Comments on Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human: "Christian" Eugenics

Jason, are all zygotes perfect? At what point is a...

2007-04-11T18:53:00.000-07:00

Jason, are all zygotes perfect? At what point is a zygote not perfect enough to be any longer considered a zygote?

What Jason just wrote.

2007-03-20T14:38:00.000-07:00

What Jason just wrote.

Lincoln,Work is slow this morning, so I had a few ...

2007-03-20T09:40:00.000-07:00

Lincoln,

Work is slow this morning, so I had a few minutes to check back. Thanks for your response.

Whether one considers a zygote human is not a subjective matter; it is an objective, biological fact. Things that exist exist as something. What is the zygote? It exists. It has being, but what kind of being does it have? Biology makes it clear. To identify the kind of being a zygote is one looks at its genetic code. The zygote has a diploid set of human chromosomes, and the gentetic fingerprint of human beings. The only conclusion, then, is that its being is of the human kind; i.e. a human being.

This conclusion is biologically airtight and beyond dispute. What can be, and is disputed is the value of human beings. Are all human beings valuable, or only some (or the scary option...none)? If only some, why? What is the demarcation line for human value, and how is that line rationally justified? That is the only valid debate (a matter of philosophy). The biological question is settled. A zygote, when it actually becomes a zygote, is a member of the human species. It possesses everything that makes a human, human. All it needs is a suitable environment to mature according to its kind.

Jason, that is true only if you are a person that ...

2007-03-19T20:09:00.000-07:00

Jason, that is true only if you are a person that considers a zygote to be fully human. I'm not arguing against such an idea, but am pointing out that in the same way that you cannot indisputably identify when a zygote becomes a zygote, you cannot indisputably identify when a human becomes a human -- or ceases to be a human either for becoming more or less than human.

Lincoln,I know your question was not directed at m...

2007-03-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

Lincoln,

I know your question was not directed at me, and I probably won't be coming back to see your response, but I wanted to offer a response to your question with a question: When does stubble end and a beard begin?

The exact point of transformation can't be defined precisely, but that does not mean we can’t tell the difference between a bearded face and clean-shaven one. My point? Just because we don’t know the precise moment two gametes cease to exist as they form a new human organism, does not mean we can’t know that the event has occurred, and recognize the presence of a human being when we see it. The simple fact of the matter is that before conception occurs we have two gametes, and after it occurs we have a new human being.

What does this scientific uncertainty about the precise timeing of the formation of a zygote have to do with this issue anyway? Nothing. Syngamy occurs at the unicellular stage of human development. Gene therapies, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and ESCR all occur at the multi-cellular stage. The kind of stuff Smith is discussing involves multi-cellular entities; i.e. those who have already undergone syngamy. There is no question, then, that the “thing” under discussion is a human being. While we may not have epistemological certainty concerning the precise moment it came into existence, it is absolutely clear that what is being operated on or killed is a distinct human being at the time.

Wesley, when does a zygote become a zygote?

2007-03-18T15:06:00.000-07:00

Wesley, when does a zygote become a zygote?

So, to clarify a bit, I am not necessarily talking...

2007-03-18T15:05:00.001-07:00

So, to clarify a bit, I am not necessarily talking about non-human animals. In fact, the emotions associated with that probably just make it more difficult to communicate. We need look at nothing more than the non-human materials of which humans are composed. When have they become exceptionally organized (become human)? When have they ceased to be exceptionally organized (cease to be human)? When might they be meta-exceptionally organized (become neohuman)?

Lincoln: According to embryology text books, a zyg...

2007-03-18T15:05:00.000-07:00

Lincoln: According to embryology text books, a zygote is a distinct human organism. At that point. Nothing happens after that to transform it into a human, it is a human at the earliest stage of development.

That isn't philosophy. It is embryology. Whether that new organism should have a moral status is not embryology or biology. That is a matter of philosophy.

On the other hand, as a human dies, at what point ...

2007-03-18T15:02:00.000-07:00

On the other hand, as a human dies, at what point is it no longer human? Is it a point? I see no point . . . and neither do I see a straight line departure from human.

That which is not human becomes human, for example...

2007-03-18T14:59:00.000-07:00

That which is not human becomes human, for example, during the typical conception process. Humans consume materials that are organized into sperm and egg. Sperm and egg join into zygote, which continues to develop ultimately into another human. I see no bright or straight line in this between the human and the non-human.

All I know is what I read in my Bible:"The word of...

2007-03-17T21:03:00.000-07:00

All I know is what I read in my Bible:

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."

--Jeremiah 1:4-5.

No matter what, we shouldn't mess with babies. Period. You monkey around with a poor kid's body before he's born and you're going to make a mistake somewhere and that child'll be hurt severely, without any way to fix it.

There are just too many things that we can screw up for us to even think about it.

How can something that is not human, become human?...

2007-03-17T14:50:00.000-07:00

How can something that is not human, become human?

I assume he's talking about genetic chimeras, where human genes are added to animal genes in some proportion. Should such embryos be implanted? Well, I don't think any embryos should be implanted, even if they are natural human embryos, but you have backed yourself in to a corner on this, and might feel they should be implanted, since they are partially human and exist. Then it's a slippery slope.

But there is a huge clear line, I don't get how anyone can miss it: the child of two humans is human, and we should draw the line right there. People can only be created by the union of a man and a woman and carried in a woman's womb, and no other method. Anything created by that method is human. Anything created by any other method should not be considered human and should not be allowed to be created or implanted. There's no need to speculate about how we would treat such a creation if one were born, we should concentrate on how we will treat the people involved in that unethical endeavor.

I think it's easy to find a clear bright line:

Lincoln: Thank you for your thoughtful post.Yes, S...

2007-03-17T14:09:00.000-07:00

Lincoln: Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Yes, Stewart's statement--no doubt made in frustration--is inadequate to the task at hand. I feel his pain.

How can something that is not human, become human? We can easily determine whether an organism or being is human through biological means. Indeed, there is a very bright line between human and non human. For me, that is the proper first question: Are we dealing with a living human being or human organism?

In terms of human life, there should be a separate standard from how other life is treated. There should be lines that we do not cross in our treatment of other humans, for example, not using some human life instrumentally even if there is a payoff for other humans.

With regard to our animal friends, it is precisely because we are human that we have duties to treat them humanely, keeping in mind the human good to be derived by proposed uses. In short, I believe in the animal welfare model, as opposed to animal rights.

In this regard, unlike with humans, the capacities of the animal also become relevant. The acceptable ways to treat a chimp should differ from the acceptable ways to treat a mouse, for example. But I don't believe it is right to state that a chimp with higher capacities than an infant or disabled human should have greater moral value. Once we go down that road, we have accepted a subjective view of human life, which means that the attributes that matter morally depend on who has the power to decide. It also dooms any hope of achieving universal human rights, with the most defenseless becoming the most vulnerable to exploitation.

Then, we have to add in what should be a legal requirement with regard to the care and treatment of humans and animals, and what our individual moral duties may be regardless of what the law may allow.

Wesley, I agree that there is no bright line betwe...

2007-03-17T13:44:00.000-07:00

Wesley, I agree that there is no bright line between defect fixing and enhancement. Further, as with all dichotomies, the harder we look for the line, the more clearly we see a spectrum.

Potter Stewart's comment, that one knows when the line has been crossed, is (perhaps ironically) insufficient unless one embraces a purely individualistic and relativistic ethics. Laws and social norms, in non-oppressive communities, reflect diverse perspectives, no two of which may exactly match. One may see obscenity where another sees beauty. One may see an opportunity for enhancement where another sees a defect to be fixed. So we work together, as here at Secondhand Smoke, to persuade each other to see the world more alike, and thereby to affect our laws and social norms accordingly. The irony would be that Stewart may have intended his comment to appeal to some kind of absolute ethics, yet we find ourselves unable to judge the value of such an appeal without returning to either pure relativism or objectivity in the form of shared subjectivity, and the latter tends to deem insufficient the value of a single individual's appeal to the absolute.

As I see no bright line between defect fixing and enhancement, I see no bright line between human and non-human. Well to each side, I feel comfortable judging between the human and the non-human, yet at the center, I lose my comfort. Humans are exceptional, and so merit exceptional consideration, yet when have they become human and when have they ceased to be human? When have they become something exceptional relative even to humans, thereby meriting exceptional consideration relative even to humans? When have they become something unexceptional relative to humans, thereby not meriting exceptional consideration? When does human life begin and end? When does it become something meta-exceptional?

In addition to seeing no bright lines, I see no straight lines. If a human loses 10% of its parts, we should not simply conclude that it is 10% less human, or even less human at all. Yet, eventually, that which was not human becomes so, and that which was human becomes not. Over a relatively short period, there is change from the unexceptional to the exceptional, from the exceptional to the unexceptional, and perhaps even from the exceptional to the meta-exceptional. I don't know whether such changes can be described adequately in terms of percentages, but they happen and appear to do so without bright or straight lines. When considering these changes, in all their real complexity, we cannot depend uniquely on appeals to exceptionalism or intrinsic worth, because that which we are considering is on neither side of the abstract line, on whose practicality we usually depend.

I don't think you've asked a good question. Are y...

2007-03-16T14:29:00.000-07:00

I don't think you've asked a good question. Are you saying we should force people to conceive even if they don't want to?

Gregory,I didn't ignore anything that was worth co...

2007-03-16T11:32:00.000-07:00

Gregory,

I didn't ignore anything that was worth commenting to.

Your discussion of qualitative differences was vague.

What are you talking about? Which procedure? What mastery of others? Implanting genes into a fetus? Embryo screening? Sperm screening? Ova screening?

Are all these the same qualitatively? I would say no.

As for mastery of others - does it matter if the "other" doesn't even exist yet? Without falling into discussing when "others exist" (i.e., conception, implantaton, birth), I would just say that it shouldn't either way.

Why? Because of all the sweeping statements about the "intrinsic value of human life", may be you don't comment about that, but definitely Wesley does. If all human life is so important for its own sake, then I must conclude that all human life is worth creating. If not, why not?

Take someone with Down's Syndrome, by allowing a person who is genetically at risk to have children with DS to abstain from procreating, for no other reason than the risk of DS, are we not saying that people with DS have less right to even be conceived? I think so.

And that is precisely the moral contradiction here, to which I have not received a good answer.

Royale, choosing a mate is not just a crude method...

2007-03-16T11:29:00.000-07:00

Royale, choosing a mate is not just a crude method of designing children. In humans, like most species, the couple choose each other to be their companion and partner, not just to conceive children, and the genes of their children take distant second to considerations like personality, wealth, lifestyle, etc. Even if choosing a partner for their genes was all that it was, as in cases of choosing a one-night-stand sperm-donor, it is still just choosing a person to conceive with, not choosing the genes of your child. And, even when a person chooses a partner for their healthy genes, they still (up till recently) use their own genes. Designer babies might not have a genetic connection to either "parent".

So, I am refusing to accept this "it's a different method" idea. They are two different things. Choosing a mate is choosing a mate, not designing a baby, and it goes back to the beginning. Creating babies in any way other than a male and female choosing each other to mate with is completely different and brand new.

Jason,Yes, I think it's an interesting question: A...

2007-03-16T10:19:00.000-07:00

Jason,

Yes, I think it's an interesting question: Are the waters being muddied here by the question of whether homosexuality is abnormal or not? Shouldn't that be a different question?

If the idea is just that pre-natal treatment of disorders is wrong, then I can't agree with that. It's clearly false for physical disorders. Pre-natal surgery for spina bifida is often successful and has been an important breakthrough. The same is true of pre-natal surgery for diaphragmatic hernia.

If the issue is a problem with the recklessness of hormonal treatments of very young children, then I do agree with that. Frankly, I think any such treatment would almost certainly do more harm that good. But that's an "in practice" issue, not an "in principle" issue.

But it doesn't seem like it can be in principle wrong to engage in pre-natal treatments of biologically-based mental disorders. Maybe it would make the questions clearer if we picked something different to talk about theoretically--say, bipolar disorder. Now, older children are treated with meds for bipolar disorder. This may not always be wise, but it isn't in principle wrong. Would it be engaging in "designing children" if a way were found to treat children pre-natally who had some strong inclination to bi-polar? Again, it might be an overly risky treatment and hence foolish to engage in, but I would think it should be evaluated like any other treatment--risks, benefits, how much is known about the treatment, etc.

You entirely disregarded my point regarding the qu...

2007-03-16T08:42:00.000-07:00

You entirely disregarded my point regarding the qualitative difference between the two approaches. "Is" and "may be" will never be the same thing. To say that they are is to do your moral reasoning with a Gatling gun when sharpshooting is required.

In any case, one can take the information about being a carrier of a disease, and do nothing except prepare to take care of the child who will have the disease. No selective breeding involved. Let me quote myself, since you seem to have missed it the first time: "If you choose then not to have children, or to screen your children for the disease and abort those who have it, then I would agree that the principal is similar." Again: having information is not the same as using it.

"the genetic makeup of another individual. It's in...

2007-03-16T08:03:00.000-07:00

"the genetic makeup of another individual. It's information; what you do "

Again, this is discussing the METHOD. You consider genetic tinkering immoral, fine.

But to screen embryos, ovum, sperm, or even people for genetic diseases, or anything, is a form of designing babies because it's simply selective breeding but with humans.

Thus, designing babies in the abstract is OK.

That's my point.

Now, HOW should we design babies? Screen people (i.e., hedging our bets) or genetic tinkering? I don't believe I've made any much argument for either.

The principal isn't the same at all: to know wheth...

2007-03-16T07:35:00.000-07:00

The principal isn't the same at all: to know whether you are a carrier of a disease is not to tinker with the genetic makeup of another individual. It's information; what you do with it is another matter altogether. If you choose then not to have children, or to screen your children for the disease and abort those who have it, then I would agree that the principal is similar.

As often comes up in your arguments, Royale, you make it seem that direct intervention is no different from hedging your bets, sure, but ultimately leaving things up to chance. The difference is huge. In the former case, the individual's will becomes absolute, not to be gainsaid. The latter case may also be an expression of one's will, but it is a will tempered by humility, that does not claim for itself omnipotence and total mastery over others. You may say that this is a difference only in degree, but the quantitative difference, as it were, becomes a qualitative one whenever that point of absoluteness is reached. In other words: the principal stops being the same.

John,Yes, the methods are different. I wrote that...

2007-03-16T05:48:00.000-07:00

John,

Yes, the methods are different. I wrote that.

But selective breeding has been going on for 1000s, if not 100000s of years. So, the mere PRINCIPAL of people doing what they can to design what their children do and are (i.e., DESIGNING BABIES), is very, very old.

I always bring this up on threads like this because I've never gotten a good answer from the readers of this blog:

Why is it that pre-marital genetic screening for diseases is not considered "designing babies"? The PRINCIPAL at work is the exact same.

The only difference is the method. If that's the moral objection, then please watch your vocabulary because designing babies, in PRINCIPAL, many would consider OK.

"Lydia: No. It isn't about what causes or does not...

2007-03-15T21:23:00.000-07:00

"Lydia: No. It isn't about what causes or does not cause same sex attraction. It is about changing the biological nature of embryos and fetuses to fulfill parental desires about the kind of child they want. That turns procreation into made to order manufacture."

I don't really think this case is necessarily a case of that sort of thing.

I have a good friend of mine whose wife has a brother with Muscular Dystrophy. She is a carrier for it. If there existed an inutero or invitro treatment for Muscular Dystropy (apart from the currently recommended eugenic abortion) would that be problematic ? Unless you say yes that is problematic I think I see the disagreement between you and Al Mohler.

One of you is looking at same-sex attraction as something akin to Muscular Dystrophy while the other is looking at same-sex attraction as essentially benign and just a normal variation.

So it makes sense that you would not see eye to eye on this point.

Is that a fair assessment ?

Royale, what do you mean you don't see the differe...

2007-03-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

Royale, what do you mean you don't see the difference? One is choosing your mate and having children together, one is breaking that into two seperate things. That has never been done before. Choosing a mate has been going on since complex life forms developed out of single celled organisms. Sexual reproduction was the big breakthrough that kicked evolution into high gear and moved life from chemical and biological into social patterns. But it has always been a male and a female choosing to mate with each other, and then their kids just come out how they come out. It's never been any other way, it hasn't been a slow continuum from primal mate selection to us genetically designing babies. We've always chosen a person to mate with. Choosing the genes in any way other than choosing a mate is completely new.

Lydia: No. It isn't about what causes or does not...

2007-03-15T17:33:00.000-07:00

Lydia: No. It isn't about what causes or does not cause same sex attraction. It is about changing the biological nature of embryos and fetuses to fulfill parental desires about the kind of child they want. That turns procreation into made to order manufacture.