Hey, a question of personhood! Embryos?

Today the president gave an executive order lifting a ban on government funding for embryonic stem cell research. Oh course a great many people called this order unethical, equating the use of stem cells to murder. Does this even make sense? Not really.

Murder is an ethical term, and can only be applied to a ethically deserving being. One cannot murder a television, one can only destroy it. Ethical actions are acts that affect other concerned beings. This is a broader statement that includes the moral consideration for non-human beings. By this I mean my cat would be a very concerned being should someone attempt to kick her. but for the most part, when we talk about ethical decisions we are talking about decisions that affect other people, or more exactly persons.

This brings us to embryos, stem cells, abortions, and all manner of status, and ethical quandaries concerning early human life. My position is this: embryos, and fetuses do not receive moral consideration, because they lack personhood, they are not even concerned beings. Oh, they are human all right, they just are not persons, and it is personhood that warrants being an ethically deserving being. Lets consider all the activities, and states of being that persons do and are.

• Feel Emotions
• Think
• Interact with other persons
• differentiate the world around them
• Feel pain or suffer
• Have personalities, with likes and dislikes
• Are independently acting

I think I could go on with my list, these are very general so that they can include as many kinds of concerned beings as possible. So, how do embryos rate given the above standards of personhood? Well, .... they don't actually do ANY of these basic things. Seriously, think about it, they don't do anything. We could get into a protracted discussion as to whether my cat is a person or not, but simple observation tells us that my cat at least does all the things on the above list. A cat. Meow!

I know, I know your reading this saying yeah but, they are human. Or even better, they are potential persons, and therefor we must respect their future personhood. HA HA, got you there smarty pants philosopher lady! To be honest, I am conflicted on this point. Potential is the ability to do something in the future. But whatever that potential may be, it is important to admit that future states of affairs are very much non-existent states of affairs. So can something that doesn't exist be the resting place of moral concern?

If I were to make a bet for five dollars with Peter Pan and lose, do I owe The Pan the money? Hardly, Peter Pan is a fictional character, he doesn't exist, so I owe no one five dollars. I have as yet to see a reasonable argument for the ethical consideration of non-existent beings.

What remains are religious and superstitious positions that are based outside of reason and debate. Stem cell research is definitely not murder, nor is it unethical in any way. With all the possible cures to serious ailments awaiting discovery, today I say: well done Mr. President.
Alex