******
Little did the Constitution writers imagine the twist and turns that modern day ethicist, would go to to put additional meaning into such a simple statement as "All Men Are Created Equal." They did not have the advantage of genetic engineering, modern-day imagined and real social injustices and the doctrine of "Say Anything" journalist and writers who see facts as a sometimes necessary part of their job of reporting but if inconvenient, an unnecessary limit to their creativity. The Authors simply stated a fact, "All Men are Created Equal."
Along comes a professor, and chair no less, of the department of philosophy at La Roche College in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who ask, "What if we assign moral status to human embryos?" Never mind, that Dr. Michael C. Brannigan, Ph. D., never actually addresses what constitutes "moral status." No, he just waves a heavy pen at those who might question his judgement and lumps the dissenters into the pool with the "right to life" folks. He further muddies the water by suggesting there is no line of demarcation between what is living and what isn't. And if you carefully read his logic, if it doesn't suit him, then take its, her or his life. The line of life is so ill drawn (according to Dr. Brannigan), that an Alzheimer patient is just as likely to fall under his knife as the just fertilized egg.
Which brings us the "All Men Are CREATED Equal" statement. If you trace life back to the beginning and at the same time make judgement as to when men are created equal, you must conclude that it's when capacitance occurs. Then and only then are all things equal. From that point forward, the brought-together genetics and maternal environment begin to shape the individual and outside the womb, the spacial, economic, political, health environment will forevermore dictate how this individual may live (or attempt to live) if it survives passage. The egg may or may not be nurtured. Genetics may predispose it to spontaneous sloughing. Sex having been determined now points the individual into different pathways. But at that critical moment when the sperm enters the egg providing the second half of the genetics that will determine the offspring, how right the Fathers were to state "All Men Are CREATED Equal."
Pope Paul and his many followers are right! If man intervenes at any point following conception, he (or she) is guilty of murder. Then it becomes a matter of the legal system to decide how one should pay for the taking of life. Here is where Dr. Brannigan should address his arguments. He can question the value of human life, and that is what he is asking. Supposing that the fertilized egg given the right environment could be another Einstein, or Hitler, who has the right to judgement and take its life?
Here is what Dr. Brannigan says;
"Conception assumes the significance of biological existence. Quickening
points to some degree of social interaction. Viability and birth each
underscore the capacity to be independent.
As attractive as these criteria may seem, however, the very notion of some magic moment in which some radical metamorphosis takes place ^re which existence bears no moral status and after which a being possesses complete moral status ^s little sense. The idea of some sudden philosophical shift in embryonic and/or fetal development is misleading, conceptually unfounded, and contrary to science. The main reason is all too obvious. Embryonic and fetal development is gradual, with no radical and abrupt biological changes. It stands to reason that "personal" development (i.e., the acquiring of moral status) is gradual as well
This means that there is little, if any, likelihood of moral status in the early stages of fetal development. As for the human blastocyst and embryo, there is no reason to assign any moral status. This does not mean that the human embryo is not human life. It is indeed human life, but it is clearly not a human "person," and for that reason it possesses no moral status."
The next stage of Dr. Brannigan's argument rest with the "fact" that the embryo does not feel pain, i.e., lacking sentience, it is all right to do with it as you wish.
Dr. Brannigan and his tribe would have fit nicely with Adolph's ideas of a perfect world. Discard those that are unfit (in his eyes), be they the unborn, young or old.
Brannigan's arguments are flawed by a myopic vision that sees only what he wants to see. And yet, I am sure he would be the first to say, "All Men are Created Equal."
The waters of "right to life" and a woman's "right to choose" will be muddied for years to come. Sad to say, the courts will have the last word on this issue and like it or not, the courts do not stay the course but are influenced by their own personal judgements.
We are shocked when we learn that a mother drowns her children, either in a bathtub or in an automobile. Dr. Brannigan would tell us that she has committed a crime because those children had sentience (they could feel) and that they had moral status. To which all would agree. When the mother of septuplets in Iowa was found to be pregnant, she could have easily had an abortion and solved the multiple problems, yet she and her husband persevered and they have a family of beautiful children. Did she make the right decision? (Ask Dr. Brannigan.) When did those tadpole-like embryos pass judgement by Dr. Brannigan and have moral status?
What to do? Firstly, we need Dr. Brannigan to pontificate and editorialize his views. He provides a platform on which the issues can be discussed. However, Dr. Brannigan must surely have been given a pass when it came to his education in ethics and logic. And, hopefully, his will remain a minority viewpoint.
With the progress that is being made in embryo transplants, cell fusion, stem cell research (with animals except man), and other research under the general heading of genetic engineering, Dr. Brannigan's enigma will be solved.
Taking a non-ovarian cell and cause it to jump through the hoops of the scientist is surely a better approach. Then we can separate research/development/production of biological materials from the issue Dr. Brannigan raises regarding when life begins and once again we will discover how very great were the men of 1776, who wrote, "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL."
"The argument from sameness is thus seen to be independent of the principle of Formal Equality. It is often expressed by the words `After all, all men are men' or `A man is a man'. It would be difficult to deny what is stated in these words, but difficult also to derive very convincingly from it any principle of Equality. The argument, inasmuch as there is one, seems to run thus:
It is not, on the face of it, a cogent form of argument. That it is in fact fallacious is shown by the parody which can be obtained by replacing the word `men' by the word `numbers'.
(a) J. R. Lucas, Justice and Equality, H. Bedau, ed., Prentice-Hall, 1971, pp 183-151.
Here rest Dr. Brannigan's philosophy. However if you add the critical word, "created," you see that both Dr. Lucas and Brannigan would agree that when we give a moral or rational critique of our society, men and numbers are indeed equal. Because, when the numbers are created, they have equality, originating from the stroke of a pen. Only when individual status is attributed to the numbers (or men) are they no longer equal. jsw.
These thoughts were on the mind of Abraham Lincoln as he pondered the problems of 1860 on establishing a policy to determine how best to answer the slave question. pp 54. op.cit.
Mr. Lincoln himself made no profession of extraordinary love for the negro. He denied, indeed, in company of high authorities, that the negro had no lot in the Declaration of Independence. "I think," he said, "the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in colour, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal - equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This they said and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit...."
pp 70-71. op.cit.
He said, "If we could but know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it." op. cit. 54.
We know where we are and whither we are tending. Do we really need laws to provide the guidance?
Herbert W. Fisher, (late student of Christ Church, Oxford), Considerations on the origin of THE AMERICAN WAR. MacMillan and Co. 1865., London.
***
For further reading (if you can find them):
Gregory James, Many a Slip..., Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, 2001. The fallacies of logic as practiced today.
Herbert Austin Aikins, The Principles of Logic, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1902. More than just logic, this is probably one of the first books on statistical methodology. Logic problems test today's reasoning against yesterday's theories.
Wilhelm Windelband, History of Philosophy, The MacMillan Company, London, 1921. An encyclopedia of philosophy that is without equal.
****
Joe Wortham's Home Page , About Joe Wortham , Directory
Questions? Comments? [email protected]