SeanAhern's Journal: On Human Life

Ramesh Ponnuru has a well-reasoned article talking about the criticisms of President Bush's embryonic stem cell stance. In the article, he talks about the question of when to determine, in an embryo's/fetus' life, to say that they are human and deserving of a right to life.

An exerpt from the entire article:

We know that the embryo is alive, not dead or inanimate. We know that it is not just alive the way that one of our skin cells is alive: It is a distinct organism, not a part of some other organism. It has the capacity, under the right circumstances (circumstances that are in an important sense "normal"), to direct its own development from the embryonic to the fetal to the infant stages of development and beyond. And we know that this organism is human and does not belong to some other species.

We do not generally believe that the right of members of the human species to live--that is, not to be killed--depends on their size, age, location, condition of dependence, or number of limbs. Any claim that the embryo does not have a right to be protected from killing has to involve a denial of the idea that "mere" membership in the human species is enough to confer that right. That right will instead have to be posited to depend on some accidental quality that some human organisms have and others do not. Perhaps that quality is sentience or rich relationships with others or an ability to perform high-order mental functions or something else.

But whatever that something is, making the right to life depend on it creates serious problems. First, it is not just embryos who will be denied protection. Newborns can't perform high-order mental functions either, which is why philosophers who are consistent about denying the importance of membership in the human species, such as Peter Singer, approve of infanticide. Second, these qualities vary continuously. It is impossible to identify a non-arbitrary point at which an entity would have enough of the quality in question not to be killed. Third, for the same reason, it is impossible to explain why some people do not have more or fewer basic rights than other people depending on how much of this quality they possess. The foundation of human equality is denied in principle when we allow some members of the human species to be treated as mere things.

I agree

[stoolpigeon]

I agree with the author as to his conclusions but I think that this statement:
We do not generally believe that the right of members of the human species to live--that is, not to be killed--depends on their size, age, location, condition of dependence, or number of limbs.

May still be correct but I think the tide is turning and that increasingly it is not 'generally' believed. Maybe I'm cynical but infanticide is already taking place in europe and I expect that this will spread.

Re:I agree

[SeanAhern]

He's probably being overly optimistic in the statement. I think in Europe and many parts ofthe US, the "right to life" is increasingly being judged as dependent upon those external factors.

Great article

[M.C. Hampster]

I've seen him use this comment several times, and I love it:

In any case, the one-celled human embryo looks exactly like a human being--it looks like a human being at that stage of development.

I'm not sure if he originated the phrase, but it makes perfect sense.

Re:Great article

[superyooser]

That line moved me. Also good ones:

Consider three common arguments for (allowing and funding) the research:
(1) Most of it destroys "surplus embryos" from in vitro fertilization clinics that were going to be "discarded" anyway. ... Death Row inmates at the end of their appeals are going to die anyway; almost nobody considers that a reason to harvest their organs before their execution. ...
(3) Science must be allowed to progress. ... In principle, any restriction on human experimentation can impede the p

No, it isn't

[Planesdragon]

Every now and again a public figure says something so wrong that I find myself oddly comforted that their disagreemnts are likely caused more by idiocy than real malice.

This is one such quote:

It is impossible to identify a non-arbitrary point at which an entity would have enough of the quality in question not to be killed.

The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, established a meter to determine when an organism of the human species is a legal person. This same meter has been used to allow not only abortions

Re:No, it isn't

[SeanAhern]

A human being is a person when they can survive on their own without extraordinary measures being taken to grant them life.

If such is considered "excellent law," then why are abortions just up to the point of birth considered lawful? Do not those abortions violate your principle? 9 month gestation fetuses, before birth, are able to survive on their own without any extraordinary measures.

Incidentally, the laws currently on the book make no such distinction. The law currently has all abortions legal, no