Registered user login:

What is the moral status of the embryo?

Anthony Ozimic

Published 29 May 2007

Anthony Ozimic argues that we aren't attaching the correct moral status to human embryos

We could start by asking certain questions: Are embryonic stem cells stable enough for safe transplantation? Isn’t it wiser for investors to prefer adult stem cell research? Etc. There is, however, a more fundamental question to be answered first – what is the moral status of the human embryo?

Some would argue that human embryos aren’t persons and are therefore of a lower moral status, one which doesn’t confer the right to life. Surely this is just playing with words: those to be protected are given a certain designation (‘person’), which is then denied to some members of the group on the grounds that they don’t seem to be worth protecting or can’t defend themselves. We have to look beyond words to what makes us special. The main thing which distinguishes human beings is our rationality. That rationality is inherent in everyone, even though, like any faculty, it is not exercised by all people, all the time. Human embryos share our human nature, and have the capacity for rationality, even if they are, for a time, unable to exercise that capacity. Embryos are just as human whether their physical origin is through ordinary fertilisation, spontaneous twinning, or, as experience has shown, artificial processes.

Attempts to relegate certain human beings (often on racial or ethnic lines) to a status of non-personhood have led to some of the most heinous abuses and extensive massacres in modern history. All human beings are equal in nature, and therefore it is not for one group of human beings to decide that another group of human beings are of lower moral status i.e. are not persons. One might argue that there is even less excuse in this case, since each of us is directly connected with the class of human beings concerned - we were all embryos once.

The person we are now is the same being as the embryo we once were. This cannot be said of the sperm or the egg, because alone they couldn't have developed into a human being. A sperm and an egg remain a ‘potential person’ (loosely speaking), a purely conjectural non-existence, until fertilisation, but then become a person with great potential. Personhood is in the embryo’s nature - if the embryo wasn’t already a person, it couldn’t become a person. Otherwise personhood would be a faculty, like consciousness, that can come and go. Anyone under general anaesthesia isn’t a person, and then becomes a person again when they come to!

These arguments don’t require religious beliefs. Immanuel Kant, for example, believed the existence of rational beings (i.e. humans) has an absolute worth. Humans are therefore ends in themselves and should therefore never be used as a means to an end. Still, almost all religions hold that ‘man is made in the image and likeness of God’ and/or that ‘human life is sacred’. These religious or metaphysical beliefs remain widely held today and are probably the majority opinion of human society throughout history. The international community has recognised ‘the sanctity of human life’ in secular form: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights not only states that “everyone has the right to life” (article 3) but that “everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law” (article 6).

Have decades of embryo experimentation discovered much more than new ways of destroying embryos? Isn’t the government’s draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill another step along the road to a eugenic society, in which those with serious medical conditions are deemed unworthy of life? The fundamental question remains unanswered (indeed, unaddressed) – what is the moral status of the embryo?

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

topcat
29 May 2007 at 11:17

OK, so you don't like this level of medical intervention. Where do you draw the line? What about IVF treatment for those who can't conceive naturally? The potential for improving the quality of life for so many using stem cell research is so vast that to rule it out seems barbaric. Rigorous checks to ensure it is not misused are the responsibility of governments world over.

anthonyozimic
30 May 2007 at 15:12

One draws the line at the creation of a new boy or girl at conception. IVF, which involves abusing and destroying embryonic children, is not only wrong for that reason but unnecessary, usually ineffective and sometimes dangerous. There are more successful, safer, natural and ethical alternatives (visit fertilitycarecentre.co.uk). Much stem cell research does indeed have vast potential, i.e. non-embryonic, adult stem cell research. Rigorous checks on embryo experimentation have failed to ensure misuse.

gnuneo
30 May 2007 at 15:39

i have some support for your position, but taken as a logical argument the consequences would be disasterous.

it would effectively end the possibility of abortion in ALL cases, even that of rape, or a untreatable condition that will mean the baby will ive for a short space with incredible agony before inevitably dieing after a few menths.

this is monstrous, far more so than not allowing your position, and allowing the use of embryos in research.

yes, embryos are 'alive', and thus deserve some kind of moral protection. But frankly, in terms of life they are less than most farmyard animals (no matter what they migh potentially become). If you extend your coverage of rights to farmyard animals, if you extend it over the rights of animals not to be tortured for human research purposes, then i might support your position more.

as it is, i find your position entirely lacking, i'm afraid to say. No offense intended.

Lochain
30 May 2007 at 21:33

Embryonic stem cell research is not only unethical it's also a failure. There are many examples of adult stem research providing successful treatment to over 70 diseases and conditions.

If you Google "Dennis Turner Parkinson's" you will be able to read the story of a man whose symptoms of Parkinson's went away for 4 years durig which time he went to Africa and was chased up a tree by a Rhino while on safari! he was treated with his own neural stem cells with no need to take the life of any other human being. Google "Prof Geoffrey Raisman" and read the exciting developments in treating spinal cord injury using a patient's own stem cells from the nasal cavity. These are just two of the 1,200 trials using adult stem cells. Where are the therapies using embryonic stem cells?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Anthony Ozimic

Anthony Ozimic, is the political secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?