"A person's a person no matter how small."
The famous line from the popular Dr. Suess book Horton Hears a Who! is profound on multiple levels. Designed to speak to and empower children who are old enough to understand the words being read to them, the insight the line offers applies to much younger and smaller children as well.
Indeed, if what we mean by "we" refers to all members of the human family—all members of the species Homo sapiens—then this includes even the tiniest members. Indeed, if we take the science of biology seriously, this includes humans so small that we cannot see them with the naked eye.
A person is a person no matter how small. An eight-celled embryo, something everyone reading this article once was, is a person. Size, level of dependence on others, disability, and other accidental traits simply do not matter. All human persons are equal.
This principle was at the heart of the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court, which argued that those who wrongfully kill human embryos could be guilty of wrongful death. It may seem counterintuitive—especially in a culture which prizes size, independence, and ability—but a moment's thought reveals that instinct as a bias which needs to be resisted, at least if we care about expanding the circle of protection around vulnerable populations. The dignity of the person comes from our humanity, not from how big we are or what we can do.
But a number of good-hearted people disagree with the ruling and the idea that human embryos count the same as the rest of us. Let's respond to four arguments that are often given for this position:
1. The embryos protected by the court ruling, because they are in storage in a fertility clinic, will almost certainly never be transferred into a uterus and become a baby. As such, an embryo in this situation is not the same as a baby in her mother's womb and thus should not be given equal rights.
The environment in which a human being is kept should not affect their moral and legal status. On the contrary, the environment in which they are kept—especially if against their will and flourishing—should make us pay more attention to their dignity, not less. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of embryos kept indefinitely in cryogenic frozen storage is a fundamental and gross injustice, akin to a kind of wrongful imprisonment. Their situation shouldn't prevent us from seeing their humanity.
2. Early embryos, such as those stored in fertility clinics, are made up of what are called "totipotent" cells. As such, these early embryos can segment and become more than one embryo. (This is how identical twins are formed.) A single, individual human being can't become two human beings. Whatever an embryo is, it cannot be a human being like us.
This is a powerful argument, one which pro-lifers must take quite seriously. The questions it raises are difficult, even for those committed to protecting unborn life. Official Catholic teaching, for example, does not take positions on the philosophical arguments about the personhood or ensoulment of the early embryo. But, to my mind, the Catholic Church is quite right to insist that we should nevertheless treat these embryos as persons. After all, it is simply not at all the case that one human cannot become two human beings. Indeed, every time a woman becomes pregnant she is one human being who becomes two human beings.
3. A large percentage—perhaps as high as 50 percent—of early embryos die via what is sometimes called "natural embryo loss." Because pro-lifers like those who support Alabama's ruling are not mourning this massive catastrophe, they cannot really be serious about these human beings mattering the same as other human beings. Otherwise their behavior would be totally different.
This, again, is an important argument for pro-lifers to consider. But let's be clear: throughout human history—and still in some places today—the mortality rates of newborn infants is as high as 50 percent. It certainly doesn't follow that, because we don't properly mourn this mass death, we don't actually think newborn human beings matter the same as other human beings. While it is absolutely right to push for more care for global infant mortality rates, the fact that many are not as concerned as they should be says nothing about how we should think about the moral and legal status of newborns. Indeed, we should be pushing for a stronger sense of concern for all vulnerable human beings—not for placing whole classes of human beings outside of moral and legal protection.
4. Treating early embryos as human beings means undermining in vitro fertilization (IVF), a process which gives hope for infertile couples around the world. We must not threaten these practices, which have fulfilled the dreams of so many individuals and couples who would otherwise have no hope to have children.
Having experienced it personally in my own family, I can say with authority that the pain of infertility is huge and ought to be respected as part of this discussion in the most profound ways possible. That said, there are two important responses to this argument. First, countries like Germany (sensitive to their checkered bioethical past) have decided to do in vitro fertilization in ways which do not treat embryos as a throwaway population. So it is not at all clear that treating embryos as persons means banning IVF.
Second, even if treating embryos as full human persons meant banning IVF, this is no reason to treat a vulnerable human population as non-persons. There is no right to have a child, and there is especially no right to have a child in ways which require throwing away other kinds of children. We must treat persons as persons regardless of the consequences this may or may nor produce. This insight is at the heart of all struggles for justice and civil rights.
Charles Camosy is Professor of Medical Humanities at the Creighton University School of Medicine and Moral Theology Fellow at St. Joseph Seminary in New York.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Vulnerable Groups Deserve Protection—That Includes Embryos
6
0
27.02.2024
"A person's a person no matter how small."
The famous line from the popular Dr. Suess book Horton Hears a Who! is profound on multiple levels. Designed to speak to and empower children who are old enough to understand the words being read to them, the insight the line offers applies to much younger and smaller children as well.
Indeed, if what we mean by "we" refers to all members of the human family—all members of the species Homo sapiens—then this includes even the tiniest members. Indeed, if we take the science of biology seriously, this includes humans so small that we cannot see them with the naked eye.
A person is a person no matter how small. An eight-celled embryo, something everyone reading this article once was, is a person. Size, level of dependence on others, disability, and other accidental traits simply do not matter. All human persons are equal.
This principle was at the heart of the recent ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court, which argued that those who wrongfully kill human embryos could be guilty of wrongful death. It may seem counterintuitive—especially in a culture which prizes size, independence, and ability—but a moment's thought reveals that instinct as a bias which needs to be resisted, at least if we care about expanding the circle of protection around vulnerable populations. The dignity of the person comes from our humanity, not from how big we are or what we can do.
But a number of good-hearted people disagree with the ruling and the idea that human embryos count the same as the rest of us. Let's respond to four arguments........
© Newsweek
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
