Robert P. George

Embryonic human persons

If, as we believe, human embryos are human beings who deserve the same basic respect we accord to human beings at later developmental stages, then research that involves deliberately dismembering embryonic humans in order to use their cells for the benefit of others is inherently wrong. Just as harvesting the organs of a living child for the benefit of others is immoral and illegal, so ‘disaggregating’ embryonic human beings would also be immoral and should be illegal—of course governments should therefore not fund such procedures. In this article, we provide some of the evidence that human embryos are indeed human beings and, as such, deserve a level of respect that is incompatible with treating them as disposable research material. We also consider two recent objections to our position. > …human embryos are indeed human beings and, as such, deserve a level of respect that is incompatible with treating them as disposable research material In sexual reproduction, conception occurs when a sperm cell unites with an oocyte, the two cease to be, and their constituents successfully enter into the makeup of a new and distinct organism, which is called a zygote in its original one‐celled stage. This new organism begins to grow by the normal process of differentiated cell division into an embryo, dividing into two cells, then four, eight and so on, although some divisions are asynchronous. Its cells constitute a human organism, for they form a stable body and act together in a coordinated manner, which contributes to regular, predictable and determinate development toward the mature stage of a human being. That is, from the zygote stage onward, the human embryo has within it all of the internal information needed—including chiefly its genetic and epigenetic constitution—and the active disposition to develop itself to the mature stage of a human organism. …

The ontological status of embryos: a reply to Jason Morris.

In various places we have defended the position that a new human organism, that is, an individual member of the human species, comes to be at fertilization, the union of the spermatozoon and the oocyte. This individual organism, during the ordinary course of embryological development, remains the same individual and does not undergo any further substantial change, unless monozygotic twinning, or some form of chimerism occurs. Recently, in this Journal Jason Morris has challenged our position, claiming that recent findings in reproductive and stem cell biology have falsified our view. He objects to our claim that a discernible substantial change occurs at conception, giving rise to the existence of a new individual of the human species. In addition, he objects to our claim that the embryo is an individual, a unified whole that persists through various changes, and thus something other than a mere aggregate of cells. Morris raises a number of objections to these claims. However, we will show that his arguments overlook key data and confuse biological, metaphysical, and ethical questions. As a result, his attempts to rebut our arguments fail.

Quaestio Disputata What Male–Female Complementarity Makes Possible: Marriage as a Two-In-One-Flesh Union:

The authors, replying to criticisms of the Catholic Churchs teaching on homosexual acts presented by Todd Salzman and Michael Lawler in an article in this journal, argue that marriage is a multi-leveled personal union, essentially including the bodily as well as the emotional and volitional levels of the human self. Only sexual acts between a man and a woman who have consented to the kind of union that would be fulfilled by conceiving, bearing, and raising children together (that is, marriage) can consummate or actualize marital communion.

Embryo Ethics: Justice and Nascent Human Life

If we were to contemplate killing mentally handicapped infants to obtain transplantable organs, no one would characterize the controversy that would erupt as a debate about organ transplantation.

Sidney Hook Memorial Award acceptance address: Reform is nigh

l rt is a great pleasure to receive an award from the National Association of Schol~ars---our nations engine of reform in higher education. The pleasure is doubled by the fact that the award the NAS has elected to confer upon me is named for the late Sidney Hook---one of the twentieth centurys most dedicated, eloquent, and courageous defenders of ordered liberty and free and responsible inquiry. And pleasure is transformed into joy by the privilege of receiving this award at a celebration in which individuals I greatly admire--Donald Downs and Candace de Russy--are being honored with awards named for two of the great founders of our movement, Peter Shaw and my friend Barry Gross. And make no mistake, we are a movement. We are no mere mutual support society. We are not huddled together in a catacomb. We do not merely ask to be left unmolested to carry out our private scholarly researches, publish our articles and books, and meet our classes, as the academic world--and the wider intellectual culture--abandons standards, compromises scholarly integrity, and crumbles around us. We demand more than freedom for ourselves and others who dissent from campus orthodoxies, though we certainly demand that. We aim to reform, renew, and revitalize the academy. And we intend to make it happen--indeed, we are making it happen--by introducing into the discussion ideas and arguments that our colleagues need to understand and confront, and that our students have a right to hear and consider. It is time for campus monologues to end and true intellectual engagement to begin. What we offer to our institutions is something that every true lover of learning will prize: serious, civil, and vibrant discussion and debate. In the midst of the fight, our progress seems slow, I admit. Vast swaths of academia remain untouched by reform. Our movement has not penetrated very deeply, if at all, into certain disciplines or subdisciplines, and there are institutions at which our influence has so far scarcely been felt. But we must not be demoralized. Like the woman demanding justice before the unjust judge in the Gospel parable, we must be doggedly persistent. We may, from time to time, retreat to regroup or re-evaluate strategic options; but we must never regard a defeat in any area as permanent. There are no unreformable disciplines or institutions. There are merely disciplines and institutions awaiting reform. For now, it is worth pausing to consider what our movement has accomplished. Exemplary programs designed in the spirit of reform have been built at Duke, Brown,

Arguing Every Step

Since it is impossible to tackle every question relevant to any complex philosophical problem at once, every philosopher must operate with some assumptions. Taken together, these assumptions constitute a perspective; and ones philosophical perspective inevitably shapes the way in which one approaches the problem and frames the questions that must be answered if progress is to be made toward solving it. Although Kleinigs perspective-the familiar one of the secular, liberal moral and political philosopher-is not one I share, I learned much from this book. Kleinig is no liberal dogmatist; indeed, not all of his conclusions are likely to comfort those who do share the secular, liberal perspective. Although Kleinig explicitly declines to resolve the moral and legal questions of abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, capital punishment, and animal rights, he explores various of the assumptions made and arguments advanced by the competing sides on these issues with a detachment and fairmindedness that can