timeimmortal

…but creating one in real life, especially a half-human, half-animal hybrid, is not morally sound, nor does it seem all that defensible on scientific grounds. Yes, I will grant that it is possible that some great new advance in medicine might come about because of experimentation on hybrid embryos, but so what? Imperial Japan made some great leaps in the field of medical research back in the 1940s, but their methods included grotesque experimentation on Chinese prisoners. The desired ends do not justify the means by which they are achieved.

David Warren, in fine form as always, puts the proper perspective on the issue:

The current British prime minister, Gordon Brown — the one who did not win the last election, and with any luck, will not win the next one — is naturally among the advocates of the legislation his government tabled. In campaigning for it, he has made shameless emotional use of his own small child, who suffers from cystic fibrosis. He would not himself recognize it as shameless, of course, for he is wallowing in confusion over ends and means. But using his own son, Fraser, as his exhibit, he has very emotionally declared that the creation of hybrid animal/human embryos for research purposes is “an inherently moral endeavour, that can save and improve the lives of thousands and over time, millions.”

…Gordon Brown was uttering an untruth. As even the leading “expert” advocate of the government’s measures — Lord Robert Winston, the English fertility specialist, politician, and television personality — has admitted, there is no pressing need for animal/human hybrid embryos. He had already said that the loss of the hybrid clause “won’t fundamentally alter the science of stem cell biology.” The research could perfectly well go on with adult stem cells, to the use of which there is no moral objection. Even the Catholic Church has contributed directly and materially to that research.

An emotional argument has thus been made, and accepted as perfectly legitimate, where “the end justifies the means.” But where an opponent of the evil means speaks “emotively” in defence of a moral absolute, he is dismissed as lowering the tone of the debate.

We are most certainly dealing with a moral absolute in this case. Our entire civilization (including e.g. all legal codes throughout the Western world) depends upon the sharp and unambiguous distinction between what is human, and what is not. We do not abandon this “front line” without inevitably lapsing into the kind of barbarism of which fascist-era Germany and Japan served as terrible warnings.

Alas, we already crossed this line, in 1967 in Britain, in 1969 in Canada, when abortion was legalized. The definition of what is human, that is extremely sharp in nature, was made legally vague. The sharp line in nature can only correspond to human conception. From that moment of conception, a woman is carrying a baby, not some inhuman “thing” that becomes “relatively more human” with the progression of time. Ignore that sharp line, and no other line can be drawn and held. By comparison, childbirth itself provides no precision whatever, for a child may be born many weeks prematurely, and still survive and flourish.

Evil ultimately only begets evil; that is why the Church constantly cautions against using evil means that good ends may come from it. Though the campaigners for abortion “rights” were doubtless driven by what was, in at least some of their minds, a desire to do “good” — in providing something that was, in their view, of benefit to women, and a tool of emancipation moreover — the ends they have achieved have far surpassed any gains that might have emerged.

Equality and suffrage for women good ends that have emerged from feminism, but these ends could have been achieved without abortion, and might even have been sweeter victories had history played out in that way. As it is, though, what gains feminism has made in terms of expanding the rights and role of women in society have been more or less counteracted — if not erased entirely — by the fact that our society, more than any other, objectifies women in ways that would have been unimaginable to our “patriarchal” forebears. It’s a common charge that the women of old were valued only for their ability to make babies. Even assuming that’s an accurate statement, it seems that in the modern day women are valued for even less than that — indeed, the ability of women to become pregnant is seen by many as something which needs to be corrected for. Our modern society regards women, essentially, as a means of consequence-free gratification.

And it should come as no surprise, then, that our modern, enlightened, post-Christian society thus regards human life in general as something expendable, and as something which can be tampered with willy-nilly at its earliest stages in pursuit of murky, uncertain, and rather unlikely scientific ends. Experimenting on embryos is, to be sure, different than experimenting on Chinese prisoners, but only in the sense that the embryos are at an earlier stage of development. The same disregard for certain categories of human life is still present. And creating human-animal hybrids does not remove that particular moral dilemma; it adds to it.

Update: Welcome, WebElf readers!

What [pro-lifers] seem to have failed to recognize, therefore, at least with the necessary clarity, is that the humanity or inhumanity of the fetus is often no longer the issue - at least, not within the elite spheres of the pro-death movement…

Agreed. I once interviewed a woman working in an abortion clinic. Our conversation became more heated (not good) and I spluttered something along these lines of “Don’t you know what the fetus is?” She in turn rolled her eyes at me and said “Of course. You think I don’t know? You think women don’t know?”

So it was then that I realized there are two types of pro-choice people: Those who naively believe the fetus is not a person until a certain magical moment in gestation and those who know the fetus is human from day one but don’t care.

As I’ve remarked before, the abortion debate is no longer about whether or not the unborn are human being — that particular question can be (and has been) put to rest, as any student of biology at even a high school level should be able to realize. That an unborn baby is both human (that is, of the species homo sapiens) and alive follows logically from the observation that a newborn baby is a) human (that is, of the species homo sapiens), and b) alive.

What the abortion debate has turned into, then (or, perhaps, what it was always about) is at what stage of development/life it is socially/morally/legally acceptable to kill a living human being. That’s all it comes down to. And for many women (and men), there is seemingly no problem with saying that it is acceptable to kill a human being during the gestational phase of its life. The fact that it is a human being is irrelevant to them. The fact that it is alive is irrelevant to them, except in the sense that its being alive is the problem to begin with. The fact that it is genetically distinct from either of its parents (that is: it is its own person) is irrelevant.

“Human” and “alive” are not, to some pro-choicers, sufficient categories to merit a right to life. To merit a right to life, something which is “human” and “alive” must also be “wanted” and, legally speaking, “a person.”

And that’s the scary part. Because we’ve heard that kind of talk before. And we know where it led.

But in our secularism-addled world, the bloody obvious has become both foreign and, for many, outright controversial.

Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday defended the Vatican�s right to speak out on bioethics, including its opposition to artificial procreation methods and embryonic stem cell research.

He also dismissed criticism that the Roman Catholic Church blocks scientific progress.

“Church teaching certainly cannot and must not weigh in on every novelty of science, but it has the task to reiterate the great values which are on the line and to propose to faithful and all men of good will ethical-moral principles and direction for new, important questions,” Benedict said.

Benedict brushed off those who criticize the church “as if it were an obstacle to science and to humanity�s true progress.”

The pope singled out as “new problems” the freezing of embryos, selecting which embryos should be implanted after testing them for defects, research on embryonic stem cells and attempts at human cloning.

He decried them as proof that “the barrier protecting human dignity has been broken.”

Science and religion can be fully harmonized; there are no fundamentally irreconcilable issues between the two. That’s not to say that the two won’t sometimes come into conflict, but it is to say that the true issue is not that science and religion come into conflict, but where they come into conflict.

evolution vs. creation? That’s not an issue — the theory of evolution and the belief that God created all things are fully compatible with each other, in the same way that one can simultaneously acknowledge both the carpenter and the hammer and nails. The business of Religion is not to tell us, as Galileo so nicely put it, “how the heavens go”, but instead to tell us how to get to Heaven. And the business of science is the reciprocal of that, to tell us how the heavens go. More importantly, the business of heaven is not to serve as the defining basis for moral standards, except through the framework of natural law.

The problem — the conflict, if the Reader will permit the use of such a clunky term — arises when scientific study strays into fields that flirt with, or jump headlong into, immoral practices. Stem cell research is the current example, with its tension between embryonic and adult stem cells. Obviously, embryonic stem cells are theoretically more versatile and useful, but they can only be obtained by processes which are destructive to fertilized embryos. The Chuch’s position (which, interestingly, is defensible solely on the principles of biology) is that embryos are human beings, given that they are living organisms of the species homo sapiens, and are genetically distinct from either parent (”parent” here taken to mean the donors who contributed sperm and egg to the researchers).

It is the Church’s contention, then, that embryos, despite the absence of a recognizable human figure, are already fully human, and thus deserving of full human dignity…which includes the right to not be, in essence, cannibalized for parts against their will.

One would think that it would be obvious that the above issue is not a scientific one, but a moral one, and yet for many people the fog of secularism has rendered those two categories indistinguishable from one another. That’s a pity…and it’s why, I think, the Pope has to trouble himself to say something which, only a few years ago, would have been a bloody obvious thing.