A FAULTY ARGUMENT AGAINST EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL RESEARCH
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
"Invention & Technology" is a quarterly magazine that discusses the people, history, and ideas behind inventions. I have read it for some years and have found much delight in its explanations of how things work and how everyday items came to be.
Some of the stories, unfortunately, betray the secularist leanings of the editors. This seems to be a problem with most publications devoted to science--and even with many that are not.
"Reader's Digest" is an example of the latter. Over the years it repeatedly has run articles in favor of contraception, and in my eyes that has undermined its Norman Rockwell aura. "Reader's Digest" is strong when presenting real-life stories but weak when talking about ethics.
The winter 2005 issue of "Invention & Technology" includes a letter criticizing the prior issue's article on embryonic stem-cell research. That article was written by Jim Quinn and was called "What You Don't Know Will Hurt You."
In his letter Alfred J. Neuhauser says that "the endless debate over when life begins is regrettably fraught with emotion and very short on logic and valid science. . . .
"The problem with stem-cell research is not about the stem cells but about how they are obtained. The controversy centers on undifferentiated stem cells obtained from embryos via a process that requires their destruction. The question simply is, Do embryos constitute life? If so, their destruction for purposes of research involves the taking of human life."
Neuhauser makes a few comments about growth in the womb and then says, "It can be argued that somewhere along the line life appears. Despite some rather scary philosophical arguments to the contrary, that life is unarguably human, as there is no other appropriate biological designation. The ethical and moral problem arises when one tries to draw the line: after this point it's a human life; before, it isn't.
"I know of no scientifically valid basis for determining the point at which that line should be drawn. Consequently, the only safe course, which many of us feel must be followed when dealing with human life, is to draw the line at the point of zygote creation--i.e., conception."
Quinn replied this way:
"While I respect Mr. Neuhauser's opinion, every point he makes has been debated repeatedly. People of good will have examined both sides thoroughly and achieved a clear consensus in favor of embryonic stem-cell research."
Both men are worthy of criticism.
I understand what Neuhauser was trying to do, but he botched it. He said that "the endless debate over when life begins is ... very short on logic." His own logic needs work.
To say that the controversy is about when life begins is to take a misstep right at the start, and it plays into the hands of those in favor of embryonic stem-cell research.
Neuhauser devotes several sentences to saying that the unborn child develops physically, from the initial unicellular creature to a fetus clearly looking like it is ready for life outside. In this continuum, when does life begin? he asks. The question implies that at some point what is in the womb is not alive. This makes no sense, because non-living things cannot grow.
From conception onward the unborn child changes and grows daily. Cells multiply, organs become operational, weight is gained, movement occurs. These are indicators of life. If the unborn child were not living, it would be incapable of doing any of these things, just as a stone is incapable of doing any of them. To admit that growth occurs from the moment of conception is to admit that the child is alive from that moment.
Even advocates of embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge this constant growth. This means they implicitly acknowledge that the child is alive from conception onward. To give them a refuge by talking as though life may not have begun until some indeterminate line is crossed is tactically dumb. To make headway on the overall debate, opponents of embryonic stem-cell research must get the other side to admit clearly that at all stages the unborn is alive and is therefore a child.
Then the philosophical question shifts: Is this child worthy of protection at each stage of its development, or do we say that prior to a certain point it is dispensable and therefore disposable--not because it is not human prior to that point but because we think a potential good outweighs the child's right to life?
Although Neuhauser ends up with a reasonable plea--that the unborn child should be protected from conception onward--the way he gets there gives the other side plenty of wiggle room, as shown in Quinn's evasive reply.
Look at the sequence Quinn offers:
1. "I respect Mr. Neuhauser's opinion." Why, if he thinks the opinion is manifestly wrong? It is one thing to respect the holder of an erroneous opinion. It is something else to respect the opinion itself out of some misguided notion of civic politeness. I can imagine that Quinn might respect those who believe the Earth is flat, but does he respect their opinion?
2. "Every point he makes has been debated repeatedly." True, but this is immaterial. The tediousness of a debate does not imply that a particular side is incorrect. If a debate perdures, it might mean the topic is so important that each side is intent on prevailing.
3. "People of good will have examined both sides thoroughly." Thoroughly? It does not seem that either Neuhauser or Quinn has been thorough enough. And what difference does it make that they may be of good will? If their arguments have holes in them, good will does not compensate for those holes.
4. There is "a clear consensus in favor of embryonic stem-cell research." No, there is not. If there were, there would not be so much debate about it.
Voters in California passed Proposition 71, the initiative that funds stem-cell research, but it was clear that few of them had any understanding of the underlying problems. To them the measure was something that promised hope for the paralyzed, and who could be against that?
Proponents were not candid. They did not say, "We will have only a remote chance to help the ill, and it will be at the cost of killing many children." Had they been open about what Proposition 71 really was about, voters might have cast their ballots differently. In any event, even in California there is no consensus, and there is less of one in most of the rest of the country.
In short, Quinn presents a non-response. He does not address the question of when life begins--but why should he, since Neuhauser conveniently brought up that non-issue and left it hanging, to Quinn's benefit? Quinn could get away with an empty reply because Neuhauser's letter had insufficient philosophical oomph.
I am pleased that Neuhauser wrote to "Invention & Technology" and am pleased that the magazine published his letter. The editors could have spiked it. But the letter deserves low marks because it is philosophically muddled. If Neuhauser's approach is indicative of that of most opponents of embryonic stem-cell research, then that side is unlikely to prevail in either the short run or the long run.
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' new discussion forums at:
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up