"Nothing is Lost" -- Really?

In defending embryonic stem cell research, Professor Outka (see Michael's post) embraces the "nothing is lost" argument, under which the intentional killing of an innocent life is justified if the innocent will die in any case, and other innocent life will be saved. This defense encompasses not just research on embryos, of course, but also research on concentration camp inmates, death row prisoners, even terminally ill patients. Thankfully, Professor Outka resists the argument's full impact, applying it only to anencephalic infants and embryos. The key, for Outka's analysis, is the embryo's "perpetual potentiality." In light of this status, the "nothing is lost" argument can carry the day with minimal moral fallout.

I certainly prefer Outka's grudging and narrow concession on life's sanctity to the across-the-board utilitarian exuberance of folks like Peter Singer. But there is still a disturbing cost-benefit mindset that underlies his analysis, and I'm not sure he faces it in all its starkness.

First, what precisely is the morally relevant object of the frozen embryo's potentiality? The embryo is not potential life -- it is life, albeit static and (relatively) simple. So what trait does the embryo lack that would make the difference for Outka? He mentions self-awareness a lot -- is self-awareness what makes life sacred? Why? Where is the line that lets us treat the frozen embryo as an instrument, rather than as an end in itself? (The "nothing is lost" principle can't circumvent this line of inquiry unless we're willing to defend experiments on death row inmates.) Outka tries to make us believe that we're not conceding much on the moral front under his approach, but it seems we're still blurring the fundamental boundary afforded by treating all human life as inherently (not instrumentally) valuable.

Second, Outka laments the state of affairs under which "excess embryos" are a given. But if he really believes that we, as a society, should do what we can to alleviate this problem, how can he propose that we harness our medical advancements to the continuation of the problem? If embryonic research is embraced by society as the path to ending much human suffering, the embryos churned out in reproductive therapy will no longer be viewed as "excess," but rather as a key pipeline of human progress.

Rob