More from Robert George, regarding science and the abortion debate

Responding to Michael Sean Winters's review of his recent National Press Club conversation with Doug Kmiec, Prof. George writes:

. . . [Mr. Winters] attribute[s] to me the very reverse of what I hold about whether science can resolve the abortion debate.  I believe science cannot resolve it.  Modern embryology and developmental biology can show, and have shown, that the human embryo or fetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens---a human being in the earliest stages of his or her natural development.  And that is important,  But I agree with Peter Singer (and just about everybody else who knows anything about the science) that the question of the morality of abortion is not about when the life of a human being begins---the answer to that is clear enough---it is about whether and, if so, when a human being's life has value and dignity---in other words, it is about whether all human beings are persons (i.e., possessors of dignity and a right to life), or whether some human beings (e.g., those at the earliest developmental stages) lack the attribute or attributes of "personhood," and may therefore be killed if they are unwanted or perceived as burdensome.  I believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings.  I believe that on the basis of philosophical arguments that I have advanced in various writings, including my book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life (with moral philosopher Christopher Tollefsen), and my article "Embryo Ethics" (pdf attached) in the 2008 issue of Daedalus: The Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.  In defending my position, I engage the arguments advanced by Singer, Jeffrey McMahon, Michael Tooley, and others who believe that some human beings are not yet persons (i.e., those in the embryonic, fetal, and early infant stages of development); others are no longer persons (i.e., those in irreversible comas or minimally conscious states and those suffering from severe dementias); and some are not now, have never been, and never will be persons (i.e., the severely mentally retarded or disabled).  Sophisticated pro-choice advocates such as Singer, McMahon, and Tooley, do not suppose or claim that the being killed in an abortion is something other than human.  (Singer, in a letter published by the New York Times, quite properly reprimanded Mario Cuomo for claiming that the debate about abortion reflects doubts or differences of opinion about whether the fetus killed in an abortion is a human being.)  Their claim is that the human being killed in abortion is not a person.  There is agreement on the science---the feuts is a human being.  The disagreement is philosophical---are human beings in the fetal stage of development "persons"?   I hold that every member of the human family, irrespective not only of race, sex, and ethnicity, but also of ages, size, location, stage of development, and condition of dependency, possess inherent and equal dignity; it is precisely this claim that serious and sophisticated pro-choice people deny.  As I've said in dozens of places, science can show only that the developing child is a human being.  It cannot resolve the question of whether all human beings or, indeed, any human being possesses worth and dignity.  Science cannot prove that it is wrong to kill a five month old fetus.  By the same token, science cannot show that it is wrong to kill a two-year old child or a healthy fifty-three year old professor.  Science cannot tell us whether the death penalty, or genocide, or killing in war is right or wrong.  Science can tell us whether a creature is human; it cannot tell us whether deliberately killing humans (be it by abortion or in embryo-destructive research, or in war or as a punishment) is justified or unjustified.