Big Windy Speaks

From the pages of The Progressive...

Nina Siegal: You have stated that the debate on stem cell research and human cloning comes down to “whose life matters most: the lives of sick children and adults facing risks of decay and premature death, or the lives of human embryos who must be directly destroyed in the processes of harvesting their stem cells for research.” Do you believe that frozen embryos from artificial insemination that may never be implanted in a womb constitute a life that cannot be destroyed?

Leon Kass: “Yes” or “No” questions don’t do justice to the subject or my own views. As a biologist, I am in awe of an embryo’s developmental potential, a potential that does not disappear just because its creators no longer want it for baby-making purposes. I don’t regard the early embryo morally as equivalent to a newborn child, but I cannot prove my moral intuition nor disprove the opposing view. The early human embryo, especially in a dish or freezer, is mysterious in its being and how to regard it remains a puzzle. I therefore shy away from exploiting it for our purposes.

Right, then.

That would be a yes.

Also, he's not a biologist. He's a former biologist, by about, oh, thirty years or so.


posted by Justin on 06.06.05 at 01:01 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2407






Comments

Fortunately, the moral debate will soon be mooted by scientific advances.

Tough times ahead for embryo advocates?

Eric Scheie   ·  June 6, 2005 09:47 AM

Once again, the styles of the titles of your posts. This is an interesting ongoing conflict: Justin Case vs. Leon Kass.... Interesting adversaries.... The question is difficult, but I think I would have to sacrifice frozen embryos to save the lives of sick children and adults. I don't like abortion. I was once for it, on the grounds of a woman's sovereignty over her own body, which I continue to uphold. Problem is, there is another body involved, which pro-abortionists never seem to get around to acknowledging. Perhaps not immediately from conception, but at some point in the pregnancy, and pretty early in the pregnancy, the creature develops a brain remarably like that of "homo sapiens", and then the embryo or fetus becomes something more than a cluster of cells, becomes a baby. At that point, I've concluded that abortion is justified only in such cases (rare) when it is necessary to save the woman's own life. At some point, I'm going to have to start blogging about this controversy.

You mentioned technological advances. I recall hearing of a science-fiction novel, Solomon's Knife I believe was the title, in which a doctor discovers a method whereby the fetus can be non-violently transferred to an artificial womb and nurtured there. That way, the woman has her body all to herself again (the original argument for abortion), while at the same time the baby gets to live instead of being dismembered. That would be a positive-sum solution for everybody. I wonder, though.... Seeing how abortion has become an atheistic sacrament or sacrilege (akin to the infamous Black Mass) for some, a way of spiting the hated Catholic church, they might well oppose such a solution on some pretext or other.



December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits