I read an enlightening perspective on the embryonic stem-cell research debate on the New York Times Letter to the Editor page regarding Mario Cuomo’s recent esssay on the subject.
Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, put it succinctly:
Mario M. Cuomo mars his well-reasoned essay on the use of embryonic stem cells by characterizing the crucial moral issue as whether “human life starts at conception.”
Even the earliest embryo conceived of human parents is alive and a member of Homo sapiens, and that is enough, in the eyes of many, to make it a living human being.
The crucial moral question is not when human life begins, but when human life reaches the point at which it merits protection.
It is to that question that the significance of consciousness and viability, discussed by Mr. Cuomo, should be addressed.
Unless we separate these two questions – when does life begin, and when does it merit protection? – we are unlikely to achieve any clarity about the moral status of embryos.
I’ve never really thought of it in those terms. If you think about it, there is human life which we (as a society) protect, some which we do not protect, and some which we intentionally destroy through war, executions, etc. If we accept that embryonic life is fully human the moment it is fertilized, it definitely changes the question of the ethics of embryonic stem-cell research.
It seems to me that it’s obvious that an unfertilized egg deserves little or no protection. Thousands of hysterectomies per year attest to that point of view. Similarly, sperm isn’t protected life. If it were, well, virtually every male on the planet would be guilty of genocide by the time he was fourteen 🙂
Similarly, we don’t protect unborn human life which strongly endangers the life of the mother. We are incapable of protecting the fertilized eggs which fail to attach as a result of in-vitro fertilization by hopeful couples wanting to have a child. We can’t protect against miscarriages, as my darling wife and I learned through painful first-hand experience. In general, in the US we do not protect human life which is not yet viable outside the womb, through easily-obtainable abortions.
Embryonic stem cell research holds both great promise for the health and longevity of humans, and reading this brief response convinces me the chief ethical concern is not when “life” begins, but how much it’s worth to us. I’ve found myself wondering which life is more valuable: the fully-developed one which might be saved through the use and destruction of a stem cell, or the potential one in the petri dish.
I doubt there’s a clear-cut answer. Even if the alternative is to discard the stem cells entirely.
oh boy
*watches the worms scurry about as Matt stands there holding the open can*
Personally, I’ll always choose an existing life over a potential life. Given the current state of overpopulation in the world, I certainly can’t support the idea that every fertilized egg necessarily needs to be allowed to grow to adulthood. This applies to abortion as well as to the destruction of stem cells.
Additionally, if you believe (as I do) that whatever makes up the ethereal essence of a human being (call it spirit, or soul, or whatever) is separate from the physical body, it’s easy to imagine that upon termination of a fertilized egg or an unwanted fetus, that essence will simply find its way to the next available corpus. No harm, no foul.
If you believe that consciousness exists only within the confines of the body, and dies with the body, then obviously the conversation gets murkier. However, since the majority of the embryonic stem cells in question would never become actual human beings anyway, I don’t really see what the issue is.
— Ben
Worminess
Heh, I’m good at opening worm cans, I guess.
But I thought Peter Singer’s outlook was really a unique take on the argument. Rather than wondering when life begins, let’s just assume it begins at conception, and work out the ethics of how much we protect life from there.
Given that the current plan for embryonic stem cells is destruction, regardless (yes, they’d simply throw out the extras), why not allow the bundle of proto-human cells to serve a useful purpose before tossing them in the dustbin as was the plan all along?
I mean, the two alternatives are: 1. Destroy the leftover stem cells (embryos) after a period of time. This is the current practice, and will remain so in absence of further legislation. 2. Do some research using the leftover stem cells. This research has been shown in other countries to have substantial life-saving benefits.
From that perspective, of course, it makes sense to choose the more useful, life-saving option. I think that approach is the more ethical of the two. However, if one doesn’t agree that those are the only two options available right now (like the “preserve unused stem cells forever, they are tiny and easy-to-store anyway” point of view), it entirely changes the argument.
Interesting thinking about it in shortage terms, though. There is no shortage of human sperm or eggs on planet Earth, I’m fairly certain. Yet it seems as if we have some kind of responsibility to see to it that human life — even tiny human life — is not cavalierly disregarded.
Interesting issue.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Opposition Is Fine
I hear and understand those people who are against scientists toying with the construct of human life. The implications are enormous and suggest that creation and control of human existence could be in the hands of mortals. Given our showing to date, you’d think this would be foolish. Humans aren’t the most deserving of confidence. After all, we’ve been guilty of some pretty wicked crimes against our own humanity: genocide, slaughter, class division, and those awful “no right turn on red” signs that I have to put with.
So, I understand those people who are against the potential wonderful benefits. Which comes to my solution: those people who have publicly opposed stem-cell research get to wear a little badge on their arm. Wear it with pride. It symbolizes a protest to the advancement of science.
And some day in the future, when they’re sick, or someone they love is sick, and the cure is available to alleviate the sickness, but the cure became available because of stem cell research, those people don’t get the cure.
A thought about this argument
I don’t think that it is so easy to dismiss the question of when human life begins as being unimportant to this debate.
There is plenty of grey area surrounding the issue of when human life begins. For example, human eggs and sperm cells are uniquely human and also indisputably alive. Are they deserving of the same protection as an embryo?
Regardless of the answer, we’re brought back to the question of trying to determine when human life begins so that we can begin to answer Singer’s question of what is deserving of protection. It’s a little sneaky to suggest that “the question is not about when human life begins, but when human life reaches the point at which it merits protection.”
While, in truth the question really is about when human life begins. If we could agree upon that, we’d already know what merits protection.
For the late Carl Sagan’s take on the related abortion issue, try this link here.
It’s not that simple
“While, in truth the question really is about when human life begins. If we could agree upon that, we’d already know what merits protection.”
Since when have we as a society agreed upon when human life merits protection? I completely agree that it is still important to discern when a life “truly” begins, but that in no way solves the argument.
Ask any person involved in the Schiavo case whether there was a clear agreement about when a life deserved protection. Ask any soldier from any country who must kill or be killed.
Even our illustrious president made the mistake of trying to oversimplify this. When he spoke on the Schiavo case, he said (paraphrasing) “Whenever there is a complicated argument with people on both sides of an issue, such as this one, *it is always better to err on the side of life.*”
But but he didn’t “always err on the side of life” when it came to the complicated issue of the death penalty; as the governor of the state with one of the highest execution rates in the country he signed off on no small number of them.
Regardless of where we fall on these issues, we have to make decisions regarding the priority of a particular human’s life over another human’s life all the time. To say that just agreeing over when human life begins would solve the argument… sorry, there’s already a million instances in society in which we know full well that there’s a live human being involved, but we still debate whether or not they should live.
True ethics isn’t about what’s *right* and what’s *wrong*. It’s about what’s *right* and what’s *more right,* or what’s *wrong* and what’s *worse.* It’s about priorities.
As a PostScript, for the record my vote on Stem Cell Research is full speed ahead. Is it playing God? Perhaps. But so was harnessing fire. Our arrogant will to understand the mysteries of the universe (sometimes at great cost) may have been the cause of our Fall, but it’s also helped keep us warm at night ever since.
And since God hasn’t gotten around to curing cancer yet, I don’t think He’d begrudge us our own attempts at finding the solution.
Arthur Rowan Brother Katana of Reasoned Discussion Rebel Leader and Harvester-Of-The-Young for the Unitarian Jihad
A suggestion
I think you may be erring in assuming that the question of what constitutes a human life is easy. I’m saying that I believe this is difficult.
You mentioned the Schiavo case as an example of the problem with deciding whether or not to protect a human life. I’m suggesting that the same case could (and should) have been cast in terms of whether or not Ms. Schiavo was still human.
To be more clear, I think that what makes us human is our brain function – not necessarily our biology – and if we could agree upon some standards of what constitutes sentient brain function almost all of these problems go away. The question of Euthanasia, Abortion, Stem Cells, and so on can all be guided by making an assessment of brain function and sentience – rather than of simple biology.
I’m also trying to be forward looking on this. In the near future – say perhaps 20 years – we’ll find ourselves wondering if our machines and computers are “alive” and worthy of protection as well. (I believe by 2025 the Turing Test will be passed and then we’ll have some real thorny ethical questions on our hands).
So, ultimately, my opinion is that it is not biology that we should be concerning ourselves with – it is sentience. If we can agree upon some standard by which sentience = life = protection, we’ll be better prepared for the tough ethical questions looming in our very near future.
Our current method of biology = life = protection is rapidly becoming outmoded.
Ah, I see where you’re going
Ah, I see where you’re going with it. Thanks for clearing it up.
On that note, there was an intersting debate concerning animal rights that I was reading about, in that it’s been proven that certain animals, namely chimpanzees, the African Grey Parrot, and some dogs, have the equivalent intelligence of a four-year old child. Should they be extended the same protection that we would extend to a 4-year old?
Ultimately, I think the term “human” is fast going to become one of those label words that means so many different things that it’s meaningless at heart. If we try to come up with a “standard” definition of human, we may get lured into the trap of believing that there’s one absolute answer to what should be protected and what shouldn’t be.
Arthur Rowan Brother Katana of Reasoned Discussion Rebel Leader and Dance Instructor for the Unitarian Jihad
Huh?
–Now correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there a process to harvest the stem cell’s from a unfertilized egg. I was under the assumption that there was.
If this is the case, what is the big deal? Have we forgotten that the female race naturally discards the unused egg herself every month for years. Now not to sound like a complete idiot my opinion on the matter is that we should go forward with the research. I am with Ben in saying that it is our soul that makes us complete and I believe that we do not acquire this untill much later in a fetus’s growth. Almost to the point of birth. Yes the DNA is all there but it takes more to make us human.
We have all thought about if we were ever in the position where we would have to make the decision of “my wife or my unborn child?” Yes we all instantly want to say the child because morally that is what I think we have been taught is right. However our thoughts drift to the ones that are already among the living. Family and their loss. How unfair that would be for them.
We, most of the time, come to the conclusion that it is the one we have already formed a living bond and connection to that we want to reamain alive. For myself I know that if the research could be done to save a living member than I would want it done.
Teresa the Flautist and fire dancer