One could consider this piece subtitled, "A lesson from fiction with implications for the politics of abortion and stem cell research". I will also warn those of delicate sensibilities now: there will be frank discussion of human anatomy, and practices which some find repugnant, under the fold. If either offends you, I encourage you to find something else to read on this site.
Lately, I've been reading a work of fiction penned by the great Arthur C. Clarke, entitled Imperial Earth. One of the aspects of Clarke's work that makes it so permanently popular is the fact that, despite its setting in the future, it speaks to us in the present.
In this case, there is a passage in Imperial Earth that, while published over thirty years ago, is relevant to the debates over abortion and embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). Upon reflection, it strikes me that this passage could even have been written in response to the abortion debate as fueled by the then-recent decision in Roe v. Wade.
I read the following paragraph and immediately stopped. It was like a "eureka" moment for me. At any rate, let us consider the following:
Of course, one could always take refuge in the cold mathematics of reproduction. Old Mother Nature had not the slightest regard for human ethics or feelings. In the course of a lifetime, every man generated enough spermatozoa to populate the entire Solar System, many times over -- and all but two or three of that potential multitude were doomed. Had anyone ever gone mad by visualizing each ejaculation as a hundred million murders? Quite possibly; no wonder that the adherents of some old religions had refused to look through the microscope....
The above is a part of the musings of the protagonist as he ponders the impending implantation of the embryo that will become his cloned, twin "son." He recognizes that of the four embryos created, three must be destroyed, and consoles himself with this additional thought.
While Clarke makes this argument from the male perspective, it seems obvious, and requiring no great leap of the imagination, to extend it to the female (at least based on my limited knowledge of anatomy; I welcome any warranted corrections). If I am not mistaken, menstruation involves the expulsion of fluids and cells, including unfertilized eggs, that would otherwise have gone to the development of a new human being.
Thus, applying this logic, all humans are responsible for the destruction of countless lives, whether they intend it or not. It is simply nature's way.
Now, let us consider some of the possible objections to this argument:
- "Masturbation is immoral, and menstruation can be stopped, so it is possible to escape the fate which you claim we cannot."
Even if a man is to remain chaste for his entire life, even never masturbating, he still produces spermatozoa; these do not live for very long, and die after mo more than a few weeks. As to the menstruation argument: Karen Houppert, writing in the New York Times, had a piece recently detailing attempts to suppress it. I won't attempt to add anything to this particular debate, other than the following question: What effects would the suppression of menstruation have on said destruction of human life? Do we even want to consider the health implications of keeping all that material bottled up inside instead of being expelled once every month or so?
- "There is a difference between sperm and egg on the one hand, and fertilized embryo and developing fetus on the other. One pair is viable, or at least could be, and the other is not."
This argument strikes me as false, or at least deceptive; it depends on your definition of viability. In my mind, at least, the separate sperm and egg have just as much possibility of viability as a fertilized embryo. I recognize that reasonable people will disagree on this.
- "I don't believe all that science. The Bible doesn't say anything of spermatozoa or any of that."
Anyone who would offer this argument isn't going to be swayed by any logical presentation of the facts. Something tells me they probably still support the preznit, too.
I will end this with some more words by Clarke. Their meaning is, of course, open to debate. We would be wise, however, to keep them in mind.
There [are] moral obligations and uncertainties behind every act. In the long run, a man could only obey the promptings of that mysterious entity called Conscience and hope that the outcome would not be too disastrous. Not, of course, that one could ever know the final results of any actions.
Update [2007-7-26 12:48:18 by adamschloss]: I neglected to mention how this is relevant to the debates over abortion and ESCR. Simply put, if the nature of our very existence dooms us to destroying potential life, on scales far greater than those presented by abortion or ESCR, then the ethical concerns presented by either (at least with regards to the destruction of life) are rendered quite moot.