Heaven is Full of People
A reponse to Ronald Bailey's article "Is heaven cheifly populated by the souls of embryos?"
By Zachary Gappa
"What defines a human being? In Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey presents a philosophical argument against the humanity of embryos. Bailey has been arguing this point for some time now. He first attacked the issue from a scientific standpoint, attempting to prove in numerous articles that embryos are equivalent to other cells and do not fully have human status. He was forced to adapt his attack after Patrick Lee and Robert P. George of National Review successfully countered each of his articles.
In his latest article, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?" Bailey moves by necessity from a purely scientific to a more philosophical approach. He appeals to common experience and to his audience's sense of absurdity. He begins his attack with some basic facts. He explains, "Between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows." In other words, conception often occurs but the conceived embryo never implants into the womb. It dies without its parents ever being aware of the conception. Bailey explains that half of these lost embryos have an abnormal genetic structure, but the remaining half would likely have developed into children if they had properly implanted. In other words, the majority of embryos die because they fail to implant in the womb.
Bailey's attempt in the rest of the article is to prove the absurdity of the conservative belief that embryos are humans. He is trying to force conservatives into a tight corner where they must either accept his argument or claim an absurd position. If he can prove that the right-to-life position is absurd, then he has won. He explains, "Bioconservatives ... do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos." He sees this as a contradiction, for conservatives claim to believe that "unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children." They are not, however, raising an outcry about the holocaust-level of embryonic death. Bailey believes that, to be consistent, conservatives across the nation
should be working hard to find a solution to this mass-death. Moreover, Bailey argues that if conservatives are not working towards this solution, then they must recognize that embryos are not really people.
Bailey's example is not balanced. He partially mischaracterizes the right-to-life position by failing to take into consideration the knowledge of the average conservative. The average conservative does not know that conceived embryos are flushed out in a woman's menstrual flows. This information is simply not common knowledge. The fact could never be known through experience, for no woman would notice a tiny, just-conceived embryo passing out of her system. The embryo is lost at the exact time when it would normally have just implanted into the womb. It is only through hearing the information from some other source that the average man would know about this large-scale embryonic death. The knowledge is simply not widespread.
There are, however, some who are aware of embryonic death, but even these people cannot know when the embryos actually die. Sex sometimes results in conception and other times it does not, but only when the embryo does actually implant and grow can its parents recognize that conception has occurred. After all, even a miscarriage is hard to detect if the embryo is not developed enough. Most men, even if they did know the general facts of embryonic death, would not be aware of a single specific death. So how can Bailey expect widespread mourning? Does he expect mourning for the general fact that embryos are dying? The death of the 30-year old mother, on the other hand, is specifically known by people. If a 30-year old woman dies, there is a known time, place, and body, but when an embryo dies, none of these are known.
Bailey's expectations do not take into account the nature of human mourning. Humans have a hard time comprehending the horror of massive death. People largely mourn catastrophes by word only. For instance, everyone will acknowledge the awful evil of the Jewish holocaust during World War II. There were, however, many people at that time in those countries who were able to ignore the horrible reality of what was happening to those Jews. Moreover, the average man today is much more moved to mourning by a child dying on his home street than by a million people dying in another country. Joseph Stalin said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." As wrong as it may seem, there naturally is greater human mourning when people encounter a death that is personal and very real to them. A lack of emotional response to statistics does not prove the inhumanity of embryos.
In addition to a specific instance of death, people also need a focal point for their grief. Russel Friedman and John W James of The Grief Recovery Institute explain, "It is essential that [an] accurate memory picture be created or the [grieving] ritual will have little value for grievers." It is hard for a person to grieve properly when he does not have an object upon which to focus his grief. This especially applies to embryonic deaths. The grief people experience when considering the mass death of embryos has no outlet. These people are more likely to overcome this deficiency by refusing to think about the reality of this death altogether.
Another consideration Bailey seems to neglect is the harsh reality of embryonic death. A 60 to 80 percent embryonic death toll has been the common statistic for millennia. It is tragic, to be sure, but it also has a sense of permanence. Bailey is right to demand a horrified reaction from conservatives who have heard about embryonic death. He is further correct in believing that conservatives should be promoting work towards a solution. He does not, however, take into consideration the practicalities of the situation. The average conservative can do nothing directly to find a solution to this problem. Even scientists cannot currently do anything to save these embryos. The most the average conservative can do is to be aware of the problem and support work towards a solution. Beyond that, there is very little that he can actually do to help these dying embryos. The only real option that the average conservative would have is to stop having sex. Of course, even if this were a realistic option, it would still be detrimental, for the human race would die out. In other words, embryonic death is currently a necessary consequence of the preservation of the human race.
This cold, harsh reality affects the average conservative's attitude and response to the mass-death of embryos. He no longer wants to think about the reality of this death. He accepts the horror of it, but it depresses him to think about, for he knows there is no immediate solution that he can grasp or strive towards. Moreover, the average conservative knows that it is vital to the human race that he continue to procreate. It would be psychologically damaging for him to dwell on and mourn over the fact that many of his own offspring will never live past conception. Instead, he chooses to ignore the fact and focus on the practicalities of day-to-day life, procreating and raising the children that live.
Bailey further appeals to common human experience by presenting an example. He explains that any person in a burning clinic would save a 3-year-old child before they would save 10 embryos in a Petri dish. On the basis of this example, he is once again trying to prove that people do not place human-value on embryonic life. His example does not, however, take into consideration all aspects of this theoretical situation. For instance, the average person would be more capable of saving the child than the embryos simply because the child is a more obvious object needing help (does the average man even know how to tell the difference between a Petri dish full of embryos and one containing a germ culture?). More importantly, the child has a far greater chance of living, for he is completely self-sustaining. The embryos still need to be successfully implanted in a womb (this is always a risky procedure) and grow and develop without major complications. The odds are far greater that the average man will be able to save the life of the 3-year old child than that of 10 embryos in a Petri dish. In a situation where removing 10 embryos would likely cause them to die but saving a child would allow it to live, the conclusion is the same for everyone, regardless of their beliefs about the status of the embryos.
Finally Bailey comes to the point implicit in the title of his article: if embryos are really people, then they fill half of heaven. Bailey is pointing out one consequent of the belief that embryos are human, and he is subsequently appealing to his readers' sense of absurdity in an attempt to shock them into accepting his argument. Bailey counts on the probability that the average reader will not think through the heavenly implications of the conservative position on embryonic life. He wants to shock them into a sudden acceptance of his position. He hopes his readers' conception of heaven will contrast so sharply with the implications of the conservative position that they will reject that position outright. This kind of ploy does not make for a strong, lasting argument. A negative, surprised reaction does not mean that the average person does not accept the implications of the conservative position. Bailey is attempting to manipulate his audience into a reactionary acceptance of his ideas. It is as if he has lost the scientific argument and is straining to find some way to convince readers of his position.
Bailey concludes by first raising the question of whether new scientific research may help us to prevent some embryonic death, but then turning the tables and declaring that the answer to this question does not matter. He states that we should "absolutely not" stop embryonic research while new avenues are explored. He argues that the nation should overrule the "minority" who believe that embryos are human, because embryonic stem-cell research could "cure millions." It is strange that, after spending an entire article attempting to convince this "minority" that their views are mistaken, absurd, and inconsistent with their actions, he then completely dismisses them and calls upon the nation to ignore their concerns. It raises questions about how strongly he believes his own arguments. He is dismissing the very people to whom he has purportedly been writing this article. He is attempting to take an invulnerable position: even if his argument is defeated, he argues that it does not really matter anyway, because his position would "cure millions."
There is no question that Bailey is representing a view held by a significant portion of the populace. In light of the previous, scientific points he has lost to respondents Lee and George, this latest article seems to be his desperate grasp for some basis for his views. Bailey's unwarranted assumptions demonstrate his
lack of honesty and bias. His flawed examples and logical holes ultimately undermine his arguments. Bailey appeals primarily to absurdity and common human experience. He bases his argument on actions and ideas which he believes the culture already accepts. While presuppositions and common opinion are indeed important factors in our reasoning, Bailey's change in approach seems weak. He has abandoned his former scientific intellectual reasoning and now seems desperately to be trying to convince his audience of his opinion by any means necessary. Sadly, Bailey is left with very little argumentative ground to stand on. He has not given his audience any reason to believe that every embryo that dies is not human. He has not presented any reason to believe that heaven does not contain the souls of embryos.
Embryonic death is a sad occurrence, an occurrence far removed from everyday human experience. This distance should not be twisted in an attempt to prove that embryos are not humans. Tragically, embryos have been dying on a massive level since the conception of mankind. Embryos are indeed human, and we should be working towards a solution for widespread embryonic death. We must not, however, lose sight of the bigger picture. We should strive to find a way to stop embryonic death, but the solution is not to reject embryonic life.
Ronald Bailey, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos? " Reason Magazine, 22 December 2004, http://www.reason.com/rb/rbl22204.shtml (accessed 25 April 2005).
By Zachary Gappa
"What defines a human being? In Reason magazine, Ronald Bailey presents a philosophical argument against the humanity of embryos. Bailey has been arguing this point for some time now. He first attacked the issue from a scientific standpoint, attempting to prove in numerous articles that embryos are equivalent to other cells and do not fully have human status. He was forced to adapt his attack after Patrick Lee and Robert P. George of National Review successfully countered each of his articles.
In his latest article, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?" Bailey moves by necessity from a purely scientific to a more philosophical approach. He appeals to common experience and to his audience's sense of absurdity. He begins his attack with some basic facts. He explains, "Between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual flows." In other words, conception often occurs but the conceived embryo never implants into the womb. It dies without its parents ever being aware of the conception. Bailey explains that half of these lost embryos have an abnormal genetic structure, but the remaining half would likely have developed into children if they had properly implanted. In other words, the majority of embryos die because they fail to implant in the womb.
Bailey's attempt in the rest of the article is to prove the absurdity of the conservative belief that embryos are humans. He is trying to force conservatives into a tight corner where they must either accept his argument or claim an absurd position. If he can prove that the right-to-life position is absurd, then he has won. He explains, "Bioconservatives ... do not advocate the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos." He sees this as a contradiction, for conservatives claim to believe that "unimplanted embryos are the moral equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children." They are not, however, raising an outcry about the holocaust-level of embryonic death. Bailey believes that, to be consistent, conservatives across the nation
should be working hard to find a solution to this mass-death. Moreover, Bailey argues that if conservatives are not working towards this solution, then they must recognize that embryos are not really people.
Bailey's example is not balanced. He partially mischaracterizes the right-to-life position by failing to take into consideration the knowledge of the average conservative. The average conservative does not know that conceived embryos are flushed out in a woman's menstrual flows. This information is simply not common knowledge. The fact could never be known through experience, for no woman would notice a tiny, just-conceived embryo passing out of her system. The embryo is lost at the exact time when it would normally have just implanted into the womb. It is only through hearing the information from some other source that the average man would know about this large-scale embryonic death. The knowledge is simply not widespread.
There are, however, some who are aware of embryonic death, but even these people cannot know when the embryos actually die. Sex sometimes results in conception and other times it does not, but only when the embryo does actually implant and grow can its parents recognize that conception has occurred. After all, even a miscarriage is hard to detect if the embryo is not developed enough. Most men, even if they did know the general facts of embryonic death, would not be aware of a single specific death. So how can Bailey expect widespread mourning? Does he expect mourning for the general fact that embryos are dying? The death of the 30-year old mother, on the other hand, is specifically known by people. If a 30-year old woman dies, there is a known time, place, and body, but when an embryo dies, none of these are known.
Bailey's expectations do not take into account the nature of human mourning. Humans have a hard time comprehending the horror of massive death. People largely mourn catastrophes by word only. For instance, everyone will acknowledge the awful evil of the Jewish holocaust during World War II. There were, however, many people at that time in those countries who were able to ignore the horrible reality of what was happening to those Jews. Moreover, the average man today is much more moved to mourning by a child dying on his home street than by a million people dying in another country. Joseph Stalin said, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." As wrong as it may seem, there naturally is greater human mourning when people encounter a death that is personal and very real to them. A lack of emotional response to statistics does not prove the inhumanity of embryos.
In addition to a specific instance of death, people also need a focal point for their grief. Russel Friedman and John W James of The Grief Recovery Institute explain, "It is essential that [an] accurate memory picture be created or the [grieving] ritual will have little value for grievers." It is hard for a person to grieve properly when he does not have an object upon which to focus his grief. This especially applies to embryonic deaths. The grief people experience when considering the mass death of embryos has no outlet. These people are more likely to overcome this deficiency by refusing to think about the reality of this death altogether.
Another consideration Bailey seems to neglect is the harsh reality of embryonic death. A 60 to 80 percent embryonic death toll has been the common statistic for millennia. It is tragic, to be sure, but it also has a sense of permanence. Bailey is right to demand a horrified reaction from conservatives who have heard about embryonic death. He is further correct in believing that conservatives should be promoting work towards a solution. He does not, however, take into consideration the practicalities of the situation. The average conservative can do nothing directly to find a solution to this problem. Even scientists cannot currently do anything to save these embryos. The most the average conservative can do is to be aware of the problem and support work towards a solution. Beyond that, there is very little that he can actually do to help these dying embryos. The only real option that the average conservative would have is to stop having sex. Of course, even if this were a realistic option, it would still be detrimental, for the human race would die out. In other words, embryonic death is currently a necessary consequence of the preservation of the human race.
This cold, harsh reality affects the average conservative's attitude and response to the mass-death of embryos. He no longer wants to think about the reality of this death. He accepts the horror of it, but it depresses him to think about, for he knows there is no immediate solution that he can grasp or strive towards. Moreover, the average conservative knows that it is vital to the human race that he continue to procreate. It would be psychologically damaging for him to dwell on and mourn over the fact that many of his own offspring will never live past conception. Instead, he chooses to ignore the fact and focus on the practicalities of day-to-day life, procreating and raising the children that live.
Bailey further appeals to common human experience by presenting an example. He explains that any person in a burning clinic would save a 3-year-old child before they would save 10 embryos in a Petri dish. On the basis of this example, he is once again trying to prove that people do not place human-value on embryonic life. His example does not, however, take into consideration all aspects of this theoretical situation. For instance, the average person would be more capable of saving the child than the embryos simply because the child is a more obvious object needing help (does the average man even know how to tell the difference between a Petri dish full of embryos and one containing a germ culture?). More importantly, the child has a far greater chance of living, for he is completely self-sustaining. The embryos still need to be successfully implanted in a womb (this is always a risky procedure) and grow and develop without major complications. The odds are far greater that the average man will be able to save the life of the 3-year old child than that of 10 embryos in a Petri dish. In a situation where removing 10 embryos would likely cause them to die but saving a child would allow it to live, the conclusion is the same for everyone, regardless of their beliefs about the status of the embryos.
Finally Bailey comes to the point implicit in the title of his article: if embryos are really people, then they fill half of heaven. Bailey is pointing out one consequent of the belief that embryos are human, and he is subsequently appealing to his readers' sense of absurdity in an attempt to shock them into accepting his argument. Bailey counts on the probability that the average reader will not think through the heavenly implications of the conservative position on embryonic life. He wants to shock them into a sudden acceptance of his position. He hopes his readers' conception of heaven will contrast so sharply with the implications of the conservative position that they will reject that position outright. This kind of ploy does not make for a strong, lasting argument. A negative, surprised reaction does not mean that the average person does not accept the implications of the conservative position. Bailey is attempting to manipulate his audience into a reactionary acceptance of his ideas. It is as if he has lost the scientific argument and is straining to find some way to convince readers of his position.
Bailey concludes by first raising the question of whether new scientific research may help us to prevent some embryonic death, but then turning the tables and declaring that the answer to this question does not matter. He states that we should "absolutely not" stop embryonic research while new avenues are explored. He argues that the nation should overrule the "minority" who believe that embryos are human, because embryonic stem-cell research could "cure millions." It is strange that, after spending an entire article attempting to convince this "minority" that their views are mistaken, absurd, and inconsistent with their actions, he then completely dismisses them and calls upon the nation to ignore their concerns. It raises questions about how strongly he believes his own arguments. He is dismissing the very people to whom he has purportedly been writing this article. He is attempting to take an invulnerable position: even if his argument is defeated, he argues that it does not really matter anyway, because his position would "cure millions."
There is no question that Bailey is representing a view held by a significant portion of the populace. In light of the previous, scientific points he has lost to respondents Lee and George, this latest article seems to be his desperate grasp for some basis for his views. Bailey's unwarranted assumptions demonstrate his
lack of honesty and bias. His flawed examples and logical holes ultimately undermine his arguments. Bailey appeals primarily to absurdity and common human experience. He bases his argument on actions and ideas which he believes the culture already accepts. While presuppositions and common opinion are indeed important factors in our reasoning, Bailey's change in approach seems weak. He has abandoned his former scientific intellectual reasoning and now seems desperately to be trying to convince his audience of his opinion by any means necessary. Sadly, Bailey is left with very little argumentative ground to stand on. He has not given his audience any reason to believe that every embryo that dies is not human. He has not presented any reason to believe that heaven does not contain the souls of embryos.
Embryonic death is a sad occurrence, an occurrence far removed from everyday human experience. This distance should not be twisted in an attempt to prove that embryos are not humans. Tragically, embryos have been dying on a massive level since the conception of mankind. Embryos are indeed human, and we should be working towards a solution for widespread embryonic death. We must not, however, lose sight of the bigger picture. We should strive to find a way to stop embryonic death, but the solution is not to reject embryonic life.
Ronald Bailey, "Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos? " Reason Magazine, 22 December 2004, http://www.reason.com/rb/rbl22204.shtml (accessed 25 April 2005).
posted by Tim Hoskins at 4:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home