Just a Clump of Cells?
In the beginning I argued that the
unborn is a human being from the moment of conception based on the science of
embryology. I argued that this is known from several medical textbooks on the
subject (See Keith Moore, The Developing
Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th Edition) as well as
clarifying the kind of thing the human embryo is. Some will claim though that
the human embryo is not really a human being but is merely a clump of cells and
is just as valuable as any somatic (body) cell in a human’s body.
Ronald Bailey from Reason Magazine, is a case in point, when he claims as follows:
“Sure human embryos carry the full genetic code, but so do ordinary somatic
cells. Using cloning technology, we can generate an entire human embryo from
one of these cells, thus demonstrating that early embryos are no different in
kind from any other bodily cell that’s routinely discarded.” (Ronald Bailey,
“Are Stem Cells Babies?” Reason, July
11, 2001).
There are two fundamental problems with
Bailey’s claim. First, Bailey makes the elementary mistake of conflating parts
of a whole with the whole itself. Somatic cells are not an organism but are
merely part of a larger organism. Somatic cells will not turn into anything
without outside intervention - such as a woman’s gamete - and will not produce
anything if left to themselves. Human embryos by contrast are already whole and
distinct from their human parents and can self-guide their development in as
far as they have sufficient conditions and nutrition. Second, the idea that
human embryos are merely collections of cells is not only scientifically
inaccurate but is rhetorically charged. The difference between a mere clump of
cells and the human embryo is that clumps of cells alone don’t constitute a
living organism. If a human embryo is to be a living human embryo, its body
parts (cells and organs) have to be working together in a coordinated manner to
guide its function and maturity.
The reason why a person is deemed to be
clinically dead is not because his cells are still “alive” but because all of
his bodily functions have ceased to operate due to the failure for the cells to
work together in an integrated whole. Hence, the human embryo is living because
it is subject to a healthy, stable environment, is able to receive nutrition,
and its cells are working together in a coordinated whole. If its cells fail to
do that, then the human embryo will die, even though those cells will still be
“alive” some time after the human being has died. So technically, “What has been
lost at death is not merely the activity of the brain or the heart, but more
importantly the ability of the body’s parts (organs and cells) to function
together as an integrated whole. Although cells of the brain are still alive
following brain death, they cease to work together in a coordinated manner to
function as a brain should.” (Life: Defining the Beginning by the End, P. 4,
Para. 2)
So even though human embryos are made
of living cells, it is not true that the mere presence of living cells make up
a human embryo. Condic concludes, “The critical difference between a collection
of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a
coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a
whole. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer
function together in a coordinated manner… Human life is defined by the ability
to function as an integrated whole not by the mere presence of living human
cells.” (Ibid.)
No comments:
Post a Comment