Funky recently sent an email to Senater Arlen Specter regarding stem cells and cloning. He got the following response, which he forwarded to me. I was more than happy to fisk it for him. Senator Specter is a noted proponent of science and embryonic stem cell research in particular. As his letter to Funky indicates below, he should spend less time advocating and more time with a undergraduate-biology text, as he makes some very basic mistakes in describing what cloning is and is not. Presumably he sent similar letter to other constituents, and so fisking this mess of half-truths is even more important.
"Cloning and stem cell research have been topics of much debate over the past several months. Unfortunately, a key fact that sometimes gets lost in the rhetoric is that there are really two types of cloning: therapeutic cloning, which is not really cloning at all, and reproductive cloning."
Okay, therapeutic cloning is not really cloning, we're going to have some words about that, but let's see how this is developed first.
"I believe that human reproductive cloning is unethical, irresponsible, and dangerous. However, the other technique, which has been misnamed therapeutic cloning, is not what most Americans think of when they hear the word cloning. The entire procedure takes place in a petri dish, not in a person. Also, a sperm never fertilizes the egg. Most importantly, and unlike reproductive cloning, a baby is never born."
Specter considers birth and being fertilized by a sperm to be crucial factors in why therapeutic cloning is not morally wrong, which is curious to say the least.
First off, Specter makes an implicit error in describing cloning. He states that since reproductive cloning does not involve fertilization with sperm, it is not really cloning. WRONG. The whole idea with cloning is that you do not combine genes from different organisms (i.e., a male and a female) but take them from ONE organism. NEITHER reproductive nor therapeutic cloning use sperm, since that contradicts what a clone is supposed to be. For a supposed advocate of science research, this sort of mistake or ambiguity (Maybe he was trying to make some sort of different point? Maybe it was the intern's fault?) is a disgrace.
Now let's get into some other issues. At the end of the paragraph, we read that therapeutic cloning is okay because "a baby is never born". Well, once again, we hit the issue of abortion and when personhood begins.
We also see that because a child is not born, it is okay. Does this mean that we must spend some time in a uterus to have our humanity conferred upon us? What is the substance in the uterus or placenta that does that?
One of my pet peeves is that the "life begins at conception" position is called religious, whereas hand-waving type arguments such as "personhood begins at birth" are not, even though the latter cannot point to any significant, intrinsic change to organism that would make a believable difference in the organism's moral status, whereas the conception benchmark can point to the establishment of an organism's identity as a separate organism with its own genome.
Such arbitrariness finds its apotheosis in utilitarianism, where there is no real inherent personhood, just a relative weighing of everyone's good. If more benefit from your demise than you would stand to gain from remaining alive, then you lose. Good night.
"On April 21, 2005, I, with Senators Dianne Feinstein, Orrin Hatch, Tom Harkin and Edward Kennedy introduced S. 876, the "Human Cloning Ban and Stem Cell Research Protection Act of 2005," which prohibits human cloning while preserving important areas of medical research. My bill would prohibit human reproductive cloning by imposing a criminal penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a civil penalty of at least $ 1 million dollars. "
So if we bring a cloned human embryo to term, we're criminals, but if we kill it early, we can do important research and get Mr. Specter's applause.
Ya know, people would sometimes attack pro-lifers for going on about "slippery slopes", but read this paragraph of Specter's closely: it is no longer a matter of "choice" with what we do with our embryos, since now in the case of cloned embryos, Messrs. Specter and Kennedy want to make it mandatory for us to kill cloned embryos, because if we brought them to term, we'd face severe federal penalties. Where is the abortion rhetoric taking us now that our abilities to manipulate organisms are far more varied and powerful than in 1973, when the Supreme Court declared it open season on prenatal human life with Roe v. Wade?
Perhaps within a few decades, we will be able raise a human being from a fertilized egg to a full-term infant without the use of a uterus. Such a child would not be born, and so according to Specter's letter, perhaps that child would not be a person. Can we do what we want with such children if they are vat-grown, so to speak, and not raised in utero?
"Over the past four years as both Ranking Member, and now Chairman, of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, I have convened and participated in 15 hearings at which scientists, patients, and ethicists have described the promise of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, which is also known as nuclear transplantation. Most scientists strongly believe that this research has the potential to cure many of the most devastating diseases and maladies afflicting Americans today, including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, severe burns, paralysis and many more. In testimony before my Subcommittee, scientists have estimated that over 100 million Americans are afflicted with diseases that may be treated or cured using what our scientists are learning from stem cell and nuclear transplantation research."
Education, I have convened and participated in 15 hearings at which scientists, patients, and ethicists have described the promise of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, which is also known as nuclear transplantation. Most scientists strongly believe that this research has the potential to cure many of the most devastating diseases and maladies afflicting Americans today, including Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, heart disease, severe burns, paralysis and many more. In testimony before my Subcommittee, scientists have estimated that over 100 million Americans are afflicted with diseases that may be treated or cured using what our scientists are learning from stem cell and nuclear transplantation research.
Okay, check out Do No Harm and see that adult stem cells are delivering the goods on many of those diseases in the here and now. Adult stem cells are technically simpler to harvest and manipulate—recall the KISS principle of engineering: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Alzheimer's is a red herring for embryonic researchers: replacing the brain tissue will not necessarily replace the personality who originally got the dementia. Besides, if you do not focus on the amyloid plaque production that causes Alzheimer's in the first place, trying to make new neurons and glial cells doesn't make much sense.
With their ability to replace damaged cells and tissue, stem cells appear to be a veritable fountain of youth.
Ah, and folks like Specter think that pro-lifers are manipulative by playing on people's guilt for killing fetuses, yet these guys make promises about fountains of youth when even big embryonic researchers, like the cloning researcher in South Korea, admit that any sort of human treatment may be a decade or more past the horizon.
In the meantime we are getting many adult stem cell treatments either in the market now, or in the FDA pipeline. How long before embryonic stuff even gets to the beginning of the FDA's arduous testing?
For a quick fisking of embryonic research rhetoric, check out this First Things article.
"In their embryonic stage, stem cells show great promise for a wide range of therapeutic use, as they are capable of giving rise to any cell type in the body. If a person's neurons have been damaged by Parkinson's disease, the stem cells can be turned into brain cells and used to replace the patient's damaged cells. If a patient has suffered heart damage, stem cells can be turned into heart cells and replace the patient's damaged cells with new, healthy heart cells."
Again, already being done with adult stem cells, and without the risk of rejection from using foreign embryonic stem cells, or the baroque process of cloning one's own embryos to create genetically identical stem cells. See my point about KISS above.
"Nuclear transplantation is one of the most promising techniques using stem cells. This technique combines a donated, unfertilized egg with the nucleus of a body cell from a patient. This creates an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient. Next, the cells divide and form a hollow ball of about 100 cells from which stem cells can be derived. These stem cells can then be turned into whatever type of cells the patient needs to repair damage done by injury or disease. Therapeutic cloning is not what most Americans think of when they hear the word cloning. Most importantly, and unlike reproductive cloning, a cloned baby is never born."
Which begs the question of abortion and personhood. The paragraph does describe the process of cloning and killing very well in a technical sense, but it does not solve any moral debates.
"This promise of this research is so great that 40 Nobel prize winners, over 100 patient advocacy groups, actors Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve, Kevin Kline, and former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter have written to Congress and the President pleading with us to ban reproductive cloning but allow nuclear transplantation and stem cell research to go forward. The legislation that I have introduced does exactly this. Importantly, my bill would allow medical research into nuclear transplantation, thereby allowing promising research towards cures for a vast array of disease to proceed. In addition, my bill would apply strict Federal ethical requirements to all nuclear transplantation research, which includes informed consent, an ethics review board, and protections for the safety and privacy of research participants."
Ah, so here were are trying to bank on some sort of inherent moral authority that Nobel prize-winners, actors, and politicians possess.
So if a scientist says that something is good, it must be so? History makes me skeptical, to say the least. Many scientists once advocated eugenics—the USA had a thriving eugenics movement that the Nazis used at a template for their own work, and eugenics was quite trendy until WWII and news of the Holocaust snapped people out of it. Where was the morality in that? What makes scientists more inherently ethical than others?
In short, using scientists as a sort of secular priesthood, or permitting any elite to define its own values and compel the public as a whole to follow these values without a broader dialogue and consensus is incompatible with a Republic. I wish that a Senator of all people could do better!
And why should I give a rat's tail what a Hollwood actor thinks? Many Hollwood actors think that bad thoughts were implanted in us by an evil alien named Xenu, a la Scientology. At least Nobel prize-winners have actually done some real thinking about something at some point in their lives. They're a less laughable authority than Hollywood.
I'll do y'all a favor and not get started on Clinton. Former President Ford, I can understand, since from what I've heard he may be even clumsier than me, and no doubt wants a reliable supply of spare parts. Perhaps he could be turned around with some good demonstrations of existing non-embryonic technologies. 
"Currently, it is unclear whether either bill has the votes needed to pass the Senate. I am hopeful, however, that Congress will be able to move ahead in banning reproductive cloning, while simultaneously establishing a regulatory group to oversee how the science of nuclear transplantation helps discover life sustaining cures. While some people consider research on human embryos inherently unethical, I believe that such objections might be outweighed if the research on nuclear transplantation was proven to be beneficial for the purposes of saving the lives of many Americans."
The same has been said for other controversial research before, and I feel ill that a Jewish person, of all ethnic minorities, can say this without a second thought. How quickly we forget!
Medical atrocities happen within the US; many people know about how poor rural blacks were used as guinea pigs in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, but even more recently in the 1960s, a New York City facility (Willowbrook State School) deliberately infected mentally retarded patients with hepatatis as a research experiment.
But hey, syphilis and hepatitis are serious public health risks, so while you and I consider it unethical, it is in the public good, right? And it's only retarded people and poor blacks, right? What were they going to do anyway?
"Again, thank you for bringing your views to my attention. Be assured that I will remain attentive to your concerns as the Congress grapples with this difficult, yet vitally important issue affecting so many lives. If you have any further questions on this issue or any related matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or visit my website, at http://specter.senate.gov. "
Oh, you'll be hearing from us again, Mr. Senator…. Mwah ha ha ha! 
Update:
Here's a news article relevant to this topic:
"Option to stem cells found: Pitt experts say placental cells offer palatable alternative"
"University of Pittsburgh researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly similar to embryonic stem cells in their ability to regenerate a wide variety of tissues."
Jerry
Comments 62
j
very good article, as always. it's reminiscent of the talk you gave at the newman center and the article you wrote for the anchor.
+0
Posted 05 Aug 2005 at 4:28 pm ¶"Funky recently sent an email to Senater Arlen Specter regarding stem cells and cloning."
Could you post that letter?
—
+0
Posted 05 Aug 2005 at 8:40 pm ¶It was a canned letter written by either Grassfire, SBA List, or someone similar. I'll try to dig it up.
+0
Posted 05 Aug 2005 at 9:47 pm ¶For those interested, the letter can be found at SBA List.
+0
Posted 05 Aug 2005 at 9:55 pm ¶Someone posted that article out of the PG on a message board and I just knew you'd have it here
+0
Posted 06 Aug 2005 at 1:10 am ¶". . . the conception benchmark can point to the establishment of an organism's identity as a separate organism with its own genome."
That's all well and good, but how does it relate to real life? Do you find your identity in being a separate organism within your genome? The experience of being human has nothing to do with genetic individuality. Rather, humanness comes from a completely different stratum in our biological organization. To borrow (and re-imagine) an oft-used analogy, trying to define humanity by pointing to organismal distinctness within a genome is like trying to define a mousetrap by discussing the molecular structures of the materials comprising its components. You're on the wrong page altogether.
When does human life begin? That's a hard question. But an even harder question is, What is this human life whose beginning we're debating? Is "human life" an intrinsic category in the universal context, or is "human life" only a psychological category created by our species? If you could observe our species from a non-human perspective, would "human life" be an obvious category, and where would it begin and end? I think the philosophical aspect of this problem is all too often just ignored by ideologues on both sides.
+0
Posted 06 Aug 2005 at 4:55 am ¶If we could observe the human species from a non-human perspective with sufficient scanning technology, then yes, the hypothetical advanced aliens would recognize the fertilized oocyte as human. Our watchers would see that the embryonic stage is simply one of several crude (more less arbitrarily defined) stages of normal development of humans, a stage from which, if the embryo, then zygote, then foetus, then toddler, then child, is given ordinary care and protection will experience "human life" in much the same way that we adult humans experience it.
When human life begins is not a hard question at all. When a human life ought to be accorded care and protection is the "difficult" one, at least when according care and protection to such a life interferes with the convenience or pleasure of another.
I doubt very many of us finds "identity [merely] in being a separate organism within our genome", but I think it is fair to say that those of us allowed to live into adulthood can, as members of a species that has developed strong senses of community and empathy, identify an individual at an earlier stage of development as being one of us.
+0
Posted 06 Aug 2005 at 7:08 am ¶" If we could observe the human species from a non-human perspective with sufficient scanning technology, then yes, the hypothetical advanced aliens would recognize the fertilized oocyte as human."
What is "human"? Noun or adjective? If you had a disembodied brain from a member of Homo sapiens and you pointed to it and said "human," what would you mean? Do you mean "That brain is human," "That brain came from a human," or "That brain is part of a human"? If parts are "human," and embryos are "human," then you're still left with an existential and experiential category which is the psychological human with self-consciousness that is distinct both from parts and embryos. What is that?
+0
Posted 07 Aug 2005 at 2:04 am ¶Well, human is both a noun and an adjective. As a noun it is relatively unambiguous. Human as a purely biological modifier to an individual of a species is also unambiguous. This is the way I usually use the term "human" in discussing whether an organism is human or not. The "disembodied brain" would be an organ removed from a human. It is a human brain. It was part of a human. It is not a human.
Human, in the sense used by Capt. Kirk to describe Spock's sacraficial death at the end of Wrath of Khan is more ambiguous, and perhaps that is more the kind of definition you're digging for, but this gets at subjective aspects of humanity. Such aspects are without doubt quite important and may, in fact, be normative in "being human"…. but they don't seem to help us objectively identify a distinct member of the human species. Theo, you have yourself publicly doubted that consciousness is even definable. And I think we'd all agree that consciousness could not be defined in a way that would be empirically verfiable. So why now make it a critical part of the definition of "human"?
+0
Posted 07 Aug 2005 at 7:06 am ¶My point is not to pin particular criteria to the definition of "human" but to show that even if you're going to call an embryo and an adult both "human," there is still a meaningful difference between the adult and the embryo, and ignoring that difference with the gloss term "human" and applying the same ethical standard to both under that banner is hardly careful thinking about an issue that is clearly important to many people on both sides of the argument.
+0
Posted 07 Aug 2005 at 6:35 pm ¶the conception benchmark can point to the establishment of an organism's identity as a separate organism with its own genome.
I'd like to disagree with this. The newly formed zygote is not an organism by the standard def'ns of organism as given in Merriam-Webster Online, which are 1.a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole, or 2. an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent.
Thus, because it is not until the fifth week that we see organogenesis begin, according to scientific research, we cannot technically call the newlyformed zygote an organism, unless you want to use a nonscientific standard def'n of organism.
Furthermore, the newlyformed zygote may have its own genome, but that is not what makes it unique as the twinning process proves. Its genome can become shared with another and its distinctness as an individual will eventually be based on its genome and experiences both within and outside the womb.
I see cloning as a replication of what happens naturally with twins. The real issue is when the unborn human fetus/zygote should be a legally protected person. I believe as a christian that to have human dna, be biologically alive is not sufficient to be a human being, as all of our cells fit these requirements. The additional criterion of "potential" is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion. I think what determines whether something is a human being is its soul, understood as referring to the totality of their being. We recognize this by the observance of the physical development of the embryo. It is only at the 48th day of pregnancy, shown here, that the embryo takes on the human form. It is not good enough to look at the arms or legs. The determination needs to be based on the totality of the human zygotes form.
Yet, I also don't believe that we can expect to make law what we Xtns believe to be right and that all attempts to change the law risks endangering the loss of our autonomy from state(something the RCC has been quite fallible with historically) and that is why I don't think it is wise to try and aim to extend legal personhood any earlier than the end of the first trimester for the foreseeable future. I have my own idea for how we can gradually work toward this point that I am still awaiting constructive criticism from Funky and Gerry, regarding.
cheers,
dlw
+0
Posted 07 Aug 2005 at 10:58 pm ¶Since when does Merriam-Webster Online represent the totality of medical science? Wouldn't any of these definitions (by that kind of standard) be just as good? I'm not convinced a zygote isn't an organism just because Merriam-Webster don't say it is.
+0
Posted 07 Aug 2005 at 11:42 pm ¶there is still a meaningful difference between the adult and the embryo, and ignoring that difference with the gloss term "human" and applying the same ethical standard to both under that banner is hardly careful thinking about an issue that is clearly important to many people on both sides of the argument.
There is a meaningful difference between an embryo and an adult of a species: development (protection, care, time, perhaps even some dumb luck). What's not so careful about that thinking? I don't see how this can be argued objectively. Any line in the sand between a human organism (David's deft handwaving notwithstanding) deserving of care and protection and one not deserving is ultimately arbitrary–purely "aesthetic". I understand the "aesthetic judgements" of those on "the other side" of the issue. I just don't agree with them.
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 2:21 am ¶I will agree that it is a valid statement under certain very vague def'ns of organism. I would alter my previous post to say that I think that it is a potentially misleading word-choice given the ambiguity associated with the term organism.
But basically all the statement under scrutiny then says is that the newly-formed zygote has its own human dna and is a living thing. And that is precisely why it is not obvious that it is a human being.
Steve, I have to disagree. I think that all lines based on autonomy or size or potential are arbitrary. Yet, our ability to first recognize ourselves in the other(human zygote) is decidedly not arbitrary. Take a look at the earlier stages and see how non-human they look like by contrast to all of the subsequent stages of development.
I think there is a reason why prolife advocates only show the hands and feet of zygotes after a week. Those are the only parts that look human at that point. To truly judge the presence of a soul, one needs to deliberate on the entirety of something's existence. According to Christos Yannaras(see Orthodox Anthropology) the proper Xtn understanding of soul is the way in which life is manifested in a person, the whole person, which is expressed by the body, which corresponds to our ego(identity) to the way in which we realize life.
And so even if you still think the determination of when we become human beings is a purely aesthetic judgment, one cannot insist that your aesthetic judgment be made law and to rule over all others. I mean there are just so many human organisms out there and I'm sure we're all just killing some in our heads beating this dead horse over and over again.
dlw
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 5:18 am ¶"There is a meaningful difference between an embryo and an adult of a species: development (protection, care, time, perhaps even some dumb luck). What's not so careful about that thinking?"
What's not careful about it is that you're saying that on the one hand there's a meaningful ontological difference between an embryo and an adult, but on the other hand each demands the same ethical obligation. Now, it's certainly feasible to reasonably expect that two unequal (i.e., different) objects demand the same (or a similar) ethical obligation, but to do so you must derive that ethical obligation for different reasons; you must reason the same ethical end from two different beginnings. That is, you cannot say that two different things (in this case an embryo and an adult) both demand the same ethical obligation while maintaining that, yes, they are ontologically distinct, but without making two distinct ethical arguments.
We have an excellent grasp on why the adult demands an ethical obligation of protection because most of the history of human ethical philosophy has concerned adult humans. We, as a species, have covered that ground well. What we have not covered is why an embryo—which is invisible to the naked eye and therefore counterintuitive as a locus of ethical obligation—demands protection. To say that the embryo demands the same protection as an adult because both are human begs the question of humanity. We know what humanity is in an adult, whether we can agree on a codified definition or not, we all behave according to an implicit recognition of other human beings. We do not experience that recognition in the case of an embryo, therefore "humanity" is clearly not the proper criterion for establishing the obligation of a protection ethic for embryos.
My point is not that it's impossible, unthinkable, illogical, or unreasonable to suppose that a protection ethic for embryos might be contrived, but rather that a suitable one has not yet been contrived, and running in circles by calling embryos "human beings" when they clearly do not manifest the same qualities that are clear to observers and have been considered in the historically established philosophies of human ethics will not do the trick. Regardless of the biological, developmental, or genetic connections between an embryo and an adult, the fact is that ethics are not primarily about the abstract ontological connections of an object, but about that object's interaction with individuals who reflect upon it subjectively. That is, we did not develop the philosophical ethical obligation of "thou shalt not kill" because we recognized the genetic benefits of protecting members of our own species. Rather, it's much more likely that the benefit is what led to the evolution of the recognition, which means we are "hard wired," so to speak, to intuitively understand what another human is. Embryos do not fit that intuitive understanding, and must therefore have their ethical protection established according to a different standard, if at all.
What I am suggesting, then, is not that embryos are naturally, intrinsically, or necessarily unworthy of protection, but rather that no argument I've heard for their protection addresses embryos as embryos. Instead, arguments for protecting embryos place them a priori into the ethical category of "human" without demonstrating their humanness as has been clearly observed in other "marginalized" groups whose numbers have been added to the sphere of "humanity" in recent centuries (e.g., women, dark-skinned people, children, etc.).
As a kind of thought experiment, I propose that should we devise a quantum computer that achieves "artificial intelligence" on par with human intelligence, such an entity would be accepted into the ethical sphere of humanity rather quickly while the status of embryos remained controversial. Why? Because such an AI system would behave as a human where an embryo does not and cannot. In the establishment of ethics, abstract arguments from genetics and development cannot replace the concrete experience of interaction.
At any rate, if I don't comment for a couple days, it's because I'm climbing a mountain in Yosemite National Park.
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 5:41 am ¶Theo, I think the issue is whether we provide the unborn human zygote/embryo/fetus protections analogous to those currently provided to newborns, who also do not evince many of the things we cherish about humans.
I have had the hard-wired intuitive recognition of another in an unborn, specifically my youngest sister who was born when I was 18. I was showing off catscan pictures of her five months before she was born.
At issue I believe is whether we accept as suitable impressions made with the assistance of advanced technology that would be impossible for the naked eye.
Now that doesn't settle the matter of discernment between elective and nonelective abortions, but it would go a long ways and, as I have advocated, I believe that if more than 75% of the US population were in favor of a given alteration to when the human fetus should be treated as a legally protected person that the change should be made and not otherwise.
dlw
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 4:40 pm ¶I don't agree with a lot of DLW's positions, but I'm with him on this. I'd rather see a reduction in abortions ASAP than keep my fingers crossed for a ban later. Besides, the former isn't mutually exclusive with the latter.
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 4:48 pm ¶Slava Boho!(Ukrainian for Praise God!)
I think the best we can aim for in the near future is to make all elective abortions after the first trimester illegal and then to use preventive approaches to reduce majorly the number of first trimester abortions.
And I should add that just because I think that abortions before the 48th day of pregnancy are not murder, doesn't have any qualms about them and would not prefer for them to be avoided.
But I do have problems with treating the zygotes that may be used for IVF as full human beings and insisting that they be legally treated as such, given that this relies so heavily on the conception belief.
dlw
dlw
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 5:34 pm ¶David,
First, it is not up to us to judge the presence of a soul. In fact, contrary to popular (even RCC) opinion, not even the RCC attempts to infallibly define when a soul exists in a human organism. Our job is simply to behave as if there is a soul, for there could be. We have no way of knowing. We will forever have no way of knowing whether there even is a soul, much less when it is "granted" to and individual.
Second, my aesthetic judgements should be made law if enough people agree with them. Sadly, tho' not surpisingly, not enough do. I've no idea what you mean by "I'm sure we're all just killing some in our heads beating this dead horse over and over again." The old "political capital" argument? Bah. It is a profound mistake to think that orthodox Christians can sit at modernity's table and have any influence whatsosever–rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic is rather apt analogy in my estimation. Our capital must be spent on preserving families, communities, and local institutions, so that we'll have something left with which to rebuild.
Theo says:
What I am suggesting, then, is not that embryos are naturally, intrinsically, or necessarily unworthy of protection, but rather that no argument I've heard for their protection addresses embryos as embryos.
We have had millions of years to adjust to the idea of "people vaguely like myself, therefore with whom I can/must empathize". We have had only seconds (on a geological scale) to adjust to the idea of "so when we start out we're just a single cell". It is possible that millions of years in the future we might "naturally" recognize "humanity" in that single cell. But it seems (today at least) impossible to to address embryos as embryos. So we address them as entities in whom there is potential, given a few short weeks of protection and care, to develop into entities that we can immediately recognize and possibly empathize. Suppose an adult suffered an accident (say gamma radiation) which turned him into a large blob of gelatinous goo (with the same DNA) and from which we could detect no brainwaves. Suppose further that medical technology had advanced to the point where it was feasible to "bring back" this person intact given a few weeks of ordinary and unremarkable care (e.g., keep in a barrel at 37C, adding electrolytes in proportion to mass, and stirring occasionally). Would we not think it our duty to provide this care? This seems perfectly analogous ethically to the question of the fertilized oocyte.
Best regards
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 11:01 pm ¶Steve,
You seem to be implicitly using the greek notion of soul. I would suggest this is not the biblical hebraic notion of the soul, which I defined earlier, thanks to Yannaras.
Soul refers to our totality of being and is not divorced from our physical form and that is why it is not so radically indeterminate whether we are truly "ensouled" yet. That is also why honest deliberations on and communication about the facts of human fetal development by a community of people committed to the sanctity of human life should go a long way to build a better consensus as to what our community's ideals should be.
"I'm sure we're all just killing some in our heads beating this dead horse over and over again."
this "some" refers to the human organism/brain cells that are dying as a result of us going over this yet again.
The old "political capital" argument? Bah. It is a profound mistake to think that orthodox Christians can sit at modernity's table and have any influence whatsosever–rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic is rather apt analogy in my estimation.
Our world is in the process of redemption. We will not start over but hold in continuity with this existing world when Xst returns and so we have a responsibility to take care of it and that includes being better stewards of our political capital.
Our capital must be spent on preserving families, communities, and local institutions, so that we'll have something left with which to rebuild.
Our families/communities/local stuff are still affected by nat'l and int'l institutions and so if we care about the local/familial stuff, we need to also care about the more macro stuff.
think about it.
dlw
+0
Posted 08 Aug 2005 at 11:55 pm ¶David, it appears that you are missing the point, which is that there are no "facts" about "fetal development" that are capable of changing the mind of anyone (except perhaps a very poorly informed person) on this issue. Such rationalism is unbecoming a person of "faith". That is to say, it is only a budding materialist that would seek to turn a moral question into a scientific one, the materialist that would actually go on believing that objectivity will answer moral questions.
And it is not that I don't care about "macro stuff" (as you so quaintly put it), but that I have come to the conclusion that I have very little (actually no) power influence such "stuff". Better to utilize my limited power to influence the things that can be influenced. I say again, ours is not to immanentize eschaton. (See also Tony Esolen's excellent Touchstone article "Where Went the Neighborhood?".)
Toward the idea that a human brain cell might be confused ontologically with a human zygote I have little more than contempt. Pity perhaps (and temporarily) for one so confused as to hold it, but of the idea itself: contempt, that being the charitable response to hardened and willful ignorance.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 3:52 pm ¶Steve, one cannot dichotomize faith and reason, the two are intertwined. As I recall, Christian thought has long relied on both revealed and natural wisdom in the discernment of right conduct. As such, in deciding what we ought to do wrt the human zygote/embryo/fetus we ought to deliberate on scripture and our traditions and the facts about fetal development that are available to us today in ways that were not available in the past. You're not a fideist or an ultramontanist? Can't say I care much for those positions.
I agree that our influence on macro stuff is limited, but it does exist and depends on our ability to develop stances that differ from the predominant positions in ways that hold true to our belief systems and will be persuasive for others. I mean political change is possible and it always starts with individuals and so why can't we help to start or strengthen changes. From my studies, it seems that such does make a difference in setting up or breaking down barriers to our ability to share about our faith with others.
As for the brain-cell, I said nothing about them getting confused with each other, just that Gerry's implicit def'n used of a human organism would apply equally to all of our cells as well as the newly-formed zygote.
cheers,
dlw
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 5:11 pm ¶"As for the brain-cell, I said nothing about them getting confused with each other, just that Gerry's implicit def'n used of a human organism would apply equally to all of our cells as well as the newly-formed zygote."
dlw, where did I implictly say this?
BTW, it's Jerry, not Gerry.
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 5:41 pm ¶David, you're still not getting it: You actually believe that we can arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion regarding human life by the employment of reason. You are not alone in this belief. This is, in fact, the foundational flaw of all of Protestantism, originating in Luther himself (tho' to be fair he had plenty of impetus from Augustine and the scholastics–he took them one step further). But it is a flaw, a flaw that I think is already proving fatal to survival of orthodoxy within protestantism. Protestantism is simply juvenile agnosticism. Protestantism remains orthodox in precise proportion to the extent that it denies its own fundamental tenets.
Now I agree that faith and reason are intertwined–so much so as to be mutually incoherent without each other. But it is you that is attempting the untangling… not me. Protection of human life is a settled question for the Church. I believe (an act of the will) that the Church has spoken infallibly on the matter. The transcendant (revelation, infallibly interpreted) holds trump. To deny this is to intentionally exercise our will to disbelieve our own tradition. No amount of rationalization, no amount of information, can change this. God could surprise me, but it would have to be him doing it… And he'd probably have to kill me to convince me.
And I think you are shifting your guilt off on Jerry here. He is not the one who deems a human zygote to have roughly the ethical equivalency of a human brain cell. You do.
Cheers!
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 8:05 pm ¶Jerry,
The majority of the def'ns by which a newly-formed zygote can be considered a human organism would also apply to most of human cells, as well.
That's why it was implicit.
dlw
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 9:39 pm ¶Steve, it is true that much of Protestantism denies the inevitable role of tradition based on the fact that the Bible does not provide for us Xtns an exhaustive definite blueprint for right conduct in every conceivable ethical situation. We have been infected by the naive realism and scientism of the Enlightenment and espouse it with heavy doses of evangel-speak.
But I don't see this as intrinsic to Protestantism(sola scriptura does not mean rejection of the importance of tradition, just a reassertion of the fallibility of tradition; with the manner in which ecclesial governance is organized being a matter of fallible tradition), just as I don't see the extreme concentration of ecclesial governance within the RCC as intrinsic to them but rather a product of historical circumstances, in their case the sudden reduction of the centers of Xty from 9 to 2 caused by the rise of Islam.
Perhaps the HS will lead us to find a new consensus, or perhaps there will be a range of acceptable views. My beliefs stand on the belief that our past development of our traditions on this difficult matter have not been teleologically led by the HSpirit and so we should be open to changing our views on it since it is a non-essential matter. It shouldn't have to kill us to alter the exact specifics of what we believe on this issue.
And some of the means by which the HSpirit moves within the Church and forms new understandings for how we should govern ourselves is through: prayer, deliberations on scripture and our traditions and the world that God has created.
You write that the protection of human life is a settled question for the Church. I think the better frame is the continued authority of the commandment not to kill. What is at issue is the right understanding of what is a human life. As I'm sure you know, your "Church" has differed historically on what this should mean. It has only been in the more recent centuries that all abortion has become viewed as murder. Now, I agree that the earlier views were wrong(in conclusion and perhaps motives), but I don't think their methodology was wrong in that they considered both natural and revealed revelation in making their fallible judgements about what should be considered right conduct. I mean with all due respect, protestant scholasticism was a continuation of a very catholic approach to Xty. You can't shoot it down without rejecting a good deal of Catholic tradition as well. (Oh, but we know Tradition in Catholicism is equally authoritative with Scripture and never changes! Yeah, right!)
And so I don't see the Transcendent as being at stake here, but rather ecclesial claims to have bottled a more potent version of the transcendent for its members. And I'll admit that I have been influenced by the enlightenment and the importance of the use of reason as a tool in the discernment of right conduct. That is part of the reason I could never convert to the RCChurch despite the aspects of it I find attractive, because I see no contrition for how it has presided over the serious decline of Xty in much of Europe or denied significant native participation in ecclesial governance in much of the Latin Americas and seriously marginalized female participation in ecclesial governance as well.
We do not bemoan the loss of a couple of brain-cells. You Catholics do endorse/accept alcohol consumption, which inevitably ends up killing off some brain-cells I believe when it is consumed. Likewise, if we were made privvy to all of the many times when newly-formed zygotes were subsequently absorbed by the woman's womb, we would not mourn the death the way we would a miscarriage in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. We are open to experiments on some of our brain-cells if it can provide good benefits for ourselves and others. Afterall, its not like we use them all and so we can spare a few.
I don't see why the same view cannot be held for the newly-formed zygote or when it reaches 25-50 cells and may be used for stem-cell research where useful. It is a heresy in my book to say that it should be treated as a full human being just because some immaterial soul might be present. This is not the hebraic conception of soul. Potential is a necessary, but not sufficient criterion for something to be treated as a human being.
cheers,
dlw
+0
Posted 09 Aug 2005 at 10:27 pm ¶Geez. I leave for a couple days and the discussion gets way more complicated. I don't have time to wade into this one right now. . .
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 3:34 am ¶"It has only been in the more recent centuries that all abortion has become viewed as murder" -dlw
Actually, the RCC has viewed abortion as morally unacceptable since the Didache (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04779a.htm; c. 100 AD book of the Church before the Bible was cannonized in the 300's).
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:12 [A.D. 70]). http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
—
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 1:18 pm ¶BTW, **off topic**, I read that "potions" in the Didache is more accurately translated as oral contraception.
Sample:
"Again, scholars link such phrases as 'practice magic' and 'use potions' with artificial birth control." http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/HISTCONT.HTM
I read somewhere (can't find ref) that there was a plant in the Roman Empire that was so overused as "the pill" that it went extinct. Although, don't quote me on that.
—
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 2:17 pm ¶My apologies, yes, this was the view during the early church, as well. But there was a period in the middle when early-stage fetuses were not seen as human beings.
I think it is worth mentioning that the abortions available during the early-church were quite dangerous and usually for the later stages(as I recall). As technology has changed, so has the precise nature of the ethical dilemma. And so I don't see it settling as a precedent whether or not it is okay to take a morning after pill.
dlw
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 4:52 pm ¶" Theo, I think the issue is whether we provide the unborn human zygote/embryo/fetus protections analogous to those currently provided to newborns, who also do not evince many of the things we cherish about humans."
I beg to differ. Newborns are full of movement, response, personality, desires, and all the stuff that makes people human. They also have faces like we have, hands, feet, voices (though not language), and so on. When I see an infant, I think "human person." When I see a picture of a microscopic blastocyte, I think "clump of cells." When I see a picture of a more developed fetus, I think "Gawd it's creepy how much that thing looks like a stereotypical Hollywood alien." (Incidentally, I'm not trying to be funny—that's really what I think.)
"I have had the hard-wired intuitive recognition of another in an unborn, specifically my youngest sister who was born when I was 18. I was showing off catscan pictures of her five months before she was born."
That's completely subjective. If you have that experience, then you are morally obligated to protect your unborn youngest sister and more power to you.
"At issue I believe is whether we accept as suitable impressions made with the assistance of advanced technology that would be impossible for the naked eye."
There is also the issue that it's incredibly easy to make a fetus, but incredibly difficult to raise a child. People can make fetuses at an extraordinary rate if they want to, and I personally think that if you're looking to preserve "life," protecting every single conception is not going to do anything but lead to problems like overpopulation. Rather, seeing as how people copulate so freaking irresponsibly these days, I would rather see millions of fetuses flushed down the toilet than see millions of poorly parented children running in the streets of the neighborhood where I live and jumping in front of my car at all hours of the day and night (which I am not making up).
If you are honestly interested in having a big family and you want to be a good parent and you're going to try (and maybe even fail, but try nonetheless) and do your best, then shoot, have 15 kids. I don't care. It's your business. But to say that all conceptions should be protected is, in my opinion, nothing but foolishness, regardless of the noble motivation.
I have spent too much time with too many kids in public school to believe every one of them should exist. Kids didn't ask to be born and having more of them isn't always a good thing. Sure, any kid from low circumstances has the potential to do great things. But let's be honest. Statistically, it's much more likely for any given kid to be a criminal, an indigent parasite, or a depressed blue collar worker just scraping by. I guess if you're going to say "life" is always inherently valuable, regardless of what one does with it, then sure, conceive and keep as many kids as you can. But if you're going to do that, then destroy federally mandated educational standards and stop making public education compulsory. Allow people to raise their own children.
But so long as people can just keep having them and handing them over to the state, I'm all for a temporary moratorium on reproduction, even if it means destroying millions of embryos and fetuses. They aren't people yet. Most of them would be better off not coming into this world anyway. Maybe that's pessimistic, but I like living kids too much to wish for huge, unmanageable numbers of them being handed over to the state for education, health care, and welfare.
I know that probably sounds like a tired old liberal argument or something, but it's just what I see and how I feel. I'm not beholden to "life" in general when we're talking about protecting all conceptions in the abstract. But like I said, if you have a child or a sibling on the way, or a pregnant friend, or whatever, and you want to protect that embryo-fetus, by all means, do so. But don't require everybody else to do the same. Requiring people to protect offspring they wouldn't keep if they had the choice isn't going to make anything better.
As for all the church politics, I couldn't care less which sect is right. They're all equidistant from reality, in my opinion. So I'll stay out of that discussion.
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 5:38 pm ¶I beg to differ. Newborns are full of movement, response, personality, desires, and all the stuff that makes people human. They also have faces like we have, hands, feet, voices (though not language), and so on. When I see an infant, I think "human person." When I see a picture of a microscopic blastocyte, I think "clump of cells." When I see a picture of a more developed fetus, I think "Gawd it's creepy how much that thing looks like a stereotypical Hollywood alien." (Incidentally, I'm not trying to be funnythat's really what I think.)
They are getting better at taping the actions/movements of the unborn. This goes well beyond just taking photos. I wouldn't be so confident about how that can be used to draw the line. When I see photos, I can only see the human form, perhaps a bit out of proportion, but definitely human. I don't think that's subjective and if it is, I'd be willing to wager that we could eventually get more than 75% of US citizens to affirm the unborn at after 3 months as deserving to be a legally protected human person.
"At issue I believe is whether we accept as suitable impressions made with the assistance of advanced technology that would be impossible for the naked eye."
There is also the issue that it's incredibly easy to make a fetus, but incredibly difficult to raise a child.
We're not talking about per se making a woman responsible to carry a human zygote to term upon conception. We're talking about identifying the decision to carry the unborn past a certain stage of pregnancy with a duty to carry her or him to term under normal circumstances.
People can make fetuses at an extraordinary rate if they want to, and I personally think that if you're looking to preserve "life," protecting every single conception is not going to do anything but lead to problems like overpopulation.
I think there are quite a few adequate means for birth control available and that we should strongly discourage the use of abortion for such a purpose if possible.
Rather, seeing as how people copulate so freaking irresponsibly these days, I would rather see millions of fetuses flushed down the toilet than see millions of poorly parented children running in the streets of the neighborhood where I live and jumping in front of my car at all hours of the day and night (which I am not making up).
Yeah, I agree that more needs to be done to provide for people's children and I am sympathetic to the population pressure argument. I think it is natural and responsible for a family to limit its size. My own mother had her fallopian tubes removed after she gave birth to her fourth child. I think with education, woman can make these sorts of decisions along with their families.
I liked what Lauren Winner wrote about all married couples needing to be open to having children, but not from every specific sexual act.
As I've written before, my goal in this debate is both to prevent abortions and to depoliticize the issue so that more other issues like how we can better provide for people/children growing up in disadvantaged situations can be more important in our elections. I think the stalemate on the abortion issue has been poisoning our politics for the past thirty-some years and I am up to here with contempt for both sides for letting this go on.
dlw
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 6:25 pm ¶"I think it is worth mentioning that the abortions available during the early-church were quite dangerous and usually for the later stages(as I recall)." -dlw
Don't know.
However,
"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does." (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210] by Tertullian; http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp )
This is to illustrate that the belief of the Church regarding the humanness of the newly formed existed from its beginning.
–
"Requiring people to protect offspring they wouldn't keep if they had the choice isn't going to make anything better."
"I have spent too much time with too many kids in public school to believe every one of them should exist. Kids didn't ask to be born and having more of them isn't always a good thing. Sure, any kid from low circumstances has the potential to do great things. But let's be honest. Statistically, it's much more likely for any given kid to be a criminal, an indigent parasite, or a depressed blue collar worker just scraping by." -theomorph
Wow! Utilitarianism at its apex. Better=more useful.
It might sound funny, but…
My kid loves Thomas (the tank engine) & Friends. The main moral of the theme song: they are really useful engines.
I really despise the emphasis on usefulness as the end to life (and the show for that matter; I dont understand the fact that the writer was a minister: maybe the protestant work ethic at play).
Why? There's more to life that what one can do. I think this is where the RCC has it right: dignity in work/utility is apparent, but one's dignity as a human is not derived from it.
One's dignity simply comes from being a creation of God.
I can see, theomorph, why you don't see this. Without God, there is no point besides yourself: getting as much as you can here and making sure no one else takes it from you.
—
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 6:32 pm ¶Ignatius was not infallible. He, like many of the early fathers was influenced by greek philosophy which was often quite at odds with the hebraic world-view of Jesus. And it is important to bear in mind that as they didn't have access to the technology to observe the development of human life from conception on this is speculation.
I think my point that later Church leaders, like Augustine and Aquinas, made it official policy that conception was not when we become human beings still stands. Augustine was opposed to all abortions and contraception because as a sex-addict he thought that sexual intercourse was intrinsically evil and only justifiable if for the purpose of procreation.
dlw
+0
Posted 10 Aug 2005 at 6:54 pm ¶"And it is important to bear in mind that as they didn't have access to the technology to observe the development of human life from conception on this is speculation." -dlw
They couldn't see the zygote, however,
"Now we allow that life begins with conception…" written A.D. 210.
They knew that 2 human unit components (obviously not a human to start) had to unite to form an individual: this human eventually leaving the inside of a woman.
They didn't need 21st century technology to make that determination. In fact, they could make determinations about the result without seeing it, even from the beginning of its status as a separate individual.
—