Holy Fool: I scare Mike (the token conservative) over at The Beginning of Human Life

I'm a "non-budger". I "know" that embryos are human beings. Even though "no one knows." Of course, this makes me the opposite of the "open minds" that he believes the world needs. Evidently, I'm too Catholic. I don't know how to Determine for MYSELF what I believe.

Sigh. Well, this is certainly a far cry from what he initially proposes. As I remember it, his original thoughts were something like this:

While I am no longer quite so big on the Pope, I think one of the points he's making is this: play it safe. In X years, if and when science can prove "human life" can start on the Nth day then harvest away. But until that point and you know FOR SURE that we're not prematurely ending the lives of thousands (millions?) then wouldn't you rather play it safe?

How, exactly, did his viewpoint go from believing we should "play it safe" and not end "the lives of thousands (millions)" to bemoaning for religious people to:

For the betterment of us all, pick and choose what you believe. There is nothing morally reprehensible about having qualities from different political parties?

And he posts my correction of his interpretation of the Pope's argument totally out of context, to boot. It's as though he saw the words Catholic and Magisterium and came about hard to port with the shields raised! If he felt so strongly about Catholicism, why did he bring it up? His interpretation of the Pope's arguments against ESCR, while charitably expressed, were wrong. It simply isn't how the Catholic Church sees the issue.

Maybe Mike would feel better with a more substantial argument on why ESCR just doesn't pass the moral threshold. Very well. I aim to please, after all.

Let's put aside the Fullness of Truth for the moment. Let's just talk about the truth. Shall we? Good. Let's begin with a simple proposition, then. Human beings are special. They are so special that they enjoy a special dignity just for being around. They're lots of reasons for this. Still, who wouldn't argue that this is a self-evident truth? Thomas Jefferson didn't. Neither did many Enlightenment era philosophers. It's kind of hard to argue about the importance of human rights without acknowledging the inherent dignity of the human being.

This dignity means that certain actions against human beings are simply wrong in and of themselves, whether or not good may come out of it. Slavery is a good example. Many people throughout history benefitted from slave labor. Ancient Greece constructed a Golden Age on the backs of their slaves. Rome could not have conquered the Mediterrenean world without slaves. The rise of antebellum high society in the American South owed it's existence to King Cotton--and the African and African-descended slaves that harvested it. Nonetheless, slavery contradicts the dignity of humanity. In spite of it's benefits to certain portions of societies, no credible moral person would support such an inhumane institution.

Killing the innocent is another example. There simply is no justifiable reason to execute an innocent. Rules of warfare agreed upon by many nations--most notably the signatories of the Geneva Convention--condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians because they are innocent! Likewise, one of the most convincing reasons to ban the death penalty remains the genuine risk that innocent people can pay the ultimate price for a crime they did not commit.

When it comes to ESCR, this prohibition about killing comes into play. In order for it to do so, however, one must confront an important question: When does human life begin? Mr. Bloomfield of Thoughts from the Right offers a selection of answers that some, pro-abortion and pro-life, have given:

Princeton professor Peter Singer believes that human life should not be protected until a baby develops self-awareness. Accordingly, he fully supports infanticide.

The Supreme Court thinks that a fetus while in the mother's womb has a potential for life and that this potential increases during the third trimester. Nevertheless, even during the third trimester, a woman's right to abort the fetus remains absolute so long as she has a "health reason." Accordingly, the Supreme Court must believe that life begins at birth, and that it should only be protected absolutely from this point.

The reason pro-lifers and many Republicans oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research is because we believe that life begins at conception. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, the resulting embryo takes on its own DNA and becomes a human person.

In my previous post, I spoke directly about why Roman Catholics theologically regard conception as the beginning of human life. However, science has also weighed in on the issue, in particular, the embryologist community. As Vincent of What A Mystery! points out:

Can science tell us the answer?

Consider these quotes from an embryology textbook:

"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (or spermatozoon) from a male."

"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e . an embryo)."

Perhaps science and religion are not enough to convince the fence sitters that Mike aims to reach. Perhaps philosophy can provide the answer. Well, then which one? Utilitarianism? Where the end justifies the means? The world from this vantage point takes on a very Machievellian look. Suddenly, assaults on human dignity may be justified if they lead to just ends. However, that would open the door to the kinds of visciousness that I've already discussed. Clearly, another philosophical outlook must provide the answer.

Well, let's start with the basics of all sane philosophy: the cornerstone of reason. Of course, reason today appears Foolish to the Reasonable for the most part. But I digress. The cornerstone of any reasoned thought is the law of non-contradiction. This means that something is this or that, or on some continuam in between. Something is not two divergent things at the same time. For example, women are not "sort-of" pregnant. They either are, or are not. It can't be night and day: It's either one or the other, even at dusk and dawn! Following this rule, we can determine the truth of the world in which we live, for we won't be chasing our tail or doubting our senses, as subjectivists throughout history inevitably have done. Solipsisms accomplish nothing.

When does human life begin? At the beginning, of course. Developmentally, this means when a sperm and egg unite to become a zygot. Why? Before then, the sperm and egg contain only the respective genes of the man and woman from which they came. Only united do their genetic materials combine and begin the embryonic development process that ultimately results in birth. A zygot becomes an embryo. A human zygot becomes a human embryo. Why? Because human genes do not produce eggplant or horney toads. Human genes produce human beings. Whatever the stage of development, a human being remains a human being. Thus, whether a human being is an embryo or a dying geriatric, a human being is a human being.

All of humanity enjoys a special dignity for simply existing. Thus, even those human beings that have not developed beyond the embryonic stage deserve to have their dignity respected. Embryonic Stem Cell Research involves procedures that end an embryo's life. Since embryos are developing human beings that are incapable of committing a crime, they are by definition innocent. The taking of innocent life is an affront to the dignity of a person. Thus, the procedures that result in an embryo's death violate that embryo's dignity by subjecting that person to an undeserved death.

If and when ESCR can employ research methods that do not violate the dignity of an embryo, it will pass the threshold of moral acceptability. Until then, it won't.

Mike appears to think that there is some middle ground in which pro ESCR proponents and prolife opponents of this research can come to respect each other's point of view. Unfortunately, ESCR affronts human beings. Since most proponents of ESCR refuse to regard embryos as human--or consider their humanity irrelevent to the great medical gains that such research can bring the rest of humanity--there's little room for mutual understanding. Meanwhile, isn't he still forgetting about all the promise of Adult Stem Cell Research?

One more concern requires redress here. Mike implies that those that subscribe to religious belief surrender their capacity to think independently. Not true. If anything, honest adherence to a faith such as Roman Catholicism requires such an independent mind. Faith is a choice. In fact, every act of public worship that Catholics make is predicated on a vow we choose to take. For example, the Sacrement of Confirmation ultimately rests on our decision to affirm the vows others made for us at our infant baptism (for those of us cradle catholics). We take the vow. Thus, we have chosen to honor the beliefs that define our Faith. An independent decision is required for any one to have any kind of a valid Faith at all. As for taking everything from one political party: please. Catholics have no home in either political party. As a Catholic, I look to the candidate that will best serve the common good in a just way. I evaluate candidates on the basis of how they practice the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Neither party has a monopoly on these principles. Thus, I'm a registered independent and proud of that. I have no problem being the swing voter.

I trust that this clarification of my thoughts on ESCR will put Mike's mind at ease. Perhaps he'll consider whether or not it's helpful to his cause of dialogue to knee-jerk tired tropes of religious "group-think" and labels like "non-budger." He may find that such a self-reflection will make him a better advocate for the issues he obviously cared deeply about. Let's hope so. We need sober thinkers like him.

Update: Oh, and as for his whole religion-is-personal myopia: