People have supported and condemned abortion for
decades in
One
who morally objects to the use of an “abortion pill” would also object to the
use of pluripotent stem cell research for the same
reason. In the end it amounts to the
same thing, killing a human being.
You can classify both a blastocyst and a
fertilized egg as human beings in the following:
(i)
Being a personD is necessary for being a
personM.
(ii)
Being a potential personD is sufficient
for being a personM.
(iii)
Being an actual or potential personD is
necessary for being a personM.
A personD is someone
who posses certain characteristics; consciousness, self-awareness, an emotional
life, etc. While a personM
is someone has a certain moral status, such as the right to life. So objectors say that fertilized eggs and blastocysts can be considered personM’s
since they are potentially personD’s. Thus they have a right to life just as much
as a mature adult would. The main
premise that objectors who use this rationale have to rely on is that being a
potential personD entitles your to be a personM now. Thus claiming that the fertilized egg or blastocyst
has a right to life.
The
use of adult multipotent cells, cells that can under
go further specialization yet not as much as a totipotent cells, are not morally objected to by the
above stated objector. It is not
objected to because there is no chance of an adult being killed by removing multipotent cells from them, which usually come from bone
marrow. It is obviously granted that
this adult is both a personM and personD,
however their life is not endangered and thus objectors to the use of blastocysts have no grounds for a moral objection to the
use of adult multipotent cells.
Even
though the arguments for the objection of abortion for stem cell research are
good, one can counter them with the gradualist, species-centered view. In essence this states that a potential
member of a species possess some claim to life. However, this claim is proportional to the
degree of development (such as a fetus).
Thus backers of this view do not deny a fetus’ right to life, they just argue that the living member of the species
has a greater claim to the right to life.
Thus allowing stem cell research to be done on blastocysts to possibly allow for others to live. This argument is further backed due to fact a
blastocyst is approximately around eight weeks, and
looking at the total time of a pregnancy, nine months, eight weeks is very
early. This then renders the fetus’
claim much less than a living member of the species. People apposed to this view can claim an
older member of a species’ claim to life outweighs the younger ones. They can argue, that
if a forty-five year old needed to get a heart transplant, and the only
compatible heart is that of a ten year old the forty-five year old would have a
greater claim to life since he is an older member of the species thus killing
the ten year old. Now to make it a
little more complicated, lets say that this forty-five year old was someone of
great importance in a society, such as a great scientist. Does his position in
society along with his age give him more of a claim to the right of life? Some would say yes, this forty-five year old
has a greater claim to life because of his prominence and age. Yet, how could someone make claim to who has more of a right to live? This statement brings up another possible
argument for those apposed to stem cell research on blastocysts. It can be said then if you can’t decide if
the forty-five or ten year old has more right to live, what makes it possible
to do so with a blastocyst? This is easily rebuffed, in the heart
transplant case we were discussing living, full members of a species, and in
the stem cell research we are talking about potential
members of a species. Thus it is that
when one is a potential member of a species its claim to life is proportional
to the amount of development it is in, yet when you are a member of a species
no one’s claim to life is greater than any one else’s, we are all equal.
By
agreeing with the argument stating the use of blastocysts
for stem cell research is immoral it appears you value the life of the blastocyst over that of a living being. However, this is not true, it can be said
they have an equal right to life, thus neither one can be forced to
render their right of life to help another, unless they so choose to. By not doing stem cell research with a blastocyst, the blastocyst itself
is not harming the living beings, and in no way can a person who can benefit
from the stem cell research have blastocysts aborted
for further research because that would be directly harming the fetus. Another issue arises here, that the fetus’
right to life can actually be greater than a living
beings. This can be so because the fetus
is pure, it has done nothing immoral nor harmed anyone in any way. While the living being is not as pure because
they have lived and have had the possibility to sin, commit harm to other
people, and been exposed to the temptation within the world. Thus, rendering the fetus’
claim to right to life greater.
In
contrast, the gradualist view claims that they both have a right to life and
one must distinguish at what point the fetus has just as much right to life as
a living member of a species. It can be
stated that a fetus isn’t in possession of the same claim to life as a living
member till it itself is a living member.
However, I believe the line can be drawn earlier than when the
fetus leaves the mother’s womb. Once the
majority of the fetus’ organs are created and operational I believe the fetus
is in possession of a claim to life. At
this point I believe it is a logical assumption to say that the fetus is
considered a personD.
They have a brain and mind and hence can have self-awareness and
consciousness; maybe not in the sense the majority of humans see it yet they
have some form. Also, in accordance with
our earlier presumption, if a being is a personD,
they can therefore be considered a personM. Since they are considered a personM they have a full right to life.
Both
sides in this issue have good arguments, and most are based on good
presumptions. However, I think it is
fair to say that the gradualist view is a more feasible way to rationale such a
debate. So how can we decide whom is
morally right? It is almost impossible,
but it might be accomplished. Yet that
is for another paper, not this one.
© Dan Watson,
2000