Apparently the Wall Street Journal editorialized that embryos are not yet human beings, that is, the are only potential human life. I didn’t see the editorial. But I did see this excellent letter to the editor, published in response. I don’t know who James J. Johanik of Chicago is, but he sure nailed it:
“Human, All Too Human
Letters to the Editor, Wall Street Journal
August 5, 2006
In your July 22 editorial ‘Splitting Stem Cells,’ you say that embryos ‘have the potential to be—but are not yet—human beings.’ You then go on to defend your statement by citing this opinion as the so-called ‘dominant view’ of the public. Your opinion and its defense is politically correct but falls short; it is an argument many on the left will gladly accept today and build on in future attempts to erode the moral fiber of this nation for the sake of personal convenience.
“You see, no matter how you cut it, being alive and being human are binary functions; you either are or you are not ‘alive,’ and if alive, you either are or you are not ‘human.’ Ask scientists what constitutes life and from them you will deduce that an embryo used for stem-cell research—effectively a fetus outside the womb—is distinguishable from inorganic material, has the all the necessary building blocks for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and by definition is deemed to be ‘alive.’
“The next question we must ask is whether we are dealing with life in the general sense or specifically a human life. To be ‘human’ means to have the unique characteristics of the Homo genus. At any point along the continuum of human development, from zygote to adult, the characteristics of all stages of such development are undeniably and uniquely Homos, or human; just in the same manner the development of a dog is uniquely Canis and the bird Aves. At the moment of conception, in or out of the womb, two living human-derived cells unite to form a living human zygote, with gender determined and all the necessary building blocks for development into infant, adolescent and adult human life present. This zygote does not have the ability to become anything other than a human.
“Look at the issue from another angle. If such life is not human at the point of conception, at exactly what point in time do we determine when human life begins? Even if you were to hone in on a specific period of human development, there are an infinitesimal number points along the continuum by which you will have to make a determination as to when it is and when it is not ‘human.’ This leaves much in the hands of relativism and is a slippery slope. What may conveniently work today will at some point in the future be challenged if and when another medical or economic convenience necessitates such a review.
James J. Johanik
Chicago”
I wish I was smart enough to write that.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
