Human Embryos, Bioethicsand the "Devil's Bargain"

Robert George on the Dangers of Treating Tiny Human Livesas Material

PRINCETON, New Jersey, JULY 25, 2002 (Zenit.org).- ThePresident's Council on Bioethics on July 11 recommended that a four-yearmoratorium be placed on all

human cloning in the United States.

One of the members of the panel, Princeton Universityjurisprudence professor Robert P. George, outlined for ZENIT some of the issuesconfronting the council and

the country. He is also author of "The Clash ofOrthodoxies: Law, Morality, and Religion in Crisis" (ISI Books).

Q: Many have called for cloning to be allowed in order toproduce embryonic cells for medical research. The bioethics council itself wassplit on this subject. What are

some of the dangers of adopting an "ends justifies themeans" mentality in this field?

George: It is intrinsically unjust to treat human beings atany stage of development as mere "research material" to be exploitedand destroyed in the hope of benefiting

others.

That is why killing human beings in the blastocyst stage toharvest their stem cells would be morally wrong even if it did not lead toother horrors. No one should

imagine, however, that it will not lead to other horrors. Itcertainly will.

As promising research possibilities come into view requiringthe exploitation and destruction of developing human beings at later stages,pressure will mount to permit

it. Having transgressed the basic principle of the inherentdignity and inviolability of the human being, no logically secure ground willbe found to oppose destructive

experimentation on later embryos, fetuses and eventuallyimpaired newborns.

People who today support "research cloning" butrecoil at the concept of "fetal farms" will find it increasinglydifficult to explain to themselves and others what is

wrong with "fetal farming" to produce"replacement parts" for people in need of organ transplants.

They will perceive, but find themselves unable to identifygrounds for rejecting, the commodification of human life that began withcloning. My colleague on the

President's Council, Charles Krauthammer, has warned that ifour nation accepts the cloning of human embryos to be destroyed in biomedicalresearch, "we will regret

it." He is right. Principle and prudence alike demandthe legal prohibition of all human cloning.

Q: Many people are not convinced of the human status of whatthey term as just a blob of cells in the first days of human life. Whatrelation is there between these few

cells and a mature person?

George: The adult human being who is now you or I is thesame human being who was, at an earlier stage of his or her life, anadolescent, and before that a child, an

infant, a fetus and an embryo.

The embryonic and fetal stages -- no less than the infant,child and adolescent stages -- are stages in the life of a whole living memberof the species homo sapiens

who, by directing his or her own integral organicfunctioning, matures from the embryonic into and through the fetal, infant,child and adolescent stages and into

adulthood with his or her unity, determinateness andidentity fully intact.

Although you and I were never sperm or ova, we were onceembryos -- just as we were fetuses, infants, children and adolescents. Spermand ova are not human

beings; they are genetically and functionally parts of themale and female human beings whose sperm and ova they are.

The combining of the chromosomes of the spermatozoon and ofthe oocyte generates what every authority in human embryology identifies as anew and distinct

organism. Whether produced by fertilization or by somaticcell nuclear transfer or some other cloning technique, the human embryopossesses all of the genetic

material needed to inform and organize its growth.

Unless deprived of a suitable environment or prevented byaccident or disease, the embryo is actively developing itself to full maturity.The direction of its growth is

not extrinsically determined, but is in accord with thegenetic information within it. The human embryo is, then, a whole (thoughimmature) and distinct human

organism -- a human being.

That is why it is wrong to say that the human embryo is"pre-human" or merely a "potential human being." The humanembryo is already and fully a human being.

It is true that in the embryonic stage of our developmenteach of us had a great deal or maturing to do before he or she could performhigher human activities such as

thinking, imagining and choosing; indeed, we lacked theimmediately exercisable capacity to perform such acts until several monthsafter birth.

But it is fallacious to infer from this that we were nothuman beings until months or years after we were born. Any material entity,including a healthy adult human

being, can be described abstractly in terms of its chemical makeupor as a "blob of cells."

But in the debate over the moral status of the human embryo,this is merely a technique of evading a biological fact that is attested to byevery leading textbook in the

field of human embryology: The human embryo is a human beingin the earliest stage of his or her natural development.

Q: Religious leaders have been criticized for wanting tostop cloning because -- critics say -- in a pluralist society we cannot legislatea moral view based on religious

beliefs. Is this a fair criticism?

George: The status of the developing embryo as a human beingis an undeniable biological fact, not a contested religious dogma.

Nothing would please me or other opponents of cloning andall forms of destructive research on human embryos more than to resolve thisissue purely on the basis of

the scientific facts as to when a new human being comes intoexistence.

Of course, sophisticated proponents of embryo research don'twant to do that. Because they realize that there is no denying the fact thatthe human embryo is a human

being, they find it necessary to claim that human beings inthe earliest stages of their development lack some attribute or quality -- forexample, brain function,

sentience, self-awareness -- in virtue of which more maturehuman beings have a measure of dignity that is incompatible with subjectingthem to destructive

experimentation for the benefit of others.

Some claim that human beings in the embryonic stage occupyan "intermediate" moral category between "things" and"full persons." Philosophically, there are many

problems with such a view.

Above all, it necessarily denies that people have basichuman dignity in virtue of what they are, not in virtue of talents, abilities,accomplishments, etc.; thus it

undermines the principle of human equality. It is science,not religion, that tells us that human embryos are human beings; but today itfalls mainly to religious people

to defend the moral proposition that human beings are equalin worth and dignity.

When Martin Luther King and other clergymen courageouslydefended the principle of equality against those who denied human rights basedon race, no one accused

them of seeking to "legislate a moral view based onreligious belief." Reverend King's true successors today are those peopleof good will of every faith who speak up

for equality against those who would deny human rights basedon age, size, stage of development, or condition of dependency.

Q: What prospects do you see in the future for the strugglebetween the "culture of life" and the "culture of death,"terms often used by John Paul II, in the area of

bioethics?

George: We are at a crossroads. Things will not remain asthey are. Either we will begin building the "culture of life" or wewill descend into the "culture of death."

Of course, no one in the debate seeks death for its ownsake. On the contrary, it is the lifesaving potential of embryonic researchthat tempts people to authorize it. Its

supporters ask, "Why not destroy a little cluster ofcells if that is the way to cure juvenile diabetes and other horriblediseases?"

They don't see that it is truly a "devil'sbargain." They perceive it as doing, at most, a little bit of evil toproduce a great deal of good. What they fail to understand is

that it transgresses and compromises our most fundamentalmoral and political principles -- inherent dignity and human equality.

They do not -- yet -- see the abyss into which it leads. Butif we can persuade our fellow citizens to heed Charles Krauthammer's warningand hold back from

authorizing the creating of human life to be destroyed inbiomedical research, we will have planted the seeds for a transformation of ourculture into one that truly

respects the dignity of human life in all of its stages andconditions.

ZE02072520