Creating Humans: Ethical Questions, Part 2

~Lecture 2 of Creating Humans dealt with a question central to reproductive ethics: When does life begin?  For many people, this is an easy, blatantly obvious answer, and they cannot understand why other people might want to answer this question differently.  We've all heard these answers, mostly in the context of abortion.  The pro-life crowd howls, "Life begins at conception!".  The pro-choice crowd snaps that "Life begins at birth!"  There is no middle ground in the arena of moral absolutes.

[Source: Englehart, Bob. "When Does Life Begin?" The Hartford Courant: 1981.]

That being said, the lecture makes the point that although people don't morally agree on a definition of when life begins, the actual law in place in the U.S. and U.K. is in fact an elaborate series of compromises between the two extremes.  This results in the law being rigid in some areas of assistive technology, and slack in others.  This is especially apparent with newer technologies that either do not loom large in the public imagination, or are morally ambiguous.  For example, some U.S. state laws are as restrictive as possible in limiting abortion, but allow IVF and prenatal screening almost without regulation.  It's easy for politicians to score points with voters by taking a very public position on a hot-button issue, while ignoring a morally-equivalent issue that doesn't get the same amount of press (this comes up again in the lecture on cloning).

Much of lecture 2 was devoted towards attempting to establish a scientific, objective definition for when a person is really a "person" and thus entitled to legal protection.  Although I found the science in this area to be interesting, I also thought it was mostly a waste of time to apply such science to the law.  Regardless of what the facts are, I don't think any definition will find universal acceptance; the emotions simply run too high, and are too tightly bound to the endless, fossilized abortion "debate".  It would be nice if we could agree on a definition to help guide us in the use of other reproductive technologies, but I don't think it's going to happen in a social sense.  Even (or rather, especially) any attempt at a legal definition would be subject to endless attack.

• My view: an embryo is a "person" once it's actually embedded in a person and growing on its merry way.  I don't think that an embryo fertilized in a lab and sitting in all of its single-celled glory is a "person", and I don't think that fertilizing (and discarding) embryos for IVF or screening is somehow a monstrous crime against humanity or first-degree murder of a child, etc.  But there is one major caveat to my definition: I have no desire whatsoever to legally impose it on anyone by force.  This is one of many reasons why I would make a terrible judge or politician; I'm no good at condemnation.  Does this mean that I am a wicked/weak, immoral person?

• Despite what I've said above about moral absolutism, I've found that the truth is actually much more fungible (great word, fungible).  Some people -- I would go so far as to say many people -- will quickly abandon deeply-held beliefs if doing so somehow benefits them personally.  They are just as quick to revert to their previous position later on.  It's part of how our brains work; humans, like other organisms, are evolved to adapt to changing circumstances.  For example, consider the essay "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion", a collection of exceptionalist anecdotes (displaying a very American mentality).  Another theoretical example would be a parent who also believes that life begins at conception, but upon discovering they and/or their partner are having fertility problems, will search out reproductive technology such as IVF...while still clinging to their absolutism.  We might shake our heads and call these people hypocrites, but I think it's important not to judge them.  Remember, don't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes (that way, you're a mile away, and you have their shoes).

• Please consider this question: when do you think a fertilized embryo becomes a "person"?  Are you a moral absolutist, with no room for compromise?  If your definition is based solely on your beliefs regarding abortion, please try for a moment to look beyond that ossified debate and think about how your definition might affect your views on other forms of reproductive technology, such as in-vitro fertilization, screening for diseases, genetic enhancement, cloning, and so forth.  Consider what you would do if you or someone you love needed or wanted to use one of these technologies.