What do you think?
Rate this book
Embryo
The bitter national debates over abortion, euthanasia, and stem cell research have created an unbridgeable gap between religious groups and those who insist that faith-based views have no place in public policy. Religious conservatives are so adamantly opposed to stem cell research in particular that President Bush issued the first veto of his presidency over a bill that would have provided federal funding for such research.
Now, in this timely consideration of the nature and rights of human embryos, Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen make a persuasive case that we as a society should neither condone nor publicly fund embryonic stem cell research of any kind.
Typically, right-to-life arguments have been based explicitly on moral and religious grounds. In "Embryo," the authors eschew religious arguments and make a purely scientific and philosophical case that the fetus, from the instant of conception, is a human being, with all the moral and political rights inherent in that status. As such, stem cell research that destroys a viable embryo represents the unacceptable taking of a human life.
There is also no room in their view for a "moral dualism" that regards being a "person" as merely a stage in a human life span. An embryo does not exist in a "prepersonal" stage that does not merit the inviolable rights otherwise ascribed to persons. Instead, the authors argue, the right not to be intentionally killed is inherent in the fact of being a human being, and that status begins at the moment of conception.
Moreover, just as none should be excluded from moral and legal protections based on race, sex, religion, or ethnicity, none should be excluded on the basis of age, size, or stage of biological development.
George and Tollefsen fearlessly grapple with the political, scientific, and cultural consequences arising from their position and offer a summary of scientific alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. They conclude that the state has an ethical and moral obligation to protect embryonic human beings in just the same manner that it protects every other human being, and they advocate for embryo adoption--the only ethical solution to the problem of spare embryos resulting from in-vitro fertilization.
Now, in this timely consideration of the nature and rights of human embryos, Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen make a persuasive case that we as a society should neither condone nor publicly fund embryonic stem cell research of any kind.
Typically, right-to-life arguments have been based explicitly on moral and religious grounds. In "Embryo," the authors eschew religious arguments and make a purely scientific and philosophical case that the fetus, from the instant of conception, is a human being, with all the moral and political rights inherent in that status. As such, stem cell research that destroys a viable embryo represents the unacceptable taking of a human life.
There is also no room in their view for a "moral dualism" that regards being a "person" as merely a stage in a human life span. An embryo does not exist in a "prepersonal" stage that does not merit the inviolable rights otherwise ascribed to persons. Instead, the authors argue, the right not to be intentionally killed is inherent in the fact of being a human being, and that status begins at the moment of conception.
Moreover, just as none should be excluded from moral and legal protections based on race, sex, religion, or ethnicity, none should be excluded on the basis of age, size, or stage of biological development.
George and Tollefsen fearlessly grapple with the political, scientific, and cultural consequences arising from their position and offer a summary of scientific alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. They conclude that the state has an ethical and moral obligation to protect embryonic human beings in just the same manner that it protects every other human being, and they advocate for embryo adoption--the only ethical solution to the problem of spare embryos resulting from in-vitro fertilization.
224 pages, ebook
First published January 8, 2008
33 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
August 17, 2022
A great defense of the pro-life view. The authors here argue that every organism that is a member of our species, regardless of development stage, is valuable. They argue against a plethora of objections against this view in a very convincing manner. I enjoyed this read
October 2, 2012
This is a good explanation of why embryos should be regarded as humans from a purely scientific point of view--no religion, no metaphysics. If you read this book, make sure you get the second edition because it contains an appendix which reprints exchanges with liberal journalist William Saletan. The authors, George and Tollefson "believe the debate was both philosophically important and an instance of civil and productive disagreement among citizens of good will," which is why they included it in the second edition.
Personally, what I saw in the appendix was someone (Saletan) who has a goal in mind and will grasp at straws and ignore the logic of science (George and Tollefson) to support his goal. Don't get me wrong, this is something we all do on different topics at different times in our lives; e.g. I was, am, and will always be a NY Islanders fan basking in the glory years of the early 80s even though there's been precious few reasons to be a fan since then.
The problem occurs when the final goal demeans human life in general and ends a human life in particular. Then the staunch defense of the final goal should be questioned, refuted, and corrected whenever possible.
That is why this is such an important book to read and understand as it has implications and direct impact to our lives today (2012) not only because of tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research but also personally because of increasing dependence on artificial reproductive technologies--such as in vitro fertilization (IVF)--to start pregnancies. What we believe about the value of human life as engendered by the personhood of the individual directly impacts decisions we make from private/personal choices (IVF) to public/community/national choices (electing leaders).
Personally, what I saw in the appendix was someone (Saletan) who has a goal in mind and will grasp at straws and ignore the logic of science (George and Tollefson) to support his goal. Don't get me wrong, this is something we all do on different topics at different times in our lives; e.g. I was, am, and will always be a NY Islanders fan basking in the glory years of the early 80s even though there's been precious few reasons to be a fan since then.
The problem occurs when the final goal demeans human life in general and ends a human life in particular. Then the staunch defense of the final goal should be questioned, refuted, and corrected whenever possible.
That is why this is such an important book to read and understand as it has implications and direct impact to our lives today (2012) not only because of tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research but also personally because of increasing dependence on artificial reproductive technologies--such as in vitro fertilization (IVF)--to start pregnancies. What we believe about the value of human life as engendered by the personhood of the individual directly impacts decisions we make from private/personal choices (IVF) to public/community/national choices (electing leaders).
June 13, 2008
How can we not defend the defenseless?
June 2, 2008
Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen present a case for the full humanity/personhood of the embryo, and all the moral rights and dignity that come with being a that kind of being. This book, unlike other pro-life apologetics, focuses specifically on the embryo, and the wrongness of killing it. The main method of death the authors attack is that which is caused by the harvesting of embryo stem cells. So, this book is specific in its target, but one can extrapolate from their arguments to broader pro-life concerns, e.g., abortion.
In chapter one they discuss what is “at stake” in the embryo experimentation debate. To cut to the point: what it at stake, if the author’s arguments are correct, is nothing short of the murder of thousands and thousands of the most defenseless members of our species, those, arguably, in most need of defense.
The authors begin with a story of Noah and the flood. Noah was born on Jan 16, 2007. Sixteen months earlier he was a frozen embryo, trapped in a hospital in Louisiana, abandoned and rendered virtually inaccessible by hurricane Katrina. A rescue team took a boat into New Orleans and through the flooded halls of the hospital. They brought back the embryo, actually, dozens of them. Noah was born sixteen months after that. Yes, Noah was. The same individual rescued was the same individual born later. Nothing extra was added to Noah than what was already bound up in him. All he needed was to be placed in the right environment, and he developed naturally into the next stage of human development, infancy.
This chapter also provides a roadmap of how the authors will argue for their initial claims. The authors also point out that they will make their case without mentioning religion at all. They believe it can be shown that the embryo is a human person, deserving of the same essential rights as other human persons are, and also immoral to kill these persons, as it is immoral to purposefully take the life of any innocent person.
In chapter two, the authors look at many of the standard and authoritative embryology textbooks. The reader is treated to a crash course in embryology. The conclusion, almost inescapable, and backed by science, is that a new member of the human species has begun at conception/fertilization (except in rare cases of twinning, but these cases are discussed, and it is clear that the moment the twinned embryo comes into existence, it too is a unique individual, a member of our species). As the science makes clear, the embryo is an individual being, genetically distinct from its parents, and lacking in nothing needed for it to get itself to the next stage in development. It needs what we all need to live: a hospitable environment and food. To claim that it needs the mother to survive is to focus on an accidental aspect. Its mother’s womb is the proper environment for all humans at this stage. That it would not live if removed from the womb, and thus it is not human, is about as cogent an argument as saying that if the reader of this review were submerged under water long enough, as not able to survive, then he is not human. In other words, we all need the appropriate environment to grow and develop to the next stage of life.
In chapter 3 the authors argue against any form of person/body dualism. That is, any view that takes it that a person is distinct or of a different substance than his or her body. This isn’t physicalism (since the authors show that physicalists make this dualism too, e.g., a “person” is a human who has the ability to feel pain, reason, etc., and not all “bodies” can do that). The authors recognize that the whole person is engaged in doing numerous non-physical activities So, we possess special, non-physical properties, but we are also essentially bodily. We have biological lives essential, not accidental, to our existence (the authors explain the invoking of the metaphysical categories of “essential” and “accidental.” Briefly, an essential property is a property something must have to be the kind of thing it is, and accidental property is something it could lack, and still be what it is. So, you could live in Montana rather than Illinois and still be a human person. You could not fail to have the capacity to reason, and not be a human person). The author’s position is called “animalism.” But I didn't see much of a difference between it and Thomistic dualism, or even personalism (i.e., substantival monism). I do not subscribe to this view (at least not now, but some aspects of it are attractive), and though the authors feel it is vital to their case, I think the case can be made from a dualist perspective.
In chapter 4 the authors explain what moral reasoning is. Moral reasoning deals which “oughts.” So, science can tell us what kind of being an embryo is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be done with it. Embryo technology can tell us what can be done with an embryo, but not whether we should do those things. The authors then proceed to critique consequensialism, especially in its utilitarianism forms. After this they present their positive ethic by which they will argue that it is wrong to kill embryos. Wong to harvest them for purposes of obtaining stem cells, despite any alleged “good” consequence, viz., saving a life, helping paralyzed people to walk again, etc. If the embryo is a full human person, then to speak of the value killing them provides for others is about as cogent an argument as speaking about the value retarded people would have for the “normal” members of society. The authors basically present a natural law ethic based on fundamental basic goods that are part of and essential to all humans. I noted some errors in this section, and am not sure about their version of natural law. But, it fits with their stated goals of trying to show the wrongness of killing embryos without invoking religion or any hokey philosophical positions.
In chapter 5 the authors argue against moral dualism. Moral dualism attempts to show that embryos, though possibly humans, do not deserve the same moral right as other persons. Basically, moral dualists ascribe moral worth to only some of the members of the human species, say, those with a brain, those who can feel pain, etc. I think the authors were successful in showing the specious nature of most of these arguments.
In chapter 6 and 7 the authors discuss some of the contemporary challenges to the full humanity/personhood of the embryo, or to their status of beings with full moral rights. Their arguments basically reap the payoff of the work they preformed in chapters 2-5. Basically, all of the argument either are ignorant of the facts of embryology, employ suspect philosophical arguments to reach a preconceived conclusion, or focus on accidental differences, opening them up to the charge of arbitrariness.
In the conclusion, chapter 8, the authors retrace their case, and then answer three questions: the political, technological, and social. They argue that the state should end embryo research that destroys the embryo for research or for harvesting their stem cells. They argue that, technologically, scientists should invest their time and talents to other alternatives just as likely to provide the alleged benefits embryo stem cells are purported to be able to potentially offer. This would include adult, amniotic, and placental stem cells, and the dedifferentiation of somatic cells, altered nuclear transfer, and techniques to distinguish dead from living cryopreserved embryos. Culturally, our government should regulate the production of embryos in IVF procedures, and adoption agencies should coordinate with assisted reproduction clinics to offer opportunity to couples seeking to adopt.
Much of this will be a struggle, no doubt. But what is the alternative? If the case presented in the book is sound, as I believe it is (minus some quibbles here and there), doing the morally right thing, i.e., not taking the life of a (especially innocent) human for the benefit or gain of other humans, is hard. It was hard for slave owners to give up all their free help. But we expected them to because it is immoral to own slaves (in the context of western slavery). Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. All in all, this book is a welcome addition to the debate. Supplament this book with Beckwith's latest: "Defending life."
In chapter one they discuss what is “at stake” in the embryo experimentation debate. To cut to the point: what it at stake, if the author’s arguments are correct, is nothing short of the murder of thousands and thousands of the most defenseless members of our species, those, arguably, in most need of defense.
The authors begin with a story of Noah and the flood. Noah was born on Jan 16, 2007. Sixteen months earlier he was a frozen embryo, trapped in a hospital in Louisiana, abandoned and rendered virtually inaccessible by hurricane Katrina. A rescue team took a boat into New Orleans and through the flooded halls of the hospital. They brought back the embryo, actually, dozens of them. Noah was born sixteen months after that. Yes, Noah was. The same individual rescued was the same individual born later. Nothing extra was added to Noah than what was already bound up in him. All he needed was to be placed in the right environment, and he developed naturally into the next stage of human development, infancy.
This chapter also provides a roadmap of how the authors will argue for their initial claims. The authors also point out that they will make their case without mentioning religion at all. They believe it can be shown that the embryo is a human person, deserving of the same essential rights as other human persons are, and also immoral to kill these persons, as it is immoral to purposefully take the life of any innocent person.
In chapter two, the authors look at many of the standard and authoritative embryology textbooks. The reader is treated to a crash course in embryology. The conclusion, almost inescapable, and backed by science, is that a new member of the human species has begun at conception/fertilization (except in rare cases of twinning, but these cases are discussed, and it is clear that the moment the twinned embryo comes into existence, it too is a unique individual, a member of our species). As the science makes clear, the embryo is an individual being, genetically distinct from its parents, and lacking in nothing needed for it to get itself to the next stage in development. It needs what we all need to live: a hospitable environment and food. To claim that it needs the mother to survive is to focus on an accidental aspect. Its mother’s womb is the proper environment for all humans at this stage. That it would not live if removed from the womb, and thus it is not human, is about as cogent an argument as saying that if the reader of this review were submerged under water long enough, as not able to survive, then he is not human. In other words, we all need the appropriate environment to grow and develop to the next stage of life.
In chapter 3 the authors argue against any form of person/body dualism. That is, any view that takes it that a person is distinct or of a different substance than his or her body. This isn’t physicalism (since the authors show that physicalists make this dualism too, e.g., a “person” is a human who has the ability to feel pain, reason, etc., and not all “bodies” can do that). The authors recognize that the whole person is engaged in doing numerous non-physical activities So, we possess special, non-physical properties, but we are also essentially bodily. We have biological lives essential, not accidental, to our existence (the authors explain the invoking of the metaphysical categories of “essential” and “accidental.” Briefly, an essential property is a property something must have to be the kind of thing it is, and accidental property is something it could lack, and still be what it is. So, you could live in Montana rather than Illinois and still be a human person. You could not fail to have the capacity to reason, and not be a human person). The author’s position is called “animalism.” But I didn't see much of a difference between it and Thomistic dualism, or even personalism (i.e., substantival monism). I do not subscribe to this view (at least not now, but some aspects of it are attractive), and though the authors feel it is vital to their case, I think the case can be made from a dualist perspective.
In chapter 4 the authors explain what moral reasoning is. Moral reasoning deals which “oughts.” So, science can tell us what kind of being an embryo is, but it cannot tell us what ought to be done with it. Embryo technology can tell us what can be done with an embryo, but not whether we should do those things. The authors then proceed to critique consequensialism, especially in its utilitarianism forms. After this they present their positive ethic by which they will argue that it is wrong to kill embryos. Wong to harvest them for purposes of obtaining stem cells, despite any alleged “good” consequence, viz., saving a life, helping paralyzed people to walk again, etc. If the embryo is a full human person, then to speak of the value killing them provides for others is about as cogent an argument as speaking about the value retarded people would have for the “normal” members of society. The authors basically present a natural law ethic based on fundamental basic goods that are part of and essential to all humans. I noted some errors in this section, and am not sure about their version of natural law. But, it fits with their stated goals of trying to show the wrongness of killing embryos without invoking religion or any hokey philosophical positions.
In chapter 5 the authors argue against moral dualism. Moral dualism attempts to show that embryos, though possibly humans, do not deserve the same moral right as other persons. Basically, moral dualists ascribe moral worth to only some of the members of the human species, say, those with a brain, those who can feel pain, etc. I think the authors were successful in showing the specious nature of most of these arguments.
In chapter 6 and 7 the authors discuss some of the contemporary challenges to the full humanity/personhood of the embryo, or to their status of beings with full moral rights. Their arguments basically reap the payoff of the work they preformed in chapters 2-5. Basically, all of the argument either are ignorant of the facts of embryology, employ suspect philosophical arguments to reach a preconceived conclusion, or focus on accidental differences, opening them up to the charge of arbitrariness.
In the conclusion, chapter 8, the authors retrace their case, and then answer three questions: the political, technological, and social. They argue that the state should end embryo research that destroys the embryo for research or for harvesting their stem cells. They argue that, technologically, scientists should invest their time and talents to other alternatives just as likely to provide the alleged benefits embryo stem cells are purported to be able to potentially offer. This would include adult, amniotic, and placental stem cells, and the dedifferentiation of somatic cells, altered nuclear transfer, and techniques to distinguish dead from living cryopreserved embryos. Culturally, our government should regulate the production of embryos in IVF procedures, and adoption agencies should coordinate with assisted reproduction clinics to offer opportunity to couples seeking to adopt.
Much of this will be a struggle, no doubt. But what is the alternative? If the case presented in the book is sound, as I believe it is (minus some quibbles here and there), doing the morally right thing, i.e., not taking the life of a (especially innocent) human for the benefit or gain of other humans, is hard. It was hard for slave owners to give up all their free help. But we expected them to because it is immoral to own slaves (in the context of western slavery). Doing the right thing isn’t always easy. All in all, this book is a welcome addition to the debate. Supplament this book with Beckwith's latest: "Defending life."
May 1, 2012
2 stars is high praise from me, for a book on this topic that expounds on views diametrically opposed to mine. The authors argue that the moment of conception creates defenseless human beings, who have inherent personhood and thus deserve full "moral respect." In their view, all zygotes, blastocysts, and fetuses are and should be, without exception, legally entitled to complete their self-contained developmental programs that will eventually result in (universally acknowledged) babies. The authors' main target is embryonic stem cell ("embryo-destructive") research. However, their occasional mentions of abortion make it clear that in their view, in vitro or in vivo makes no difference. In their view, all products of conception, which given 9 months to develop would likely result in babies (so, excluding cases like hydatidiform moles), are to be considered the most vulnerable members of our human society. As such, these most vulnerable should be protected from discrimination (eg denied personhood, commodified or exploited as research material, killed) based merely on their very early stage of development.
I can't say that I like this book, but I respect that its arguments are laid out with care and without invoking religious doctrine. I am considering buying a secondhand hardcopy to facilitate crafting my rebuttals, since this review is based on my having listened to it on audiobook.
The authors devote the initial part of the book to detailing their idea of the science of embryology (I say "their idea" because contrary to the authors' implications, there isn't a scientific consensus that the immediate result of conception equals an individual human being). Then they stake out their position on how general metaphysical arguments (eg, mind/body dualism, utilitarianism / consequentialism) apply to embryos' "moral worth." Then they move on to quoting numerous specific pro-choice authors' arguments and explaining the deep flaws they perceive in those arguments.
Examples of those many arguments include an analogy where it is argued that embryos are not morally equivalent to born humans any more than acorns are equivalent to oak trees; the idea that personhood is conferred by social agreement; and the hypothetical fire-in-a-fertility-clinic dilemma: If a fire's burning down a building housing a fertility clinic, if you had to choose between saving a 5-year-old girl or several embryos, which would you save?
Of the authors' arguments, some I found reasonable enough. They did not overcome the following points, however, which were particularly problematic for me (below quotes are roughly transcribed):
The only "non-arbitrary" point along the continuum of embryonic development is conception -- okay, this may be arguable for embryonic stem cell research, but not when there's a uterus involved.
Mind/body dualism -- one of their arguments against this is that when they, for example, extend a hand, their experience of hand-extending is done by a unified mind and body. They generalize from this that all of us perceive the world through unified mind-body thought-sensations. This indicates to me that they think, wrongly, that their experience is universal, or as close to as makes no difference.
Burning fertility clinic -- they acknowledge that a 5-year-old girl has prior bonds of affection with her family which means greater grief if she dies, and that such factors play a "legitimate role in determining how to allocate scarce resources and whom to rescue" -- but they argue that by contrast, there is no legitimate role for actively killing early-stage humans, ever. On the other hand, they hypothesize a situation where most people could agree it's reasonable for somebody to save the embryos "even if other people with no embryo attachments would choose to rescue the girl"...eg, a "mother, father, or grandparent" of the embryos at risk of burning, "might well choose to rescue them [instead of the 5 year old girl] and most people would not regard this as immoral." What? Am I wrong to suspect "most people" would be aghast at somebody who chose to rescue embryos while leaving a 5 year old to die in the fire?
Utilitarianism -- they identify one of utilitarianism's flaws as "There will always be human beings who are dispensable, who must be sacrificed for the greater good," as if this is not also true of their own views. My view may allow the lives of non-sentient microscopic cells with a *capacity* to become universally acknowledged individual human beings to be sacrificed. The authors' would legally mandate that the lives and dignity and quality of life of sentient, universally acknowledged individual human beings be sacrificed.
"Utilitarianism fails to respect, in a radical way, the dignity and rights of individual human beings. For it treats the Greater Good, a mere aggregate of all the interests or pleasures or preferences of individuals, as the good of supreme worth and value and demands that nothing stand in the way of its pursuit." What a totalitarian projection.
"The Utilitarian thus cannot believe (except as a convenient fiction) in human rights, or in actions that may never be done to people regardless of the consequences." These two clauses are key to trivializing and dismissing any possible whiff of morality around pro-choicers' position, but the authors throw this loaded sentence in as Truth and never elaborate, for example, on how utilitarians' idea of human rights equals "a convenient fiction" or on the myriad dimensions of born-human suffering ("consequences") that they consider are worth paying by people other than themselves. I interpret that 2nd clause to mean "killing may never be done to zygotes etc regardless of the consequences." They think that's a virtue. Whereas for me, factoring in real-world concrete consequences (eg bodily autonomy rights, or women's and existing children's quality of life) demonstrates compassion. Upholding abstract principles that are well documented to cause great suffering (eg, Nicaragua) demonstrates lack of compassion.
And while I appreciate that the authors avoid religious reasons in their arguments, the repetitiveness of their self-congratulatory declarations regarding this was a little "doth protest too much." So they came up with a bunch of secular rationales for views driven by pre-existing religious beliefs (Roman Catholic, in this case). It doesn't neutralize how their religious beliefs mold their public-policy-activist views on this topic. For me, separation of church and state is preferable.
Also, the authors repeatedly emphasize how the embryo is a self-contained, self-directed, individual entity. Of their mentions of abortion, they managed, once, to concede that the embryo's environment is actually within a woman's body and dependent on it. Maybe I missed where they might have mentioned it again, but I doubt it.
Which brings me to my other key objection: "dependent," to them, means the embryo is particularly, grievously vulnerable and defenseless and thus deserving of all the legal protection our society can muster, until it has reached 9 months. To me, "dependent" in the context of abortion means "trumped by the bodily autonomy rights of the person whose organs are being depended upon." The authors prioritize non-sentient cells' *capacity* to become born humans. I think there's less moral worth in defending *capacity*, and more in defending the reduction of born humans' concrete suffering.
I can't say that I like this book, but I respect that its arguments are laid out with care and without invoking religious doctrine. I am considering buying a secondhand hardcopy to facilitate crafting my rebuttals, since this review is based on my having listened to it on audiobook.
The authors devote the initial part of the book to detailing their idea of the science of embryology (I say "their idea" because contrary to the authors' implications, there isn't a scientific consensus that the immediate result of conception equals an individual human being). Then they stake out their position on how general metaphysical arguments (eg, mind/body dualism, utilitarianism / consequentialism) apply to embryos' "moral worth." Then they move on to quoting numerous specific pro-choice authors' arguments and explaining the deep flaws they perceive in those arguments.
Examples of those many arguments include an analogy where it is argued that embryos are not morally equivalent to born humans any more than acorns are equivalent to oak trees; the idea that personhood is conferred by social agreement; and the hypothetical fire-in-a-fertility-clinic dilemma: If a fire's burning down a building housing a fertility clinic, if you had to choose between saving a 5-year-old girl or several embryos, which would you save?
Of the authors' arguments, some I found reasonable enough. They did not overcome the following points, however, which were particularly problematic for me (below quotes are roughly transcribed):
The only "non-arbitrary" point along the continuum of embryonic development is conception -- okay, this may be arguable for embryonic stem cell research, but not when there's a uterus involved.
Mind/body dualism -- one of their arguments against this is that when they, for example, extend a hand, their experience of hand-extending is done by a unified mind and body. They generalize from this that all of us perceive the world through unified mind-body thought-sensations. This indicates to me that they think, wrongly, that their experience is universal, or as close to as makes no difference.
Burning fertility clinic -- they acknowledge that a 5-year-old girl has prior bonds of affection with her family which means greater grief if she dies, and that such factors play a "legitimate role in determining how to allocate scarce resources and whom to rescue" -- but they argue that by contrast, there is no legitimate role for actively killing early-stage humans, ever. On the other hand, they hypothesize a situation where most people could agree it's reasonable for somebody to save the embryos "even if other people with no embryo attachments would choose to rescue the girl"...eg, a "mother, father, or grandparent" of the embryos at risk of burning, "might well choose to rescue them [instead of the 5 year old girl] and most people would not regard this as immoral." What? Am I wrong to suspect "most people" would be aghast at somebody who chose to rescue embryos while leaving a 5 year old to die in the fire?
Utilitarianism -- they identify one of utilitarianism's flaws as "There will always be human beings who are dispensable, who must be sacrificed for the greater good," as if this is not also true of their own views. My view may allow the lives of non-sentient microscopic cells with a *capacity* to become universally acknowledged individual human beings to be sacrificed. The authors' would legally mandate that the lives and dignity and quality of life of sentient, universally acknowledged individual human beings be sacrificed.
"Utilitarianism fails to respect, in a radical way, the dignity and rights of individual human beings. For it treats the Greater Good, a mere aggregate of all the interests or pleasures or preferences of individuals, as the good of supreme worth and value and demands that nothing stand in the way of its pursuit." What a totalitarian projection.
"The Utilitarian thus cannot believe (except as a convenient fiction) in human rights, or in actions that may never be done to people regardless of the consequences." These two clauses are key to trivializing and dismissing any possible whiff of morality around pro-choicers' position, but the authors throw this loaded sentence in as Truth and never elaborate, for example, on how utilitarians' idea of human rights equals "a convenient fiction" or on the myriad dimensions of born-human suffering ("consequences") that they consider are worth paying by people other than themselves. I interpret that 2nd clause to mean "killing may never be done to zygotes etc regardless of the consequences." They think that's a virtue. Whereas for me, factoring in real-world concrete consequences (eg bodily autonomy rights, or women's and existing children's quality of life) demonstrates compassion. Upholding abstract principles that are well documented to cause great suffering (eg, Nicaragua) demonstrates lack of compassion.
And while I appreciate that the authors avoid religious reasons in their arguments, the repetitiveness of their self-congratulatory declarations regarding this was a little "doth protest too much." So they came up with a bunch of secular rationales for views driven by pre-existing religious beliefs (Roman Catholic, in this case). It doesn't neutralize how their religious beliefs mold their public-policy-activist views on this topic. For me, separation of church and state is preferable.
Also, the authors repeatedly emphasize how the embryo is a self-contained, self-directed, individual entity. Of their mentions of abortion, they managed, once, to concede that the embryo's environment is actually within a woman's body and dependent on it. Maybe I missed where they might have mentioned it again, but I doubt it.
Which brings me to my other key objection: "dependent," to them, means the embryo is particularly, grievously vulnerable and defenseless and thus deserving of all the legal protection our society can muster, until it has reached 9 months. To me, "dependent" in the context of abortion means "trumped by the bodily autonomy rights of the person whose organs are being depended upon." The authors prioritize non-sentient cells' *capacity* to become born humans. I think there's less moral worth in defending *capacity*, and more in defending the reduction of born humans' concrete suffering.
September 5, 2024
This is a really great book explaining why life begins at conception. The authors do not use any religious premises, just biology. They also go through many arguments against the premise but successfully defeat each one. I would give the book 5 stars except for the fact that it’s just too long and some of it was repetitive. But I do recommend this book to anyone wondering about Embryonic Stem Cell Research, IVF, cloning, frozen embryos, and the Right to Life.
Side note - identical twins were brought up again and again in this book because of the seemingly contradictory nature of when life begins for us. The authors do a great job explaining the phenomenon. I never had so much thought about my beginnings prior to reading this! It’s funny pondering about how my sister and I are such enigmas!
Side note - identical twins were brought up again and again in this book because of the seemingly contradictory nature of when life begins for us. The authors do a great job explaining the phenomenon. I never had so much thought about my beginnings prior to reading this! It’s funny pondering about how my sister and I are such enigmas!
December 11, 2024
Really thorough and persuasive arguments here. Helpful to me in developing my pro-life apologetics.
October 3, 2022
I appreciate this book for laying out well-reasoned arguments that avoid petty, religious rhetoric. However, beyond that it still falls short of being convincing. There are too many flawed analogies and assumptions (e.g., that according to embryology, human life begins at conception, when in reality the only consensus there is that human development begins at conception - a subtle but essential difference). Consistent flaws made it difficult to take their point of view seriously or glean anything from it. While it was a worthwhile attempt and there are some valid arguments, nothing here will likely resonate for anyone not already convinced.
January 24, 2016
It's difficult to rate a book like this that presents a philosophical argument for, essentially, human beings being human beings, and therefore embryos being very young human beings, because the arguments feel personal. And they should: This is a question we should all ask and feel deeply because it begins to answer the question, who are we? I appreciated the way the authors made purely a physiological and philosophical case for embryos as humans. Whether or not you also see those embryos as spiritual beings doesn't affect our responsibility to assign rights to them. This is worth reading.
May 10, 2018
What did I think? The case is very cogently and intelligently argued in this book. Merging a great command of embryology and relevant philosophy, the authors make watertight arguments in the most concise manner. Once you finish it, you'll realize that opponents have been working hard to obfuscate the life-death issue. I would highly recommend it to any pro-lifer, or intelligent or honest pro-choicers (but not to stupid or dishonest pro-choicers).
February 4, 2018
Well reasoned and well written. Essential reading for anyone interested in the morality of embryonic research, IVF, and abortion.
February 6, 2021
A wonderful scholarly and non-religious defense of embryos as human beings and a critique of abortion as immoral killing of human life.
April 21, 2025
Philosophically robust which was a pleasant surprise. A particular word choice (repeated many times in this book) really shows how much can change in 15 years…
May 25, 2013
The authors argue that a human life begins at fertilization and thus embryos should be afforded protection from being killed for research or to derive tissues to benefit other people. Their reasoning is based on science and philosophy without resorting to any religious or theological propositions. They describe various arguments against embryos being human beings and then refute each argument.
"The question that needs to be asked is: When is there a single biological system with a developmental trajectory, or active developmental program, toward the mature stage of a human being? That is a question for which there is, in principle, a definitive scientific answer. We are suggesting that the answer to this question is: shortly after the union of sperm with oocyte. Some people believe it happens slightly later. However, there is widespread agreement among embryologists both that a new human individual comes into existence when there is a single, unified, and self-integrated biological system, and that this happens no later than syngamy."
"There are three important points we wish to make about the human embryo. First, the embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most important, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use that information to develop himself or herself to the mature stage of a human being, and, unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in environment (in the mother's womb)."
"Here, then, is the bottom line: A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros. A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. Unless severely damaged or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, child, and adolescent stages are just that—stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity—a human being—who comes into existence as a single-celled organism (a zygote) and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later."
"The embryo is plainly a living being. The child that is born several months later is also a living being. The question Professor Silver must answer, yet avoids, is this: Is that child the same living being? Or is he or she a different one? The leading authorities in human embryology and developmental biology are united in answering this biological question: The child and the embryo are the same living being, the same organism. 'Child' and 'embryo' merely refer to the same living being at different stages of maturity."
While the authors make no reference to slavery, I found myself thinking that the issue on the rights of embryos is similar to the issue of slavery. There was a time when most civilizations accepted slavery as a normal practice. It was allowed to take over the life of a slave to benefit the slave owner. But eventually most societies came to understand that slavery is wrong. It violates the basic human rights of the slave. Perhaps society will, in time, recognize the basic human rights of embryos.
One of the interesting arguments that the authors refute is the argument that the right to life is conferred upon a person by society rather than the right to life being a natural right of all human beings. Some arbitrary criteria, such as a stage of development, is proposed to confer the right. "We argued that the right to life, unlike the right to vote, does not vary from place to place or time to time for the same entity. This is because the right to life is in a strong and obvious sense the foundational right for persons. It is the right on which all other rights are predicated, and marks whether a being is a being of moral standing at all. If the right to life depended upon, for example, a particular and exercisable ability, then some human beings would possess that right earlier than others, and
some would never possess it."
"The question that needs to be asked is: When is there a single biological system with a developmental trajectory, or active developmental program, toward the mature stage of a human being? That is a question for which there is, in principle, a definitive scientific answer. We are suggesting that the answer to this question is: shortly after the union of sperm with oocyte. Some people believe it happens slightly later. However, there is widespread agreement among embryologists both that a new human individual comes into existence when there is a single, unified, and self-integrated biological system, and that this happens no later than syngamy."
"There are three important points we wish to make about the human embryo. First, the embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or of the father. This is clear because it is growing in its own distinct direction. Its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. Second, the embryo is human: it has the genetic makeup characteristic of human beings. Third, and most important, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. The human embryo, from conception onward, is fully programmed and has the active disposition to use that information to develop himself or herself to the mature stage of a human being, and, unless prevented by disease or violence, will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in environment (in the mother's womb)."
"Here, then, is the bottom line: A human embryo is not something different in kind from a human being, like a rock, or a potato, or a rhinoceros. A human embryo is a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. Unless severely damaged or denied or deprived of a suitable environment, an embryonic human being will, by directing its own integral organic functioning, develop himself or herself to the next more mature developmental stage, i.e., the fetal stage. The embryonic, fetal, child, and adolescent stages are just that—stages in the development of a determinate and enduring entity—a human being—who comes into existence as a single-celled organism (a zygote) and develops, if all goes well, into adulthood many years later."
"The embryo is plainly a living being. The child that is born several months later is also a living being. The question Professor Silver must answer, yet avoids, is this: Is that child the same living being? Or is he or she a different one? The leading authorities in human embryology and developmental biology are united in answering this biological question: The child and the embryo are the same living being, the same organism. 'Child' and 'embryo' merely refer to the same living being at different stages of maturity."
While the authors make no reference to slavery, I found myself thinking that the issue on the rights of embryos is similar to the issue of slavery. There was a time when most civilizations accepted slavery as a normal practice. It was allowed to take over the life of a slave to benefit the slave owner. But eventually most societies came to understand that slavery is wrong. It violates the basic human rights of the slave. Perhaps society will, in time, recognize the basic human rights of embryos.
One of the interesting arguments that the authors refute is the argument that the right to life is conferred upon a person by society rather than the right to life being a natural right of all human beings. Some arbitrary criteria, such as a stage of development, is proposed to confer the right. "We argued that the right to life, unlike the right to vote, does not vary from place to place or time to time for the same entity. This is because the right to life is in a strong and obvious sense the foundational right for persons. It is the right on which all other rights are predicated, and marks whether a being is a being of moral standing at all. If the right to life depended upon, for example, a particular and exercisable ability, then some human beings would possess that right earlier than others, and
some would never possess it."
July 6, 2012
This book took me a long time to read as it is not a book one just skims through. In fact, not being in the medical field nor the philosophical field, some of the reading was beyond me. However, the book presents, by an array of arguments, excluding any religious argument, the fact that from the moment, the second, of conception, a human being exists, and should be treated with dignity and respect. The book starts with the story of Noah saved from flooding in the Katrina hurricane, saved as an embryo, frozen in a canister of liquid nitrogen along with 1,400 embryos. Noah was born into the world sixteen months after being saved. Imagine that! The authors use moral arguments from Plato, Descartes, Locke, and other natural law philosophers, as well as arguments from scientists,for their position that the embryo is a human being. The detailed descriptions of what happens when sperm meets egg, fertilization, then the single-celled embryo taking shape can overwhelm with awe. The book describes the complicated,yet step-by-step seamless (usually)early journey of a human being, with a moral right to live. The authors' position on embryonic experimentation is that it results in the destruction of human beings, and it is wrongful killing. The notes for each chapter documents the authors' arguments and are interesting also to read. Though the book is only 217 pages, it is a handbook on the embryo, embryonic research, and arguments for and against the humanity of the embryo. The embryo is where we started, and who we are today, just grown up.
July 20, 2012
A very nice introduction to the view that human beings have moral status from conception or the very early stages of embryonic life (i.e. twinning cases). By "moral status" I mean one that gives them a presumption against killing them in embryonic stem cell research and other medical procedures (i.e. abortion). George and Tollefsen draw upon natural law and Aristotelean metaphysics to make a non-religious argument for a conservative position regarding human life. The chapters adress broadly three questions pertaining to the biology of the embryo, it's moral status, and the technologies at play that effect it's moral status. Conservative Christians will be challenged by their attack upon dualism and their defense of animalism and liberal Democrats will see that many of their justifications for killing embryos are vulnerable to reductio ad absurdem arguments. The prose is accessible for the most part and the arguments are brief, salient, and to the point. Must-reading for those who want to be informed whether you agree or disagree.
November 30, 2010
Despite what the reviews said, it just wasn't the old arguments told again. Of course the familiar arguments for a human's right to life from fertilization were presented, but I found the background philosophical underpinnings of consequentialism that was presented as new for me. Further, there was a chapter or more of "new arguments" for destructive research that turned out to be more subjective arguments for human exploitation. Good work on the concrete suggestions for politics, science, and culture in the last chapter.
July 26, 2010
Do not read if you're contemplating IVF because it will give you nightmares.
January 14, 2012
This was very good defense of human life, not from the angle of abortion but from embryonic research.
May 5, 2012
Surprising fair
November 23, 2012
Makes a solid case that human embryos are human beings worthy of full moral respect ... Does so on the basis of philosophy rather than religious tradition.
August 23, 2014
Recomendable
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews