Embryos and Stem­Cell Research
Baker (Lynne Rudder)
Source: UMass Magazine, Spring 2006
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsBooks / Papers Citing this PaperNotes Citing this PaperColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Full Text

  1. Embryos1 and Stem-Cell Research: Americans are in a quandary about stem cell research. On the one hand, the research promises valuable medical help for people with various debilitating diseases; on the other hand, it destroys pre-implantation embryos2 in pursuit of the hoped-for medical advances. So, it behoves us to consider what kind of beings pre-implantation embryos3 are.
  2. Are embryos4 persons? Many today think that biology tells the whole story about what we most fundamentally are. Biologically, human persons are continuous with the rest of the animal kingdom; but, on my view, there is an ontological difference — a difference in kind — between human persons and the (other) Great Apes.
  3. Although I agree with the biological view5 that human persons have animal natures, I also hold that a person's nature is not exhausted by its biological aspects. On my view, a human person is not identical to a human organism; nor is a human person a combination of a human organism and an immaterial mind or soul. Rather, a human person is constituted by a human organism — just as a marble statue6 is constituted by a piece of marble.
  4. Persons and organisms (like statues7 and pieces of marble) have different identity conditions. The identity of an organism requires biological continuity; the identity of a person requires a first-person perspective8. Persons have first-person perspectives9 essentially. Organisms, by contrast, can exist without first-person perspectives10. When an organism develops a rudimentary first-person perspective11, a new being — a person — comes into existence. So, human organisms come into existence months before they come to constitute persons. Since no human embryo12 is (or constitutes) a human person, the destruction of a human embryo13 is not destruction of a human person.
  5. Are embryos14 human organisms? Logic provides a reason to deny that a multi-celled pre-implantation embryo15 is a human organism. In the first couple of weeks after fertilization, it is possible for a human embryo16 to "twin." As long as it is possible for an embryo17 to twin (whether it actually does so or not), an embryo18 is not a human individual, but only a cell cluster. This is so, because it is logically impossible for an organism (or any individual) to be identical to two.
  6. To see this, suppose that an embryo19 (a cell cluster) divides and twins20 result. Call the embryo21 'A', and one of the twins22 'B' and the other twin 'C'. Since both B and C stand in exactly the same relation to A, it would be arbitrary to suppose that A was identical to one but not to the other. However, if A were identical to both B and C, then — by the transitivity of identity — B and C would be identical to each other. But B is clearly not identical to C. Therefore, A (the original embryo)23 cannot be identical to B or C. A human organism cannot come into existence until there is no further possibility of twinning24 — a week or two after fertilization. A frozen embryo25 that is still capable of twinning26 is demonstrably not a human organism.
  7. So, embryos27 used in stem-cell research are not human persons, nor even human organisms. In making a case for cloning embryos28 for the purpose of biomedical research, Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist who served on President Bush's Bioethics Council, points out, "After natural sexual intercourse, an estimated 60 to 80 percent of all embryos29 generated through the union of egg and sperm spontaneously abort30 — many without our knowledge. So," he continues, "if we use IVF [in vitro fertilization] to create embryos31 and then implant only a select few, aren't we doing what nature does?"
  8. There are good reasons to be cautious about stem-cell and other biomedical research, but I do not think that stem-cell research should be curtailed because of destruction of pre-implantation embryos32.

  1. This is a clear, if brief, exposition of various views in this area.
  2. It is interesting because of Baker’s Christian33 sympathies.
  3. Note, however, that her conclusion – basically, that embryos34 are neither human persons, nor even human organisms35 – and that therefore neither IVF nor Stem Cell Research is morally objectionable provided they are conducted with care – differs from those Catholics – such as David Hershenov – with a stronger “pro-life” (in the tendentious usage of this term) commitment.
  4. Significant points:-
    1. While human beings are biologically continuous with the Great Apes, Human Persons are – Baker claims – only constituted36 by human animals37, and are not identical to them.
    2. Human Persons make an ontological38 difference.
    3. Analogy of the “statue and the clay39”.
    4. An organism cannot come into existence – for logical40 reasons – until the possibility of twining41 is past.


See Link.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2020
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Oct 2020. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page