Hello Mr. Harris,
I have two main objections to your argument concerning the validity of using human embryos in stem cell research. Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that embryos are somehow less than human, and therefore fair game for exploitation. Secondly, I disagree with your systematic “ranking” of life. According to your worldview, certain varieties of life—such as human embryos—are less valuable than others, effectively condoning abortion, euthanasia, and genocide. Hitler’s comparable belief in the inherent supremacy of German Aryans over inferior Slavs/Jews/Gypsies resulted in the death of millions. Will your beliefs result in comparable carnage?
The premise that embryos are sub-human is central to your argument. If embryos are not really human, then we must logically conclude they do not deserve any of the protection normally afforded to humans. Near the beginning of the audio clip you articulate this thesis, saying, “Let us look at the details: a three day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,00 cells in the brain of a fly.” You go on to explore the implications of this claim by later stating, “If you’re concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.” This logic is preposterous! According to your reasoning, it is more regrettable to kill a common housefly than it is to kill a human embryo—simply because a fly's body contains more cells! Since when have civilized cultures evaluated something’s worth based on the number of cells it contains? Does our justice system find the murder of a three-foot midget to be less despicable than the murder of a seven-foot giant? Both are murders, and the murder is equally culpable, regardless of the size of his victims.
Furthermore, you argue that because a blastocyst’s brain has not yet formed it ought to be subject to the same ethics used with brain dead humans, saying, “It is worth remembering in this context that when a person’s brain has died we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs provided he has donated them for this purpose…If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than human, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such.” I find this argument to be fundamentally flawed—you’re comparing apples and oranges. Someone who is brain dead has likely faced a huge trauma and will never recover their brain function. On the other hand, a human embryo has all the genetic material needed to create a perfectly functioning brain—all it lacks is nine months of formation. Yet despite this discrepancy you give ethical preference to the brain-dead individual, stating that it is acceptable to harvest his organs solely, “provided he has donated them for this purpose.” However, equally human embryos are given no such courtesy. They are not required to give consent or sign any forms. And although they have not legally willed their bodies to research facilities you claim that human embryos ought to be experimented upon. You claim that we must dissect future generations to solve the ills of the present generation. And yet, outraged, you call Christians “uninformed” and without “moral reasoning and genuine compassion” because they disagree with this infanticide. In your world, Mr. Harris, a paltry nine months decides whether a complex conglomeration of tissues is known as a baby or is simply viewed as a faceless and disposable blastocyst.
Sincerely,
Hanna Kahler
