Interesting set of letters in reaction to Cuomo’s op-ed.

I like this from the first letter:

Mr. Cuomo, the former New York governor, repeatedly refers to "potential," but all in the context of the medical benefits of stem cells. But this potential is hypothetical, based on the faith of scientists regarding where their research will lead (and on a corresponding lack of faith in the potential of adult stem cells).

Mr. Cuomo ignores the time-tested potential of implanted embryos to generally produce viable infants.

And then there’s this one. Note the writer:

Mario M. Cuomo mars his well-reasoned essay on the use of embryonic stem cells by characterizing the crucial moral issue as whether "human life starts at conception."

Even the earliest embryo conceived of human parents is alive and a member of Homo sapiens, and that is enough, in the eyes of many, to make it a living human being.

The crucial moral question is not when human life begins, but when human life reaches the point at which it merits protection.

It is to that question that the significance of consciousness and viability, discussed by Mr. Cuomo, should be addressed.

Unless we separate these two questions – when does life begin, and when does it merit protection? – we are unlikely to achieve any clarity about the moral status of embryos.

Peter Singer
Princeton, N.J., June 20, 2005

Anyone who’s read a lot of beginning-of-life bioethics, both professional and popular, knows Singer’s position, and that it is shared by the more honest of his colleagues, and always has been. I’ve read quite a lot of writings in support of abortion rights, especially the important stuff from the 70’s and 80’s, and none of them blink at admitting the fact of unique biological human life of the embryo and fetus. The question is just as Singer states it. And the puzzling thing is that they don’t see that they’re not the first people to think this way…