FIRST THINGS Thread on Importance of Equality in Cultural Debates, Continued
Thanks to all who have commented about my FT blog entry on the importance of equality in the cultural arguments we face. That thread has continued over at First Things, including a good exchange between Villanova Law School professor Robert T. Miller and me.
This is how I characterized the issue of equality as it relates to the embryonic stem cell issue: "For example, the belief in equality has forced those who wish to instrumentalize some humans into making absurd and scientifically unsupportable assertions. Thus, in the embryonic stem cell debate, scientists make the ridiculous assertion that human embryos are not really human. Well, they aren't Martians! Some even assert that embryos are not human because they don’t have arms and legs and noses. This is nonsense, of course. And it is easy to rebut merely by resorting to any embryology textbook.
"So the situation becomes highly ironic. Those charged by the mainstream media as being purely ideological argue from valid science, and the supposedly objective scientists are forced into making purely emotional and sophistic appeals. The media doesn't report it this way, of course, but because of the widespread belief in equality, those who seek to deny its application are forced onto very thin intellectual ice. Indeed, the issue of the moral value of the embryo remains a cogent issue, at least in part because people do understand that embryos are human organisms, and that this scientific fact matters morally."
There's more, of course. Check it all out, here.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 1:37 PM
37 Comments
37 Comments:
Embryos are "human", but they're not PEOPLE. How can you consider it to be a person when it doesn't have a brain?
Additionally, the embryos used in this research would be destroyed regardless if they weren't used. Wouldn't it be more ethical to use them instead of simply disposing of them?
As you know, I reject personhood theory. My book Culture of Death explains why at length. As to your second question, I think not. It crosses a crucial ethical line when we destroy human life as if it were a mere crop. Moreover, since personhood theory even says that newborns aren't persons, it would open the door to using babies, people with Alzheimer's, people like Terrie Schiavo, etc., as mere instrumentalities.
Besides, the ESCR debate is really just a front to human cloning, and indeed, the creation of human organisms for use in research.
Winston Jen,
My baby sister, who is profoundly retarded, doesn't have as much use of her brain as do you or I. Do you think that it is justified to destroy her to use her organs?
If not, what distinction are you making? I once had a boyfriend who called her a vegetable (even as she was singing Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star--not in words, just humming). He apparently didn't think that she is a "person" because of her profound retardation. (He also didn't last as my boyfriend for a nano-second after that)
Was he wrong, or am I?
If I'm wrong--what's your IQ? Should someone with a higher one have a claim on your organs because they are more of a "person" than you are?
What are you on about? MY definition of personhood is based on conscious thought. Terri Schiavo had none. Newborns do. Sleeping people do - the part of their brain that controls consicousness exists.
I want to begin by saying that I read this blog every day and find it thought-provoking and compelling (though at times a bit frightening!) and that I appreciate everything that you and others like you do to protect the most vulnerable among us.
I just thought I'd just share my thoughts in regards to Winston Jen's last comment. You said: "MY definition of personhood is based on conscious thought." I think that sentence illustrates part of the danger of separating human beings into the categories of persons and non-persons based on an accepted definition in that such definitions can to be subjective and change over time-all person creating the new definition has to do to make the change is convince enough people of its merit. It is certainly possible that these changes might make the category of personhood more inclusive, but it is also possible that these changes might make it more exclusive. For instance, your definition-which seems to be widely accepted among adherents of personhood theory-is fairly inclusive, but the new definition being advocated by Peter Singer and his followers exclude not only people with severe brain damage and the fetus during late stages of pregnancy but infants, people with severe cognitive disablities, and people with dementia. Since this new definition is tied in with a philosophical system that aims to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering, it is presented in a way that probably seems reasonable to a lot of people. In this way, personhood theory can be quite dangerous depending on who adopts it and under what circumstances. When it is combined with a situation in which groups of people are viewed as a burden (or even a nuisance or an enemy, if a nation and its leader are fanatical enough) and/or their death is viewed as a positive thing, then there is a very real possibility that the definition of a person is not going to include them. If that group of people is large enough, the consequences can result in immense human tragedy (and I believe that the death of each human being that is not considered a person is its own tragedy). I think it is also possible as well for there to be, as another commentor has suggested, a heirarchal system in which some better qualify as people than others and thus have more value. For those and other reasons I think that it is best to be as broad and inclusive as possible when we assign value and worth to human life by assigning it to each and every human being.
OK, gwenhwyfar, what would you define as a "human being"?
Would a fertilized egg be one? What about a body that was decapitated but can be kept "alive" by using machines to pump blood through the body?
Welcome gwenhwyfar:
I assume she would define human being based on the science. A new human being comes into existence at the completion of fertilization. At that point, it is a new human individual with its own genetic makeup. If an identical twin, it will come out of the womb with its own fingerprints. In other words, there are no two truly identical humans in existence, because we are a combination of our gentics and our experiences.
A body with a head cut off and kept functioning is just that. A body. It is not an integrated organism, any more than the cells I killed when I brushed my teeth today (yes, I brush my teeth), are of any moral concern in and of themselves.
A primary reason that personhood theory is so dangerous is that it created a subjective view of human worth. Once that happens, who matters and how does not becomes a matter of who has the power to decide.
I support an objective view based on whether there is a human organism in existence. At that point, there should be a minimum level of rights, particularly the right not to be treated as an object, but to always be a subject.
"A body with a head cut off and kept functioning is just that. A body. It is not an integrated organism, any more than the cells I killed when I brushed my teeth today (yes, I brush my teeth), are of any moral concern in and of themselves."
But isn't that what they did with Terri Schiavo? The autopsy confirmed that she was never going to have any conscious thought, EVER.
The worst Alzheimer's patient is a genius compared to what she was.
"I support an objective view based on whether there is a human organism in existence. At that point, there should be a minimum level of rights, particularly the right not to be treated as an object, but to always be a subject."
How is throwing a surplus embryo into a furnace any more ethical than using it for research?
No. A person in a PVS is not the same as a person with their head cut off. A person with their head cut off is brain dead, which is dead. Bad science, Winston Jen. Second, that is not what the autopsy said. It said her brain damage was consistent with a diagnosis of PVS, but that an autopsy could not make that call because it is a clinical determination. Her brain was also consistent with a minimally conscious state.
The heart of a headless person would stop beating--assuming it could even beat since there would be no respiration--the moment artificial means were stopped. Terri breathed on her own. She swallowed. She was not terminally ill. She was a fully human being with profound cognitive disability. She was not just a cell line.
"No. A person in a PVS is not the same as a person with their head cut off. A person with their head cut off is brain dead, which is dead. Bad science, Winston Jen. Second, that is not what the autopsy said. It said her brain damage was consistent with a diagnosis of PVS, but that an autopsy could not make that call because it is a clinical determination. Her brain was also consistent with a minimally conscious state."
Where's your evidence to show that she was "minimally conscious"? Her movements were completely random, and her conscious mind turned into fluid.
She was GONE. Get over it.
"The heart of a headless person would stop beating--assuming it could even beat since there would be no respiration--the moment artificial means were stopped. Terri breathed on her own. She swallowed. She was not terminally ill. She was a fully human being with profound cognitive disability. She was not just a cell line."
You're right. She was even less than that. She would have remained like that for the rest of her existence if she were not mercifully allowed to die.
Terri could not swallow on her own. If she could, why was a SURGICAL feeding tube needed?
Winston Jen, you need to stop with the dishonest talking points about Terri Schiavo.
She wasn't "brain dead," and the autopsy did NOT show any proof she was PVS.
The only "proof" she was PVS was that a judge--an incompetent judge, by the way--ruled that she was based on "evidence" provided by the husband's doctors, doctors who were HIRED to say she was PVS in order that he could have her killed. The appellate courts could do nothing to reverse this decision because they do not rule on so-called "findings of fact." THAT was why the Schindlers went to Congress to try to get a de novo review of the case, which, by the way was perfectly legal--Michael Schiavo's and his supporters' lies to the contrary--as it is often used by those on death row.
Why must the pro-Michael Schiavo people be so dishonest? If you take away their "arguments," ALL of which are based on what Judge Greer ruled, MS's case would evaporate, and he would be seen as a person with a total lack of believability.
"She wasn't "brain dead," and the autopsy did NOT show any proof she was PVS."
Oh, so that fluid in her brain could have regenerated into a mass of neurons?
"The only "proof" she was PVS was that a judge--an incompetent judge, by the way--ruled that she was based on "evidence" provided by the husband's doctors, doctors who were HIRED to say she was PVS in order that he could have her killed. The appellate courts could do nothing to reverse this decision because they do not rule on so-called "findings of fact." THAT was why the Schindlers went to Congress to try to get a de novo review of the case, which, by the way was perfectly legal--Michael Schiavo's and his supporters' lies to the contrary--as it is often used by those on death row."
Yeah, right. Schiavo was a pawn of both sides in the right-to-die issue, but at least the pro-choice side did not edit video footage to try and decieve judges.
Even Bill Frist, who initially claimed that Schiavo could recover, retracted his statement.
Source: http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/22229/The_Daily_Show_Frist_Diagnosis.html
"Why must the pro-Michael Schiavo people be so dishonest? If you take away their "arguments," ALL of which are based on what Judge Greer ruled, MS's case would evaporate, and he would be seen as a person with a total lack of believability."
Yeah, and I suppose that's why about 2/3 of the US public agreed with him.
When an innocent woman is dehydrated to death for no good reason, one moves on, but one does not "get over it." Nor has her blood family who are anguised at the memory of what happened to their beloved daughter and sister.
"When an innocent woman is dehydrated to death for no good reason, one moves on, but one does not "get over it." Nor has her blood family who are anguised at the memory of what happened to their beloved daughter and sister."
What did they want to do with her? Continue sustaining her biological functions and continue to delude themselves into thinking that she can understand them?
Oh wait, that's what they did for about fifteen years.
Winston Jen said...
What did they want to do with her? Continue sustaining her biological functions and continue to delude themselves into thinking that she can understand them?
Stop saving off your guilt by attacking parents for acting like parents. Like the apple of my eye would say, let's get some "truthiness" on this thing.
The Schindlers saw both potential and hope for their daughter. And they didn't particularly care if their daughter could tap dance or not. They took the obligations of parenthood seriously and you have a problem with that? How DARE you minimalize their unconditional love for their own kid? What would you do were that your kid?
Don't be so damn narrow minded. People with brain injuries can live happy and fulfilling lives and, without benefit of clear or written instruction from that individual, depriving them to death is arrogant, stupid, bigotry and murder.
I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would be in favor of the state ordering the death of a nondying person without a shred of proof that that person ordered such a thing. Those who support such a thing, in my mind, are utilitarian maggots.
Leave people alone already.
Winston Jen said...
But isn't that what they did with Terri Schiavo? The autopsy confirmed that she was never going to have any conscious thought, EVER.
Clearly, you did not read the autopsy report. They said nothing of the kind. Conversely, the ME went to GREAT lengths to make clear that a diagnosis of PVS or MCS could not be made post mortem.
You fail at comprehension.
Deep Toad, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
You, on the other hand, advocate forcing people to live, NO MATTER WHAT.
If Terri wasn't in a PVS, what state was she in? Cortical death comes to mind.
If Terri were my child, I would accept the fact that she died many years ago, and only her shell remained. Terri as a person was irrevocably gone.
Winston Jen said...
Deep Toad, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
You, on the other hand, advocate forcing people to live, NO MATTER WHAT.
Actually, I don't. And Terri wasn't dying. That is the thing you fail to understand.
Don't presume to know how I think or feel. And don't presume to diagnose someone like Terri - whom you've never seen, met or interacted with.
Sum total - your ignorance is a hell of a lot more dangerous than anything I've said.
Terri would only have stayed "alive" with the feeding tube, which had to be regularly cleaned.
LARGO, Fla. - An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner’s office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused."
(Associated Press: 8_02 PM ET, June 15. 2005)
Winston: The media STINKS in its ability to report accurately on these issues, so you can quote them from here to eternity and it will not make them accurate. The report said she was almost surely blind (which people who knew her told me they suspected, but they believed she could hear). But whether or not she was actually PVS, she was fully human and was dehydrated to death. Her brother Bobby told me she bled from her eyes.
This will not be gotten over but will be an incentive to better protect people like Terri.
The fact that it was proven she was blind shows the farce those tapes her supporters paraded in front of the media were. Showing someone dignity is not putting in front of the world in their most demeaned state, which is what Schiavo's family did.
As far as the embryo debate, it is a tiny mass of cells. If we ban the use of embryos on the idea that it is life, is my right to choose and my right to use birth control going to be taken away next?
Actually not. Those tapes appear to show her reacting. For example, her mother comes in and speaks. Terri turns her head and smiles. In another she is asked to open her eyes. She pauses, her eyes flutter, and then she opens her eyes so wide she wrinkles her brow. That isn't "reflex." It was probably because she could hear, even if she couldn't see. But those tapes allowed people to see Terri as fully human, which those who supported her deyhdration sought to deny.
She died bleeding from her eyes. That is demeaning.
I don't know anybody who would outlaw birth control. Nor is the President seeking to "outlaw" ESCR. He is merely restricting funding to lines already in existence. That seems consistent with respecting people who disagree widely about these issues.
It matters that embryos are human organism, it seems to me. If it doesn't, it opens the door to instrumentalizing other humans, as we are in the very process of doing.
"Embryos are "human", but they're not PEOPLE. How can you consider it to be a person when it doesn't have a brain?"
When exactly do you think the pregnant woman swallows that magical vitamin that adds the brain, since you mystifyingly believe it's not in the first cell?
"She was GONE. Get over it."
Jennie, don't bring up a topic and then tell OTHER people to "get over it," K?
bmmg39: The brain develops in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Until then, there is no person. Consciousness separates a human PERSON from a piece of flesh.
"Develops"? That means it's already there. Nothing is added.
And we know that the embryo is a human BEING from the moment of fertilization. When I look up "person," the dictionary usually says "human being." Therefore, I use the terms interchangeably.
No, the brain develops during the 3rd trimester because before that, it simply isn't there.
It can't develop if it wasn't there in the first place. Do you believe in spontaneous generation? Matter magically appearing from nothing, from thin air?
When I was four years old, I didn't have hair on my arms, but it was "there" in my DNA. I didn't take a puberty pill that "added" hair to my arms. Neither does a pregnant woman take a similar vitamin that "adds" a brain and heart and arms and legs to the unborn child as though (s)he were a Potato Head doll.
A seed is not a tree. A fertilized egg is not a human being.
bmmg39, Wesley, let me give you a hypothetical scenario.
A hospital is on fire. You only have time to do one of two things before escaping - you can save a day-old infant, or you can save twenty petri dishes with frozen embryos for IVF, some of which will be disposed of. You cannot save both the infant and the petri dishes.
Now, what do you do?
The die-hard pro-life position, consistent with your arguments, would be to use the head of the infant as a battering ram to save the embryos in the petri dishes.
Those dumb scenarios are no basis for the making of public policy. Hey, there are four men on the moon, one falls into a permanent coma. The rocket breaks down and the escape pod can only fit three. Which do you choose? Please.
The point is that there are certain things that I do not believe should be done to any human life--both for what it does to them and what it does to us--and that is treat them as mere objects and instrumentalities.
"Those dumb scenarios are no basis for the making of public policy. Hey, there are four men on the moon, one falls into a permanent coma. The rocket breaks down and the escape pod can only fit three. Which do you choose? Please."
Given your philosophy, you pick a name out of a hat. That unlucky astronaut stays behind to die.
"The point is that there are certain things that I do not believe should be done to any human life--both for what it does to them and what it does to us--and that is treat them as mere objects and instrumentalities."
I dare you to say that again if you ever get a disease than can be cured by ESCR.
Hi Winston,
No, the brain develops during the 3rd trimester because before that, it simply isn't there.
Get thee to a local library and check out an embryology textbook. If you do, you will realize how horribly incorrect your above statement is and how silly it makes you appear to anyone with the faintest knowledge of fetal development.
For example, according to Larsen's Essential's of Human Embryology - the human brain's divisions are demarcated into the forebrain, midbain and hindbrain 19 days after conception, and according to Rugh's From Conception to Birth - the three primary parts of the brain are present 30 after conception.
Did you think the brain magically appeared at the end of the second trimester?
I hope I would refuse ESCR. One never knows. But my good friend, Mark Pickup, with progressive MS has already stated he would. Happily, adult stem cells are moving forward nicely on the MS front.
"I dare you to say that again if you ever get a disease than can be cured by ESCR."
Riiiiiight, because those of us against ESCR all lead charmed lives and have never dealt with disease either first-hand or in our families, right? Guess you missed all of the Congressional testimony from people who HAVE juvenile diabetes or Parkinson's or a spinal-cord injury and still call on Congress to avoid destroying other human beings to save their lives.
So, why don't you ask women to have those day-old embryos implanted and carried to term?
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=14137
http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=14160
They're being adopted right now. Furthermore, the vast majority (more than 88%) of the 400,000 embryos in fertility clinics are being reserved for future attempts at pregnancy. The number "available for research" is far lower than most people think.
Good for you. So, how many couples change their mind and abandon theses "babies"?
BTW, Wesley, you should comment here - http://www.fstdt.com/comments.asp?id=14173
It would show that you're not a complete coward.
Post a Comment
<< Home