“We should resolve our national debate over embryo-destructive research on the basis of the best scientific evidence as to when the life of a new human being begins, and the most careful philosophic reasoning at what is owed to a human being at any stage of development.”
Robert P. George Embryo Ethics Daedalus Winter 2008
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
In an effort to dissect this sentence without feeling forced to leave common sense and keeping an eye toward accessibility, we have already addressed the following in previous posts:
A – There is a right answer between two opposing and distinct views that are difficult to harmonize. We either OUGHT to experiment on human embryos to advance medicine for us all, or we OUGHT to protect human embryos as nascent human life.
B – An honest evaluation of the best scientific evidence identifies human embryos as human beings in a very early stage of development.
C – Empirical science can inform us about the identity of the embryo as a human being, but it can not inform us on the value of that life. For that we must go to philosophy.
D – In general, three different claims can be made addressing the inherent moral nature of the human embryos and our obligations to them.
The first of those was this:
1 – Embryos are human beings, but not persons and therefore we are not morally obligated in our behavior toward them.
As we assess this claim we must remember that it grants the humanity of embryos. What this claim does is introduce a new identification into the discussion that is seen as separate from mere humanity, because being genetically human is not morally an impressive or empowering characteristic in its own right. This would lead to specieism (gasp), the archaic belief that our humanity differentiates us in value from the rest of the animal kingdom. So it is not being human that makes us important, but being persons. Persons have rights. Mere human life is occasionally valueless based on the missing quality of personhood.
There are two things that irk me about this position. First, this means that all of us have been and continue to be two different things. We are certainly and inarguably human beings (morally irrelevant fact), but we are also persons (morally relevant fact). While we will always be human, we once became persons and our personhood hangs in the balance at all times until we die. This bothers me mostly because the people who champion this position have a heck of a time agreeing on what makes me a person and who qualifies as a person, which is unfortunately the only morally relevant quality we have. As a result, we allow embryonic humans to be destroyed for research. We allow fetal humans to be cut into pieces and vacuumed out of their mother’s womb for any of several unpardonable sins such as being inconvenient, expensive, being a female, or (horror of all horrors) having Downs syndrome. We allow severely mentally impaired humans to be dehydrated to death and call it mercy as we put them out of “their misery.” All of these practices are considered perfectly legal & ethical because some people are convinced that humans and persons are not necessarily the same thing.
This leads me to my second issue. This position ultimately degrades the term person so as to be effectively meaningless. Embryonic humans, fetal humans, and severely impaired humans are not persons, but guess what? Chimpanzees, dogs, dolphins, and elephants are persons! How is that so? Well, being a human being offers no special qualification for being a person so not being a human offers no special exclusion. Any animal can be a person! How do we judge? I guess we look for that special sparkle of thought in the eyes of our animal friends and go from there. Mind you, the animals themselves have never petitioned for personhood, such an action is obviously beyond their capacities. This does not stop people from taking this seemingly simple distinction between persons and humans and running amok and even violently pursuing recognition of animal rights while remaining unmoved at the widespread and unnecessary destruction of innocent human life.
Personhood does not clearly and obviously exist as a distinct quality from mere humanity. Before we start killing human beings and petitioning for lowland gorilla voting rights we ought to have more than a clever argument. Every person reading this post was once an embryonic human being. You did not later magically become a human person. Some people just needed a rationalization as to why they ought to be allowed to do a bad thing. Since then, the slippery slope of that argument has led us to a world where Peter Singer may no longer seem obviously crazy (see John Jalsevac post)and even William Saletan seems a bit alarmed at how comfortable we are getting making grisly choices.
(An unpublished Scott Klusendorf post is the source of the John Jalsevac link related to Peter Singer. The William Saletan link was first seen through JivinJehoshaphat)
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Future Contributor to LTI Blog [Jay]
Introducing Wee One Watts. We expect great things from this future blogger look for his/her first post in or around 2030. Hopefully by that time, pro-life blogging will have gone the way of abolitionists and our children can be free to focus on other things.
10 Weeks along and the baby is waving and moving around and his/her brother and sister have seen her on the ultrasound. Big brother talked to the baby through mommy's belly button and big sister gave a loud and hardy, "hey." You know, all of the usual anti-choicer evil.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Dont Image that Baby! (Unless you Plan On Killing Her) [Serge]
I have a confession. I really try to treat our opponents arguments with respect and to take them seriously. I think that is very important, but in this case I don't think I'll be able to. Sometimes arguments are so bad and poorly thought out that I question whether the author of them actually believes them to be true. In this case, I can only assume that these authors merely needed to make some form of argument about the presence of ultrasounds in pregnancy resource centers, and thus came up with any argument they could think of, without thinking it through or believing it at all. I can come up with no better explanation for this horrendous thinking. You may read the entire article if you wish to, but I can obliterate their points merely from the summary.
Funny thing is that I must also be guilty of propaganda. Our office has invested tens of thousands of dollars in order to have the most accurate images of the hard tissues of the head and neck. I also show these images to every patient that I perform surgery on. I must be guilty of using my influence as a physician to propagandize my patients to give them the same view of wisdom teeth that I have. Maybe I should show them no images at all - or maybe blurry ones as to allow them to make a propaganda free decision? This is utterly ridiculous.
But actually not as bad as the next two.
There are two equally bad points here. The first is that ultrasounds can possibly cause harm to a fetus, and thus should not be used. In truth, there is no evidence that an ultrasound causes harm to a fetus or a mother. However, regardless of that lies the obvious - the fact that ultrasound is used to stage a pregnancy prior to an abortion. In other words, the author argues that it is OK to ultrasound a fetus in order to assist in its dismemberment, but not OK if you wish to have the fetus live. "We are very concerned about all of the children that could be harmed by this technology - except those that we kill with the aid of this technology". Amazing.
The second argument is that by taking ultrasounds the equipment could malfunction or be misread thus resulting in a missed diagnosis. As someone who looks at images all day, this is true. It is possible to miss something on an ultrasound or misread the results. However, their solution to this problem is a very unique one. In order to avoid a possible mis diagnosis from an ultrasound image - one should not be taken! We can just leave the woman in the dark - then no misdiagnosis is possible! Brilliant!
I can try to apply this thinking to my practice. Let's see how it works:
Sorry for the cheap shot at the Canadian health care system, but I hope you get my point. Fear of mis diagnosis is not reason to avoid imaging.
I can't take these arguments seriously, and yet they are featured on the RH reality blog. They can't be serious.
Let's see if we can understand this. An accurate, true, high definition image of a mother's fetus is a "propaganda tool" that influences unsuspecting women into making a choice for life. I guess a woman who is considering an abortion - an important decision regardless of your stance on the issue, can't be trusted with the truth about the state of their offspring. Isn't the concept of INFORMED consent based on the woman having the most accurate information possible prior to her making the decision? Suppose it is better if we kept them in the dark so that their "choice" can be more, well, consistent with the pro-abortion choice crowd. I'm sure they can't handle the truth.
Ultrasound - an important medical diagnostic technology - is increasingly being used as a propaganda tool in the abortion wars. Crisis pregnancy centers are investing heavily in this serious medical technology in order to influence women who are considering an abortion.
Funny thing is that I must also be guilty of propaganda. Our office has invested tens of thousands of dollars in order to have the most accurate images of the hard tissues of the head and neck. I also show these images to every patient that I perform surgery on. I must be guilty of using my influence as a physician to propagandize my patients to give them the same view of wisdom teeth that I have. Maybe I should show them no images at all - or maybe blurry ones as to allow them to make a propaganda free decision? This is utterly ridiculous.
But actually not as bad as the next two.
However, there is research indicating that ultrasounds can cause harm, both because of the nature of the ultrasound imaging technology and the faulty operation of equipment or interpretation of results.
There are two equally bad points here. The first is that ultrasounds can possibly cause harm to a fetus, and thus should not be used. In truth, there is no evidence that an ultrasound causes harm to a fetus or a mother. However, regardless of that lies the obvious - the fact that ultrasound is used to stage a pregnancy prior to an abortion. In other words, the author argues that it is OK to ultrasound a fetus in order to assist in its dismemberment, but not OK if you wish to have the fetus live. "We are very concerned about all of the children that could be harmed by this technology - except those that we kill with the aid of this technology". Amazing.
The second argument is that by taking ultrasounds the equipment could malfunction or be misread thus resulting in a missed diagnosis. As someone who looks at images all day, this is true. It is possible to miss something on an ultrasound or misread the results. However, their solution to this problem is a very unique one. In order to avoid a possible mis diagnosis from an ultrasound image - one should not be taken! We can just leave the woman in the dark - then no misdiagnosis is possible! Brilliant!
I can try to apply this thinking to my practice. Let's see how it works:
Patient: I have a painless ulcer in my mouth
Serge: There is a possibility it could be cancer. Normally I would recommend a biopsy, but every biopsy carries a risk of missing the diagnosis, so I don't want to do that. We wouldn't want to misdiagnose you.
Patient: Can you at least take an x-ray?
Serge: Although I usually take an image to rule out bony invasion, there is a chance I may miss something. If I don't take an x-ray there is no chance I'll misread it.
Patient: I have these nodules in my neck, do you think it could be related?
Serge: It could mean lymph node involvement, but I'm not going to examine you there in case I miss one. You just can't be too sure.
Patient: Am I in Canada?
Sorry for the cheap shot at the Canadian health care system, but I hope you get my point. Fear of mis diagnosis is not reason to avoid imaging.
I can't take these arguments seriously, and yet they are featured on the RH reality blog. They can't be serious.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lydia McGrew on Physician Professionalism and Dehydrating People to Death [Jay]
I like Lydia McGrew and I enjoy lurking at What’s Wrong With The World? I loved RightReason and many of those bloggers ended up over there including Francis Beckwith. I was recently monitoring a thread that covered the decision of The College of Physicians & Surgeons of Manitoba to instate protocols that govern the treatment of patients where the physicians judge that treatment is not worth continuing. Among the medical procedures that fall under the spectrum of “treatment” are feeding tubes, which would unnaturally prolong the life of a patient in a persistent vegetative state or other severely mentally impaired condition. I find many of the exchanges that grow out of these threads completely unproductive but I was struck with something as I watched the WWWTW regulars argue with the regular dissenters and I added my two cents to the end. Lydia responded and I am going to cut and paste a little of the exchange because I like her style and she makes an important point about the conflicting concepts of medical professionalism:
Jay:
I think that in defending the thoroughness of the protocols some people are actually missing a larger point. This move creates a culture where doctors understand that they are allowed to choose not to treat certain conditions and the burden of the patient advocates is to find a physician that is willing to do what his/her ethical code says they are perfectly free not to do. Treatment of the severely mentally disabled is now a codified option.
It is not necessary to paint the doctors as moral monsters to recognize that it is a bad idea to develop a commonly understood procedural sensibility that certain patients do not matter. A doctor should offer his/her professional opinion on prognosis, treatment options, and other areas relevant to their field of study. Doctors are not qualified to determine when life ceases to matter. It simply is not part of their medical training. One of the most unsettling aspects about these conversations to me is that those who are arguing for human worth to be evaluated by utility can sound as if we are merely entertaining conflicting philosophical positions. The problem is that at the end of the day actual people are being unnecessarily dehydrated to death. The absolute confidence in an at best arguable position that ends with the deaths of other human beings is at once astonishing and troubling to me.
Lydia:
There is certainly a faulty assumption of special professional expertise on the part of the doctors to determine questions that don't in any special way fall within their field.
An interesting thing to see is how, even on the "liberal" side, standards of what is professional behavior vary. Yet the declaration "this is the only professional way to behave" or words to that effect is made solemnly as though with the weight of unquestionable authority behind it. Take the question of patient autonomy. Over on one of my recent threads, you can find a commentator (who may be a doctor himself, though this is a guess) arguing determinedly that the only way for a doctor to be a true professional w.r.t. ANH is to do whatever the patient has chosen when the patient was legally competent. He carries this even to the point of defending dehydrating someone to death who is asking for food and water after becoming legally incompetent where this is taken to conflict in some way with the person's wish given before while legally competent. This, he assures us, is the only true professionalism. But presumably this would mean giving me, for instance, a feeding tube, since I have declared both orally and in writing while legally competent that I want a feeding tube.
But there in Manitoba you can see a rather different notion of professionalism, and our friend Mike on this thread implies that a patient proxy would be negligent and lacking in "backbone" if he didn't order a patient's dehydration when "life was no longer worth living." And the doctors in Manitoba clearly do _not_ think that letting the patient's wishes (as represented by his family) be controlling is true professionalism.
So even if we had no moral intuitions of our own on this, why should we believe the medical experts when they tell us solemnly that they are bound to do this or not do that by the _true_ standards of their profession? After all, truth just is what it is. It's either "medically professional" to override a patient's and family's wishes and dehydrate him to death or it isn't. It can't be both.
As for moral monsterhood, well, people can do terrible things without being monsters, I guess. People decide that "this is the way it has to be" and steel themselves, telling themselves "it isn't as bad as it looks." I believe that this is what has happened w.r.t. dehydrating people to death. The descriptions of what happens to people as they are gradually dehydrated over a period of two weeks are hair-raising. The medical people have to have somehow convinced themselves that this is okay despite the obvious fact that it involves a shocking degree of neglect of the patient's basic needs.
Jay:
I think that in defending the thoroughness of the protocols some people are actually missing a larger point. This move creates a culture where doctors understand that they are allowed to choose not to treat certain conditions and the burden of the patient advocates is to find a physician that is willing to do what his/her ethical code says they are perfectly free not to do. Treatment of the severely mentally disabled is now a codified option.
It is not necessary to paint the doctors as moral monsters to recognize that it is a bad idea to develop a commonly understood procedural sensibility that certain patients do not matter. A doctor should offer his/her professional opinion on prognosis, treatment options, and other areas relevant to their field of study. Doctors are not qualified to determine when life ceases to matter. It simply is not part of their medical training. One of the most unsettling aspects about these conversations to me is that those who are arguing for human worth to be evaluated by utility can sound as if we are merely entertaining conflicting philosophical positions. The problem is that at the end of the day actual people are being unnecessarily dehydrated to death. The absolute confidence in an at best arguable position that ends with the deaths of other human beings is at once astonishing and troubling to me.
Lydia:
There is certainly a faulty assumption of special professional expertise on the part of the doctors to determine questions that don't in any special way fall within their field.
An interesting thing to see is how, even on the "liberal" side, standards of what is professional behavior vary. Yet the declaration "this is the only professional way to behave" or words to that effect is made solemnly as though with the weight of unquestionable authority behind it. Take the question of patient autonomy. Over on one of my recent threads, you can find a commentator (who may be a doctor himself, though this is a guess) arguing determinedly that the only way for a doctor to be a true professional w.r.t. ANH is to do whatever the patient has chosen when the patient was legally competent. He carries this even to the point of defending dehydrating someone to death who is asking for food and water after becoming legally incompetent where this is taken to conflict in some way with the person's wish given before while legally competent. This, he assures us, is the only true professionalism. But presumably this would mean giving me, for instance, a feeding tube, since I have declared both orally and in writing while legally competent that I want a feeding tube.
But there in Manitoba you can see a rather different notion of professionalism, and our friend Mike on this thread implies that a patient proxy would be negligent and lacking in "backbone" if he didn't order a patient's dehydration when "life was no longer worth living." And the doctors in Manitoba clearly do _not_ think that letting the patient's wishes (as represented by his family) be controlling is true professionalism.
So even if we had no moral intuitions of our own on this, why should we believe the medical experts when they tell us solemnly that they are bound to do this or not do that by the _true_ standards of their profession? After all, truth just is what it is. It's either "medically professional" to override a patient's and family's wishes and dehydrate him to death or it isn't. It can't be both.
As for moral monsterhood, well, people can do terrible things without being monsters, I guess. People decide that "this is the way it has to be" and steel themselves, telling themselves "it isn't as bad as it looks." I believe that this is what has happened w.r.t. dehydrating people to death. The descriptions of what happens to people as they are gradually dehydrated over a period of two weeks are hair-raising. The medical people have to have somehow convinced themselves that this is okay despite the obvious fact that it involves a shocking degree of neglect of the patient's basic needs.
"Depressed" about Emergency Contraception [Serge]
Wow. I just finished listening to a web seminar about the efficacy of emergency contraception by Dr. James Trussell, who is one of the most well reknown researchers in the field of contraception. I haven't been putting a while lot of time in studying EC lately, but essentially what Dr. Trussell had to say supports all of my previous postings on the subject, which can be found here. Here are some of the high (low) lights according to the Powerpoint slides that he presented.
1. Trussell previously hoped (published in 1992) that EC would reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion by half.
2. 15 years later 11 studies have consistently showed no decrease of pregnancy rates from use of ECs.
3. Trussell also stated that a future decrease in pregnancy rates from EC use is highly unlikely - an astounding admission.
4. He then quoted TH Huxley when he stated "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
5. Due to difficulties in estimating the expected pregnancy rates, the published efficacy in the package insert of EC is almost certainly too high.
6. The only thing he could say about the actual efficacy of Plan B was that it was "more effective than nothing".
7. According to the latest research, the efficacy of Plan B can be fully explained via a pre-fertilization mechanism. Research continues to lead away from a post-fertilization mechanism.
This is amazing stuff. Since there was extensive news coverage of the effort to get Plan B to OTC status, why the silence in the wake of information that Plan B will not effect pregnancy or abortion rates? Imagine the outcry if a heart medication was thought to reduce heart attacks by 95% - and was made over-the-counter in order to increase its availability to reduce heart disease. A year later evidence comes out that no study had ever found that it had any effect on heart attack rates, and that the only thing that could be said about it is that it is "probably better than nothing". There would be a great outcry, congressional hearings, and accusations that the evil pharmaceutical companies were gouging unsuspecting patients. However, so far there has not been a peep among those concerned about "women's health" that they could be promoting an expensive medication that may not be effective.
Lastly, at the end of the seminar there was a pause before participants asked questions. Dr. Trussell commented that everyone must be too depressed.
1. Trussell previously hoped (published in 1992) that EC would reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion by half.
2. 15 years later 11 studies have consistently showed no decrease of pregnancy rates from use of ECs.
3. Trussell also stated that a future decrease in pregnancy rates from EC use is highly unlikely - an astounding admission.
4. He then quoted TH Huxley when he stated "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
5. Due to difficulties in estimating the expected pregnancy rates, the published efficacy in the package insert of EC is almost certainly too high.
6. The only thing he could say about the actual efficacy of Plan B was that it was "more effective than nothing".
7. According to the latest research, the efficacy of Plan B can be fully explained via a pre-fertilization mechanism. Research continues to lead away from a post-fertilization mechanism.
This is amazing stuff. Since there was extensive news coverage of the effort to get Plan B to OTC status, why the silence in the wake of information that Plan B will not effect pregnancy or abortion rates? Imagine the outcry if a heart medication was thought to reduce heart attacks by 95% - and was made over-the-counter in order to increase its availability to reduce heart disease. A year later evidence comes out that no study had ever found that it had any effect on heart attack rates, and that the only thing that could be said about it is that it is "probably better than nothing". There would be a great outcry, congressional hearings, and accusations that the evil pharmaceutical companies were gouging unsuspecting patients. However, so far there has not been a peep among those concerned about "women's health" that they could be promoting an expensive medication that may not be effective.
Lastly, at the end of the seminar there was a pause before participants asked questions. Dr. Trussell commented that everyone must be too depressed.
Friday, February 22, 2008
So Much in a Sentence! Part 3 [Jay]
“We should resolve our national debate over embryo-destructive research on the basis of the best scientific evidence as to when the life of a new human being begins, and the most careful philosophic reasoning at what is owed to a human being at any stage of development.”
Robert P. George Embryo Ethics Daedalus Winter 2008
Part 1
Part 2
It is vitally important that you understand what I say next. From here on out, the scientist’s job is done. You see scientists sometimes think that their job in step 1 is so important that they get to freeze the process and hold the discussion hostage. But as the boat leaves the dock wave bye-bye to the spitting and foaming scientists. We are moving into a new area that really is beyond the Scientific Method. If you see any of them hanging on to the boat or trying to pull us back ashore feel free to stomp on their fingers or push them overboard. Some of them will be civil and come along for the ride, but some of them are notoriously cranky and will resent the next phase of our journey.
In order to properly address step 2 in this splendid sentence we must engage in “the most careful philosophic reasoning at what is owed to a human being at any stage of development.” This means that weighing, measuring, observing, testing, and retesting will no longer be of any use. The realm of the scientists does have distinct borders and there are a great many intellectual pursuits that fall beyond the pale of their expertise. You see, science helped us determine that a human being exists at fertilization. It can not tell us what our duties or obligations are to that human being. A worshiper of scientism may claim that any answer that can not be validated through empirical testing can not be trusted or meaningful. But the power of philosophical argument weighs against this very invective. If the statement is true, the statement is meaningless and can not be trusted as the statement itself can not be tested in this manner. So again, wave a confident wave and thank the scientists for their help.
What do we know? What do we think? What can we prove? We know that a new life is present and we can prove that the evidence most reliably indicates this life is a human being. We have a strong case that the embryo is a human being. Now how do we determine what we owe to this life?
In light of the strong case for the basic identification of the embryo as a human being, the embryo destructive research supporters must argue one of these two basic positions:
1) The embryo is a human being, but not a person and therefore we owe them nothing in regard to moral treatment. In fact, the very idea of moral treatment of embryos is meaningless because they lack a moral value to restrict our actions against them. These arguments concede humanity, but deny a more important necessary characteristic of human life; personhood.
2) The embryos are human beings and they have some moral worth, but the resulting benefits of their destruction for all people places the greater moral emphasis on being free to use them for research in an effort to benefit the maximum number of people. They matter, but curing diseases and scientific advancement matter more. Think of the bodily autonomy rights in abortion arguments. They are based on a concession that the unborn are humans. It is an uncontested and trivial observation. The rights of the pregnant women are simply more important than any acknowledged rights of the unborn life.
So I think we can reasonably fit most arguments into these three different statements:
1 – Embryos are human beings, but not persons and therefore we are not morally obligated in our behavior toward them.
2 – Embryos are human beings with some moral worth, but the greater moral good is served by being sensitive to issues of greater moral importance such as near miraculous cures and therapies for millions of suffering people.
3 – Embryos are human beings and of moral value based on their nature or substance and ought to be treated with the same moral obligations and duties that are extended to all human life in later stages of development.
Note that we are all making claims. In a balanced and fair pursuit of the right answer, we would suspend any presuppositions and establish which claim has the best supportive arguments and can most reasonably seen to be true. This is not a level playing field, though. All three of these positions must acknowledge that human beings are actively being destroyed every day all over the world in the name of progress and medical advancement. That people are already doing this often confuses the proponents of this research into believing that those of us who hold to position (3) have an extraordinary burden of proof on us to make them cease a commonly embraced practice. That is simply not the case. The willingness of people to engage in unethical and immoral behavior without philosophic and moral reflection does not validate the unsupported presuppositions that embryos do not morally matter. It merely demonstrates something about the nature of competitive science.
Next we will start with statement (1).
Robert P. George Embryo Ethics Daedalus Winter 2008
Part 1
Part 2
It is vitally important that you understand what I say next. From here on out, the scientist’s job is done. You see scientists sometimes think that their job in step 1 is so important that they get to freeze the process and hold the discussion hostage. But as the boat leaves the dock wave bye-bye to the spitting and foaming scientists. We are moving into a new area that really is beyond the Scientific Method. If you see any of them hanging on to the boat or trying to pull us back ashore feel free to stomp on their fingers or push them overboard. Some of them will be civil and come along for the ride, but some of them are notoriously cranky and will resent the next phase of our journey.
In order to properly address step 2 in this splendid sentence we must engage in “the most careful philosophic reasoning at what is owed to a human being at any stage of development.” This means that weighing, measuring, observing, testing, and retesting will no longer be of any use. The realm of the scientists does have distinct borders and there are a great many intellectual pursuits that fall beyond the pale of their expertise. You see, science helped us determine that a human being exists at fertilization. It can not tell us what our duties or obligations are to that human being. A worshiper of scientism may claim that any answer that can not be validated through empirical testing can not be trusted or meaningful. But the power of philosophical argument weighs against this very invective. If the statement is true, the statement is meaningless and can not be trusted as the statement itself can not be tested in this manner. So again, wave a confident wave and thank the scientists for their help.
What do we know? What do we think? What can we prove? We know that a new life is present and we can prove that the evidence most reliably indicates this life is a human being. We have a strong case that the embryo is a human being. Now how do we determine what we owe to this life?
In light of the strong case for the basic identification of the embryo as a human being, the embryo destructive research supporters must argue one of these two basic positions:
1) The embryo is a human being, but not a person and therefore we owe them nothing in regard to moral treatment. In fact, the very idea of moral treatment of embryos is meaningless because they lack a moral value to restrict our actions against them. These arguments concede humanity, but deny a more important necessary characteristic of human life; personhood.
2) The embryos are human beings and they have some moral worth, but the resulting benefits of their destruction for all people places the greater moral emphasis on being free to use them for research in an effort to benefit the maximum number of people. They matter, but curing diseases and scientific advancement matter more. Think of the bodily autonomy rights in abortion arguments. They are based on a concession that the unborn are humans. It is an uncontested and trivial observation. The rights of the pregnant women are simply more important than any acknowledged rights of the unborn life.
So I think we can reasonably fit most arguments into these three different statements:
1 – Embryos are human beings, but not persons and therefore we are not morally obligated in our behavior toward them.
2 – Embryos are human beings with some moral worth, but the greater moral good is served by being sensitive to issues of greater moral importance such as near miraculous cures and therapies for millions of suffering people.
3 – Embryos are human beings and of moral value based on their nature or substance and ought to be treated with the same moral obligations and duties that are extended to all human life in later stages of development.
Note that we are all making claims. In a balanced and fair pursuit of the right answer, we would suspend any presuppositions and establish which claim has the best supportive arguments and can most reasonably seen to be true. This is not a level playing field, though. All three of these positions must acknowledge that human beings are actively being destroyed every day all over the world in the name of progress and medical advancement. That people are already doing this often confuses the proponents of this research into believing that those of us who hold to position (3) have an extraordinary burden of proof on us to make them cease a commonly embraced practice. That is simply not the case. The willingness of people to engage in unethical and immoral behavior without philosophic and moral reflection does not validate the unsupported presuppositions that embryos do not morally matter. It merely demonstrates something about the nature of competitive science.
Next we will start with statement (1).
Grim Discounts [Jay]
At a recent meeting here at Cobb Pregnancy Services we were discussing the financial cost of abortion. Lori Parker, our Executive Director, pulled out this fee schedule from Dekalb Gynecology Associates here in Atlanta, Georgia. (Actually Decatur, but if you are not from my area Atlanta is close enough) As we read through the various fees I found it impossible to get over one line.
“Discounts are also available to students with a valid school ID.”
Women 20 – 24 obtain 33% of all abortions and teenagers obtain 17% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher statistics on induced abortions in the United States. That means that college students represent a significant number of all abortions in our country. My daughter will be in college some day, God willing. I am not encouraged to know that if she makes a bad decision and faces an unplanned pregnancy, but lacks the funds to make a far worse decision, Dekalb Gynecology and abortion providers like them are willing to discount her abortion with a valid student ID. Students often need financial help across the board, but there is something so grim about this discount. It is just a further mark as to how desensitized we have become to the destruction of innocent life for convenience.
Need to end this pregnancy? Come on in! Are you a college student? Well bring your ID and we will knock some money right off of the top and tear your unborn child to pieces at a greatly reduced rate! We love students here!
Sickening.
“Discounts are also available to students with a valid school ID.”
Women 20 – 24 obtain 33% of all abortions and teenagers obtain 17% of all abortions according to the Guttmacher statistics on induced abortions in the United States. That means that college students represent a significant number of all abortions in our country. My daughter will be in college some day, God willing. I am not encouraged to know that if she makes a bad decision and faces an unplanned pregnancy, but lacks the funds to make a far worse decision, Dekalb Gynecology and abortion providers like them are willing to discount her abortion with a valid student ID. Students often need financial help across the board, but there is something so grim about this discount. It is just a further mark as to how desensitized we have become to the destruction of innocent life for convenience.
Need to end this pregnancy? Come on in! Are you a college student? Well bring your ID and we will knock some money right off of the top and tear your unborn child to pieces at a greatly reduced rate! We love students here!
Sickening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)