippled embryo” because it is not an embryo at all. It is completely incapable of even developing into an embryo.

Nick has covered this. I will amplify his remarks with one simple observation: it was conservatives who objected to the use of the term "pre-embryo" in discussing IVF embryo research - claiming that the developing cell mass was an embryo from the first cell division onward (up to the vague point at which it becomes a "fetus"). As Nick points out, these cell masses have gone through many cellular division cycles and have the normal features of the early conception product (though they are fated not to survive very long). And conservatives such as yourself insist that a "human being" is a full moral person from the moment of conception (or the moment of cloning, in this case); if a fertilized egg cell is just as much a person as a 5-year-old child, then a doomed embryo is just as much a person as a 5-year-old child with Tay-Sachs disease. You have also argued against abortion for "defective" fetuses, on grounds that they also are moral persons. It really seems to me that you've painted yourself into a corner here: you have a human cellular mass undegoing embryonic development from the stage of a fertilized egg onward; it lacks one normal human gene, but many human beings are conceived with defective or missing genes; it's doomed not to survive, but many humans are conceived that will not survive very long or even until birth and many IVF embryos are created that will not develop in a uterus; you insist that any such human beings must be treated as full moral persons and cannot be aborted, used for research, or discarded - yet you want to use this one for research because it's defective and doomed. Now, I have no objection, but it seems to me you're being inconsistent. More to the point, I would suggest that, if you regard research on these embryos as permissible because they are not going to lose anything they would not have lost anyway, you might consider broadening that point to include other embryos as well.

Me: The Council and its members are more and more an embarrassment to the few who still take them seriously. To most serious bioethicists, they remain an amusement.

Joe: That has to be the stupidest remark you’ve ever made. I would put the intellect and respectability of Kass and company against any bioethicist in the country. (Perhaps, you simply prefer Peter Singer?) And outside of his political critics, Kass' standing as an ethicist is really unimpeachable.

Oh, I'm sure I've said stupider things than that. I'm sorry you're taking this so personally - I don't know why. But as for Kass & Co., I think you've got it exactly backwards: Kass himself is respected by virtually no one who does not share his rather extreme views (in contrast, again, to Singer [why did I know Singer would wind up in here?], who is widely respected although almost no one shares his views). He is in fact regarded with derision by many. The other members of the Council are a mixed bag: Fukuyama and Wilson are respected though regarded as rather biased; Michael Sandel and Rebecca Dresser are very widely admired; Hurlbut, Meilander, and Krauthammer are risible hacks. But the real question is not what kind of people they are, nor the subjective matter of who does or does not respect them, but rather what they say and do. The Council members (many of them, at least) have a history of saying things like Hurlbut does - things that wouldn't pass muster in an undergraduate ethics class, but which they feel are perfectly respectable just because they believe them. The standard for the nation's official ethics advisors should be much higher than that.

40

DS: I agree it doesn't have to be a faulty phrase if everything goes fine. It is however a faulty phrase if certian things go wrong, and things go wrong a lot. So stating categorically that 'human life begins at conception' is simply not accurate.

Yes, contrary to your repeated attempts to parse the words to change their meaning, it is accurate. Human life doesn’t begin prior to or after conception. That is not to say that all acts of fertilization lead to the creation of human life, only that if a human life is created it occurs at conception. As Jivin J has shown, that is a simple fact.

Unless one defines human life so broadly as to include every possible product of the union of any sperm and egg including fatal pathologies which lack the total compliment of genetic material commonly used to assign species identity in labs all over the world.

This is a non sequiter. My claim was that human life begins at conception. Your attempt to change that to “human life potentially begins at conception” is inaccurate because life does not begin at any other point in development. Just because it may not, in fact, lead to a living organism does not mean that life begins at any other point.

Moreover, Joe was a bit of a prig about it, implying that he somehow has a special scientific understanding unavailable to those of who commented on his topic, as you can see from my comments and from the question Nick asked, Joe hasn't even begun to wade through all the scientific issues.

First of all, I was a “bit of a prig” because Kevin made claims that showed that he had not even bothered to read the material presented. I don’t possess any special scientific understanding. But I can read. Kevin’s bogus claims could have been avoided entirely if he had simply read the work he was criticizing. As for wading through the scientific issues, that is the purpose of the next post – if I ever get around to finishing it for answering all the comments in this thread. : )

He hasn't a clue and he's simply parroting a soundbite he saw, heard, or read, in a freshman level text or in an RtL pamphlet.

I’ll readily admit that I am no expert on science. But the fact that you repeatedly dispute an established scientific fact shows that I at least know one thing more than you do: I know the scientific definition of when life begins.

Blastcytes aren't people; bottom line. They have no organs, no nerves, no differentation. You call define them as human if you wish, but people they are not.

Blastocytes are humans in an early stage of development. If you want to try to draw lines about when a human becomes and ceases to be a “person” then you have moved beyond the realm of science and into philosophy.

POtential people, in many cases they are. but acorns are not oak trees, eggs are not chicken breast, toddlers are not adults, and blastocyets are not a person. If you doubt me, try taking blood or a pulse from one :)

Surely you see the difference in an acorn (which is equivalent to a sperm cell) and a blastocyte? And no, eggs are not “chicken breasts”’ but they are chickens in embryonic form.

You're forced by your peculiar religoius ideology which mandates for political purposes that blastocytes be defined as potential human life to maintain that human life begins at conception and so to 'destroy a fertlized egg is the equavelent of murder". Fine, but don't kind yourself that your ideology is based on clear science or consistent morality, or even common sense.

No, DS, blastocytes aren’t “potential human life.” Unless they are already dead, they are already alive. The life of every human that has ever lived began at conception. That is a scientific fact. You’re simply embarrassing yourself by denying that.

You don't have a scientific leg to stand on if you think that a blastocyte is a person, has feelings, has conciousness, etc. Morphologically, an amoeba is a freakin supergenuis compared to a human blastocyte.

And you don’t have a scientific leg to stand on if you think that science defines when “personhood” begins.

Scientifcally, a blastocyte is not a person unless you stretch the definition of person to the point of absurdity.

Can you point me to the science text from that defines “personhood?”

Kevin: Oh, I'm sure I've said stupider things than that. I'm sorry you're taking this
so personally - I don't know why.

I apologize for being so snippy. I admit that I have a hard time stomaching the claims that a brilliant man like Leon Kass is a “hack” while a moral imbecile like Peter Singer is considered praiseworthy. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion about Kass and the other members of the council. And while I don’t consider your view well-informed or valid, I do, of course, respect your right to hold that opinion.

41

Nice post Kevin. Of course, your statements are doomed to be fisked and taken out of context ...

I probably wrote 2000 words on the loosey-goosey use of the term "human being" and the "rights" that "every" so-called "human being" is granted just by virtue of its status as a "human being."

No one has yet been able to articulate a compelling reason for declaring a single-celled embryo a "human being" with significant inalienable "rights" but a so-called "brain dead" human being (at any age) is just a grab bag of free organs for Christians to help themselves to. How does that work exactly? Why aren't we freezing all these brain dead people or keeping them respiring? Don't Christians believe in miracles anymore?

42

~DS~
Could you clarify why you insist "life cannot begin at conception" just because sometimes it dies before birth? That makes no sense. Death always comes after life. Sometimes sooner than one might prefer. I mean, some kids die before they talk. It doesn't make infants not human until they exhibit the ability to reason. Or perhaps for you, it does.

Kevin,
You list a litany of "who is respected" as an ethicist and "who is not". From whence did you get this "review"? Respected by whom? You? Who are you? I do know that 20 years ago when I was at school Mr Kass's (and his wife's) classes were amongst those most sought after by undergrads. He certainly had respect amongst the U of Chicago undergrad population.

You seem to fall into the school of those complaining about the bioethics committee that they don't seem to be doing much science. Duh. In fact, you complain

This is a weakness - it leads them to try to make arguments by citing short stories, which is not a very rigorous way of proceding.

43

Yes Joe I realize the every human living underwent fertilization and subsequent development. Every Oak Tree standing started out as a tiny dot, which produced an acorn, which produced a seedling, etc. That doesn't mean acorns=oak trees now does it?
Every adult and went through the terrible twos. That doesn't mean that toddlers=adults. And if you granted toddlers the legal rights of an adult you'd have a catastrophe on your hands pretty quick ;)
My point is there is such a thing as a continious spectrum with very differnet objects on each end. But exactly where the transition occurs is a matter mostly of definition or emphasis on a specific arbitrary factor.

If you want to define people as a blastocyte, that's fin with me. It doesn't make any sense, but that's your call. But at least be consistent about it for crying out loud. The way it is right now, with you claiming blastocytes deserve the rights of people, you end up with some blastocytes being more equal than others.

Friendly suggestion: There's no point in telling people that they don't what they're talking about, until you confirm that they indeed do not know what they're talking about relative to yourself. You have a succesful Blog here with a lot of traffic and there's poeple looking in who will swoop down and gig you just because you're a Christian and a right-to-lifer. I know it's not always easy to stay cool, you're taking hits from goons all the time I'm sure, but it's probably a good idea to try.

44

Mark I didn't say it cannot. I said it doesn't always and in some cases it cannot.

45

DS,
you say: "Blastcytes aren't people; bottom line. They have no organs, no nerves, no differentation. You call define them as human if you wish, but people they are not. POtential people, in many cases they are. but acorns are not oak trees, eggs are not chicken breast, toddlers are not adults, and blastocyets are not a person. If you doubt me, try taking blood or a pulse from one :)"

I thought we were talking about science - that's why I provide the quotes from embryology textbooks. You come back with the assertion that embryos (you use the term blastocyte) aren't people. Well DS, what's the difference between living human beings and people?

Acorns aren't oak trees but they are oaks. Your old and weak pro-choice analogy proves nothing more than the fact that embryos aren't adult human beings.

Since when did being able to have a pulse or take blood make one a "person?" You're merely making up an arbitrary criteria for personhood because I've provided evidence that the unborn are human beings. I could do the same thing in a different way. "Liberal aren't persons because you have to be conservative to be a person." That's an assertion based in a circular argument. That's the way you're arguing.

Plus, then you'd have to believe that older embryos and fetuses where persons because they do have heart beats and blood flow thru their body.

46

Joe,

I'll repeat my question from above (it's okay if it's boring and you wish to ignore it; I won't take it personally). Your basis for argument is the "substance view" of personality, in which the human is considered an ontologically unchanged substance based on biological unity and homogeneity, which is established at conception. My question, purely out of intellectual curiosity: in this perspective, are dead humans ontologically the same as live ones? If not, how/why is the distinction drawn?

47

Jivin even scientists struggle with a universal definition of what it means to be human. If you limit it to any living or potential living matter which contains 23 pairs of haploid Human chromosomes, a pretty braod definition, you eliminate victims of Down's and other genetic disorders while including every individual cell in a blastocyte as each being a seperate human (Which BTW regresses forever as you take each one and let it develop). I would argue Down's victims and others deserve to be called human also. Almost any rigid definition you can come up with suffers from scientific flaws if pushed to an extreme. Stating that 'human life begins at conception' is riddled with scientific problems in practice. I think KtK was correct when he said that is a moral or ethical call, not a scientific one.

48

DS - Did you mean Jivin J not Viv?
You say: "You're forced by your peculiar religoius ideology which mandates for political purposes that blastocytes be defined as potential human life to maintain that human life begins at conception and so to 'destroy a fertlized egg is the equavelent of murder". Fine, but don't kind yourself that your ideology is based on clear science or consistent morality, or even common sense."

You know nothing about me or my religion so your ignorant attempt to pigeon hole is an obvious ad hominem attack.

What religion says that at conception the life of a human being begins? Not Chrisitianity. Science tells us this.

You say, "You don't have a scientific leg to stand on if you think that a blastocyte is a person, has feelings, has conciousness, etc. Morphologically, an amoeba is a freakin supergenuis compared to a human blastocyte. At least the amoeba can survive and fend for itself. Your alleged human life doesn't have the brains of a jellyfish. Scientifcally, a blastocyte is not a person unless you stretch the definition of person to the point of absurdity."

Me: Do you see how DS changes the subject from "human being" to "person?" This is what pro-choicers do when they've been proven wrong.

What is the difference between a human being and a person? Please explain instead of merely asserting your opinion as if it was a fact that everyone understands.

Science doesn't touch the subject of "personhood." It's a philosophical argument. Attempting to act like it is a scientific one is not going to win any arguments.

You:"You don't have a moral case. Anyone on the pro-life side who isn't organizing letter campaigns, lobbying, or shouting in the streets about IVF, is an accesory or complicit, or willing to ignore, mass child murder, using your own definitions."

Me: This is an ad hominem attack. It has nothing to do with my argument but attacks my supposed inconsistency instead. I could be right or wrong about whether the unborn are human beings or not regardless of whether I'm shouting in the street about anything. But thanks for showing us how not to argue.

49

DS,
You've failed to address my embryology textbook quotes at all. You've merely ignored them.

What scientist struggles with what it means to be human? Biologists? Probably not. Bioethics that have no background in biology? Maybe.

Please inform us of the difference between "human beings" and "persons." And if you have to think about it for a minute, understand that you're discriminating against a group of human beings (the unborn) based on an arbitrary criteria that you don't even have a definition for.

50

Larry,
Do you understand what it means to be brain dead?

Brain dead human beings are no longer living human beings. Have you ever read the Uniform Death Act? If not, read it and then get back to me.

51

Jivin J, his feathers ruffled, writes

"You know nothing about me or my religion so your ignorant attempt to pigeon hole is an obvious ad hominem attack."

So what is your religion? Are gay people going to suffer eternal torment in the pits of hell according to you? Or are they human beings capable of loving another person in a committed relationship and raising a family and who shouldn't be discriminated against?

You brought up your religious beliefs. Let's have them. What does your holy book say about brain dead human beings? Or human beings at an early stage of development before they have brains, limbs or any other organs or differentiated tissue to speak of?

Let's hear it big guy. Time to play with the adults. Put down the script. Let's hear some rational arguments instead of the stupid semantic bullcrap. That is, if you are capable of articulating a rational argument and setting your holy book and your preacher's script aside for five seconds.

52

Larry,
The fact that you don't understand basic biology is what is truly funny. Acorns, oak seedlings, oak saplings are biologically oaks that aren't fully developed. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, newborns, adolescents, and pro-choice trolls are biologically human beings that aren't fully developed.

53

"Brain dead human beings are no longer living human beings. "

Oh really?

"Have you ever read the Uniform Death Act?"

Have you ever read Roe v. Wade?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!

54

"The fact that you don't understand basic biology is what is truly funny."

The fact that you jump down someone's throat because they allegedly "don't know you" but then you accuse of a Ph.D. molecular biologist of not understanding "basic biology" is truly sad.

And hypocritical. And it also ignores the point that I was making, which is valid and admitted by you, to the extent you can't refute it. Kind of dishonest of you. Have you checked your ten commandments lately?

Human beings are primates. Do primate embryos have inalienable rights?

55

Larry,
DS brought up religion. None of my previous posts brought up religion. Have I based any of my arguments on the Bible? Or have they been based on logic and science?

56

Yes Jivin there is no fail proof universal definition of what a human is. We all have a pretty good idea what it mans to be human intuitively. But if you try to scientifically define it down to the "T" you end up with various definitions,e ach with some utility, but all of which fail in some cases. No matter how you frame it you will end up including some things you want to exclude, or excluding some items you wish to include. And in most cases, both. If you doubt me, pose a definition and let's see if we can cause that to happen?

57

DS,
I like that endeavor(sp?). You're still ignoring my embryology textbook quotes but we'll let that slide. How does this work:

A human being is an organism that is human.

58

DS: My point is there is such a thing as a continious spectrum with very differnet objects on each end. But exactly where the transition occurs is a matter mostly of definition or emphasis on a specific arbitrary factor.

I certainly recognize and agree that we place different markers along the route of human development. What I don’t think is disputable is when life begins.

If you want to define people as a blastocyte, that's fin with me. It doesn't make any sense, but that's your call. But at least be consistent about it for crying out loud. The way it is right now, with you claiming blastocytes deserve the rights of people, you end up with some blastocytes being more equal than others.

I think you are confused about my purported claims. I never said that blastocytes deserve the rights of adults or even those of infants. In fact, about the only right that I think is inherently due the blastocyte is the right not to be killed. It is only because our “right to continue existing” wasn’t violated at that stage of development that we are even able to have this discussion.

Friendly suggestion: There's no point in telling people that they don't what they're talking about, until you confirm that they indeed do not know what they're talking about relative to yourself.

You are right. When I said that to Kevin I should have been clearer about what I meant. I wasn’t meaning to imply that Kevin wasn’t able to grasp what was being discussed or that I had some special knowledge. My only point was that he was making claims that were in contradiction to the facts presented. Now if he would have claimed that he merely disagreed with Hurlbut’s technical findings that would have been a different argument.

I certainly try not to pull the “you don’t know what you’re talking about” care very often. It is generally rude and rather counter-productive. But there are certain times when an issue is so well-established that It’s denial isn’t really open to question. I see know (I think) that our differences are rather semantic. I was saying the world wasn’t flat and you were claiming that I was being misleading by not clarifying that it was oblong.

Now as for our disagreement about “personhood”, I can certainly recognize that the issue is not so established that it is not open to question. I think discussing the issue can prove fruitful and will put it on the schedule for a future post.

Jim: I'll repeat my question from above (it's okay if it's boring and you wish to
ignore it; I won't take it personally). Your basis for argument is the "substance view" of personality, in which the human is considered an ontologically unchanged substance based on biological unity and homogeneity, which is established at conception. My question, purely out of intellectual curiosity: in this perspective, are dead humans ontologically the same as live
ones? If not, how/why is