|
|
January 21, 2010, Matthew Cochrane, Book Review: Embryo
One of the common complaints heard among pro-life advocates from those who support legalized abortion and embryonic stem cell research is that all pro-life reasoning stems from religious belief. In Embryo, coauthors Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen put that argument to rest once and for all. George and Tollefsen make a compelling case, using a nearly seamless hybrid of science and philosophy, that human life begins at conception. Furthermore, they assert, all human organisms are fully persons and deserve the complete protection and rights afforded to persons from the embryonic to mature adult stages of life.
In the book’s opening chapter, George and Tollefsen explain embryonic stem cell research to the uninitiated: what it is, the possible medical promises and benefits it holds, and how embryos are destroyed using these research methods. George and Tollefsen then succinctly explain the moral dilemma this research presents; namely, whether the embryo is a human life and, if it is, does it deserve the full rights other persons, more fully developed, are granted?
The authors then go on to discuss the first of these questions: Is the embryo, from the moment of conception on, a living human organism? To answer this question George and Tollefsen give a fairly detailed account of the development of an individual human being, from their parents’ gametogenesis to fertilization and on. Indeed, to those less biologically-inclined (as I am), much of this chapter required intense concentration and rereading. A typical paragraph under the description of fertilization reads:
Once the sperm has penetrated the zona, the oocyte completes its second meiotic division, which results in a second polar body and a definitive oocyte. The nuclei of both the mature oocyte and of the sperm now begin to enlarge, becoming, respectively, the female pronucleus and the male pronucleus. Both pronuclei, which contain all the chromosomal material of the sperm or egg, replicate their DNA in anticipation of the one-celled embryo’s first mitotic division, called cleavage, and the male pronucleus moves closer to the female pronucleus.
As you can see, while the reading might be difficult to those who haven’t thought about biology since their high school days, it is also not impossible. I am sure many things went over my head in this chapter but I also learned a great deal about the embryonic stages of human life. The machination and utterly complex process of fertilization renewed my appreciation for God’s amazing handiwork. After fully examining the fertilization and first few weeks of embryonic development, the authors conclude:
There are three important points we wish to make about the human embryo. First, the embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most important, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use that information to develop himself or herself, the mature stage of a human being, and, unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in environment (in the mother’s womb). None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long as he or she survives, generates a new direction of growth…Rather, all of the changes…either facilitate or retard the internally directed growth of this determinate and enduring individual.
After establishing that human life does begin, in fact, at the moment of conception, the authors use the rest of the book to explain why these human organisms are deserving of the same right we accord every other human. Using sophisticated philosophical arguments based on reason and logic, George and Tollefsen shoot down one pro-choice argument after another while explaining why unborn babies still in the embryonic and fetal stages of life need to be given the right to life. The authors tackle familiar pro-choice arguments taking on the forms of moral and intellectual dualism, constitutionalism, utilitarianism, consequentialism, and the developmental and attribution views. While it is beyond the scope of this review to examine each and every argument they make, I thought these familiar pro-choice arguments crumbled under the weight and force of logic employed by George and Tollefsen.
In the later chapters the authors also discuss more common arguments offered for not conferring full human rights upon embryos. One such argument abortion and embryonic stem cell research advocates often give is that because the embryo does not look human and is smaller than the period at the end of this sentence they do not deserve the same rights accorded to human beings at more mature stages of development. The authors reply:
To claims about the size and appearance of the embryo, we must say that it simply begs the question about the humanity (and the rights) of the embryo to say that it does not resemble (in size and shape) human beings in later stages of development. For the five-day embryo looks exactly what human beings look like at five days old. Each of us looked like that during the embryonic stage of our lives. The biologically relevant consideration is not appearance; rather, it is the fact that from the beginning, the embryo possesses the active capacity for self-directed growth and maturation through the various stages of a human life. We all started off small. But that just means that we exist as temporal creatures who grow and mature through time.
While refuting the common argument that states since an acorn and oak tree are different, so an embryo and human being must be different too, George and Tollefsen write:
So to say…that embryos and human beings are different kinds of things, or that acorns and oaks are different kinds of things, is true only if one focuses exclusively on accidental characteristics – size, shape, degree of development, and so on. But this is not how biological taxonomy works…What we are seeking to identify by the notion of a species is not some set of accidental characteristics, but rather the essential nature shared by some set of beings across various stages of development.
It should also be noted the authors intentionally avoid any theological or religious arguments. Not because they believe religious discussion does not belong in the public arena but because they simply believe it is unnecessary to do so to assert the right to life for human embryos. They write:
…the arguments of this book do not rely on any premise, claim, or authoritative teaching of any form of revealed religion. These arguments are not in any way sectarian or religious. They, are, rather, arguments using what the late John Rawls called “our common human reason” – a power, it is worth reiterating, that adult human beings exercise by virtue of having developed to the point of immediate exercisability an inherent natural capacity they possessed in radical form from the very beginning of their lives simply by virtue of being human beings.
Throughout the book, George and Tollefsen use the intellectual weight of their reasoning to assert their claims and arguments; they never resort to insulting or demeaning their opponents. The result is an academic treatise which immensely strengthens the intellectual and moral standing of the pro-life cause. George’s and Tollefsen’s contribution to pro-life literature is both intellectually weighty and compellingly persuasive. Anyone involved in the pro-life movement or who wishes to communicate their pro-life positions more effectively would do well to take the time to read it.
|
| Comments |
The term person is misleading. Individual is more applicable to this discussion. The embryo is not an individual until birth and the developmental process is dependent upon the mother. Since the Bible is not conclusively pro-life in the case of the embryo, one might turn to science. Regardless since the Constitution is still the law, Amendment XIV is the relevant section. This amendment says that an individual must be born to attain citizen rights. Non-citizens, on the other hand, are afforded due process, and the state may not take away a person's life, liberty or property with due process. But, a person is an individual according to the Constitution. For example, in Section 9, immigrants may be taxed up to $10 dollars upon entry. I doubt that expectant mothers have ever been charged for their embryo(s). George is saying that science shows that the embryo is alive. It may not be used for research or in medical treatments. I agree. Producing embryos and using them for purposes which preclude birth seems to violate due process. In the case of abortion, however, the Supreme Court has decided that due process does not apply to the mother as it relates to the product of her womb because the state has no sovereignty which usurps that of the mother. The Supreme Court is saying that the fetus does not have rights that override those of the mother because legally, the fetus is not an individual or a person. I think the Court recognizes that it can't really control the will of the mother with regards to her womb's contents, but if they were to rule on embryonic research and the like, imho they would say that the state may decide because it has a role in governing commerce and research activities. Conducting activities in this case that would be harmful to the embryo would be unconstitutional.
So, George's book is significant but does not resolve the abortion debate. - c |
|
"The embryo is not an individual until birth and the developmental process is dependent upon the mother."
That's simply not true. Embryos are not dependent upon the mother anymore for birth. Science long ago surpassed the need for a mother's womb to develop the child. Of course, if you are saying babies in the embryonic and fetal stages of development are simply dependent upon their environment, then that is true. But, of course, it is true for all people. We all need suitable environments to live. For instance, we could not survive in Antarctica or Mars without first creating an environment we need to live.
Seriously, C, by following the link provided you can buy this book for a mere five dollars right now. I know you're interested in this debate and think you would learn a lot (as I did) by reading this book. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Also, if we simply rely on the Supreme Court's judgement on which people meet the criteria to be full-fledged "persons", you would be forced to admit black people were not people either until after the Civil War. In the Dred Scott decision in the mid-1800's the Supreme Court ruled black people were 3/5's of a person. Was the Supreme Court right then? Of course not. Black people have always been full-fledged people, regardless of what the Supreme Court declared. In the same way, an unborn baby's status does not rest on what the Supreme Court declares but on what they really are. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
MC, the Constitution declares it. The court clarifies it. To change the court's decision, an amendment will be required just as an amendment was required to undo slavery. As Sarah Palin says, I would not have an abortion and I would council others not to, but I would not agree with imprisoning someone who has aborted a pregnancy. - c |
|
And furthermore, I wouldn't get pregant or impregnate someone in the first place. - c |
|
And, yes, all people are attached to some degree to their respective environments, but the constitution only totally protects the ones that are born. - c |
|
"MC, the Constitution declares it. The court clarifies it. To change the court's decision, an amendment will be required just as an amendment was required to undo slavery. "
C, that is also not true. To reverse the Court's decision simply requires another Court decision overturning their previous decisions on abortion. The Court has reversed course several times in the past on a variety of issues. Ramesh Ponnuru discusses what it would take to reverse legalized abortion at length in his book, The Party of Death. Once the Court overturned Roe v. Wade the matter would return to the states, (barring the event of an amendment - an unlikely occurence) where each state could, once again, define its own laws on the matter.
"As Sarah Palin says, I would not have an abortion and I would council others not to, but I would not agree with imprisoning someone who has aborted a pregnancy."
This is actually another myth addressed in Ponnuru's Party of Death, but 99% of pro-lifers do not agree with the imprisonment of women who seek abortions. Most pro-lifers simply want the abortionist punished once abortions are outlawed again. Ponnuru states this was a myth spread by abortion advocates to scare independent voters from voting for pro-life candidates.
Again, C, what's five bucks? Embryo really deserves a thorough reading. Magnificent arguments are presented throughout. I'm planning to review Party of Death soon too, but probably over at Conservative 21. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Fine, MC, but the fetus is still not an individual to any observer, the Constitution only recognizes rights of people who have been born. Restricting the rights of pregnant women is unlikely. I'll focus on the those who live and breath. - c |
|
Btw, I don't follow Ponnuru's logic. Don't punish the aborter, but punish the abortionist. That would be like, don't punish the drug user, but punish the pusher. Or, don't punish the underage drinker. Punish the provider. And, don't punish the murderer. Punish the gun supplier.
George and Tollefsen are wise, however, to target IVF and stem cell research to incrementally begin to develop more compassion for the embryo which may lead to more and more women not deciding to terminate pregnancies. - c |
|
And, btbtw, why should I read Embryo if you haven't read the Constitution? And I think you know that I mean reading it with understanding and without an a priori interpretation (gee, this sounds familiar). It's free online and relatively short, you know.
And, I know you are busy and Embryo is involved and complex, so I won't bust on you for telling me to read something instead of just posting the info/counter arguments which are so compelling right here. Maybe there are others who have time to read 224 pages and post some of the arguments here. - c |
|
"Btw, I don't follow Ponnuru's logic. Don't punish the aborter, but punish the abortionist. That would be like, don't punish the drug user, but punish the pusher. Or, don't punish the underage drinker. Punish the provider. And, don't punish the murderer. Punish the gun supplier."
But that's exactly how our law is set up. Someone arrested for possession for marijuana won't see a day in jail after they post a cheap bond. Meanwhile, those who are charged with sellign drugs got o jail with a felony on their record. Same with underage drinkers - when they're even arrested and not just let go with a warning. (The murderer/gun supplier analogy was just dumb). So really it's just consistent with the other aspects of our law. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
Fine Matthew, then let the analogy be repeat offences for under age drinking or using or DUI then. A sloppy court system is no excuse for bad logic, btw. That's the slippery slope of law enforcement unfortunately because they can't afford to prosecute everything.
Regardless, a law that punishes the abortionist and not the aborter won't make sense. It'll be like the state recognizes a woman's right to an abortion but she'll have to get it done in the shadows which will make women more susceptible to corruption/extortion/&c. If one becomes illegal, they both will. It'll be in the law book for both the aborter and the abortionist and probably go under prosecuted. But the Supreme Court won't allow it either way. So Pununu is blowing smoke up your skirt. - c |
|
I'm confused. You praise Palin for this logic but, when told that it is the common pro-life stance, you all of a sudden don't like it?
BTW, besides your inconsistencies I disagree with your overall opinion. I think the law, in this sense, makes a lot of sense. I do not see why we would have to, in a post-Roe v. Wade world, arrest women who get abortions. It's not a slippery slope of law enforcement, it's simply reality. - Matthew Cochrane |
|
|
|
|
| |
©2009 Matthew Cochrane
| |
|
Recent Activity:
Top 5 Posts of the Month:
Recently Viewed Posts:
Top Ten Most Commented
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies (378)
Roe v. Wade: The 35th Anniversary of Legalized Abortion (147)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: A Followup (108)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (106)
A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 3: The Proper Mode of Baptism (79)
Friday Political Roundup VI: Thoughts on New Hampshire's Primary (Special Wednesday Edition) (78)
Why I Like Mike, Part 2: Responding to the Conservative Establishment's Attacks (75)
In Defense of My Church and Pastor: Congregational Meeting Announcement (69)
From the Depths of the Web 2, June 2008 (65)
Can the Church Compromise on Baptism? Part 1 (60)
Top Ten Hits All-Time
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 4: Defining Personhood
- Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ban
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 7: The Sign of the Covenant
- A Biblical Defense of Paedobaptism, Part 8: Commonly Held Objections and Their Fallacies
- Mentorship Program for Incarcerated Young Men Gives Christians Opportunity to Witness, Offer Guidance
- Abortion, America's Greatest Sin, Part 3: The Beginning of Life
- Book Review: Love and Respect
- Book Review: Velvet Elvis
- The True Meaning of Christmas: Wrath, Judgment, Hope, and Grace
- In Defense of My Church and Pastor: On the Recent Controversy Surrounding Tullian Tchividjian and Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church
Add your Feeds:
Blogs I read:
Fave Five
Religious and Cultural
Friends and Family
See what my readers are saying…
“this website should be named NotConsistentThought or NotCompleteThought”
“I would say you are too sensitive”
“you just twist and spin”
“you just bloviate and pontificate”
“you are legalistic”
|
|
