In the science of logic, that is what the "law of the excluded middlr" demands. A thing either "is," or it "is not." One or the other must be true. With this premise clearly established, let us make this observation.
If human embryos are not "living persons," then there is nothing wrong with manufacturing them in vast quantities and randomly using them for experimental purposes. Yet many are very opposed to such a practice.
On the other hand, if the embryo is a "human person," and if human life is sacred (and, therefore, is to be regarded as possessing intrinsic worth; cf. Genesis 9:6), then it is not moral to produce it for experimental purposes. Likewise, once it does exist, it is not ethical to arbitrarily destroy it; even for utilitarian purposes. We are not "gods" who can play loose and easy with the lives of our fellows - regardless of how tiny and defenseless they are.
Several arguments, however, are commonly employed to negate the "personal" aspect of the human embryo.
a. It is alleged that since the embryo is not viable, i.e., it could not independently survive, it must not be a human "person."
b. It is suggested that the embryo does not possess self-awareness, therefore, it is not a human "being." Exactly how far are we willing to pursue this line of reasoning?
Think about this. There are multiplied thousands of aged people in the convalescent homes of this nation. These helpless beings absolutely could not survive without the assistance of others. (In fact, none of us thrives without the assistance of others.) Moreover, there are thousands of these pitiful folks who have no idea upon which planet they exist. They are virtually oblivious to their environment.
(continued on page 10)
|