Wednesday, June 15, 2005
A Deadline for Embryos?
There are a jillion blogs now, and every minute or so the number ramps up to a jillion plus one. Like me, you've probably given up trying to locate -- let alone faithfully read -- every blog on your pet subjects.
Still, every now and then it's still possible to stumble into a little back corner of blogdom that catches your eye. And that has been the case, recently, with this one.
Now, I have no idea who these people are -- what their credentials are to be diving into such an explosive subject. Maybe they're "Focus on the Family" types in disguise, trying to lure the unsuspecting into their fold, where they can be beaten into concurrence. They may be doctors or other professionals. They may be nobody in particular, just citizens who want something to happen. And in a way it doesn't make any difference: whoever they are, they appear sincerely to be trying to get some kind of dialogue going on the topic of when, exactly, a human being becomes a human being.
I'm not 100% on-board with what (according to an early post) is the starting point the Sassblogians have chosen. They seem to begin on a workable track -- "human life does not begin in utero until the onset of higher brain function." But then they cite a paper from the late 1980s, by a Dr. Hans-Martin Sass (a bioethecist? whoever he is, it's evidently his name used in constructing that of the blog itself):
For myself, I'm leery of setting any, well, any specific deadlineat all. There's way too much room for abuse; for starters, someone, somewhere -- almost certainly, alas, in Florida -- would be bound to trigger a legal crisis by consigning to research an embryo which is 54-days-plus-a-minute old. For that matter, the issue could end up in a family or other court simply because the two parents (or their parents, or other family members) are fighting over the "child's" custody. (Could they even be allowed to consider this if the embryo was less than the magic 54 days of age? Do you think the question would even stop them?)
For now, all I want to do is point out the Sassblog to you. Lord knows it's hard enough to start a blog in the first place, and to continue to maintain it in the face of silence (at first) from the blogosphere; to start a blog on a really controversial social-political-moral-ethical issue, and press for open discussion from all sides, is a tall tall order. One has to wish them well!
Still, every now and then it's still possible to stumble into a little back corner of blogdom that catches your eye. And that has been the case, recently, with this one.
Now, I have no idea who these people are -- what their credentials are to be diving into such an explosive subject. Maybe they're "Focus on the Family" types in disguise, trying to lure the unsuspecting into their fold, where they can be beaten into concurrence. They may be doctors or other professionals. They may be nobody in particular, just citizens who want something to happen. And in a way it doesn't make any difference: whoever they are, they appear sincerely to be trying to get some kind of dialogue going on the topic of when, exactly, a human being becomes a human being.
I'm not 100% on-board with what (according to an early post) is the starting point the Sassblogians have chosen. They seem to begin on a workable track -- "human life does not begin in utero until the onset of higher brain function." But then they cite a paper from the late 1980s, by a Dr. Hans-Martin Sass (a bioethecist? whoever he is, it's evidently his name used in constructing that of the blog itself):
Sass identified two levels of brain development. Cortical Brain Life I occurs with post-mitotic stationary neurons forming the early cortical plate -- 54 days after conception. Cortical Brain Life II recognizes the beginning of cortical neuro-neuronal synapes -- 70 days after conception. Sass hoped for a moral consensus by conservatively recognizing Brain Life I (the 54th day) as the point after which embryonic research would be unacceptable. Before that time, research, and presumably abortions, would be acceptable.Okay, it's just a starting point for discussion. I understand that. But if held to, it could simply end up pissing off absolutists on both sides of the issue -- those who believe society has no business "accepting" abortions (or condoning embryonic research) at any time, and those who believe society has no business drawing a formal line between acceptable and unacceptable because any time is acceptable.
For myself, I'm leery of setting any, well, any specific deadlineat all. There's way too much room for abuse; for starters, someone, somewhere -- almost certainly, alas, in Florida -- would be bound to trigger a legal crisis by consigning to research an embryo which is 54-days-plus-a-minute old. For that matter, the issue could end up in a family or other court simply because the two parents (or their parents, or other family members) are fighting over the "child's" custody. (Could they even be allowed to consider this if the embryo was less than the magic 54 days of age? Do you think the question would even stop them?)
For now, all I want to do is point out the Sassblog to you. Lord knows it's hard enough to start a blog in the first place, and to continue to maintain it in the face of silence (at first) from the blogosphere; to start a blog on a really controversial social-political-moral-ethical issue, and press for open discussion from all sides, is a tall tall order. One has to wish them well!
