High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Journal o Medicine and Philosophy
, 0: 1–20, 2010doi:10.1093/jmp/jhq033
© Th Autho 2010. Pubishd by Oxod Univsity Pss, on bha o th Jouna o Mdiin and Phiosophy In. A ights svd. Fo pmissions, pas -mai: jounas.pmissions@oxodjounas.og
A Libertarian Perspective on the Stem Cell Debate: Compromising the Uncompromisible
WAlTer BlOck*
College o Business Administration, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans,Louisiana, USA
*Addss ospondn to: Wat Bo, cog o Businss Administation,loyoa Univsity Nw Oans, 6363 St. chas Avnu, Box 15, Mi 321,Nw Oans, lA 70118, USA. e-mai: watbo@ba.oyno.du
The present paper attempts to orge a compromise between those who maintain that stem cell research is out-and-out murder o young helpless human beings and those who avor this practice.The compromise is predicated upon the libertarian theory o pri- vate property rights. Starting out with the premise that not only the etus but even the ertilized egg is a human being, with all rights thereto, it oers a competition between those who ertilize eggs or research and those who wish to adopt them. I and only i the or- mer win this competition will they be allowed to use these very young human beings or the purposes they have constructed them.This is justifed on grounds o avoiding child abuse.
Keywords:
abortion, child abuse, libertarianism, private property rights, stem cell research
I. INTrODUcTION With gad to th nt and ongoing ontovsy onning stm -sah, ibtaian thoy (Bnson, 1989; Bo, 1976,1994;cuzán, 1979;
Hopp, 1989;kinsa, 1994,1996;rothbad, 1978,1982;Stingham, 1998–
99;Tinsy, 1998–99) is in a position to o th ombatants in this dbat
somthing uniqu: a ompomis, a pinipd on that dos not onsist o adding up both positions, somhow dividing by ha, and giving ah sidon pat o th oa. Atuay, th pubi dbat onns th popity not ony o using m-byos as aboatoy “animas” but aso o govnmnt unding o this nt-pis. About that, th is no ibtaian ompomis possib: suh a ouso ation is ntiy inompatib with this phiosophy and must b jtd
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Advance Access published July 11, 2010
Walter Block
2
out o hand as an igitimat untion o govnmnt. It is on thing to ga-iz a podu that is anathma to a ag pat o th itizny; it is ntiy anoth matt to o thm to nan a phnomnon thy gad in thismann.But what about th sah its, givn that it is pivaty nand, is thisgitimat?To antiipat matts somwhat, I sha—und tain ondition to bspid bow—b oming down on th sid o thos who suppot thaboatoy us o tiizd ggs,
at ast as a as ights a onnd.
Tho, it bhoovs m to assum that human i bgins
not
at bith, butat th tiizd gg stag. Whn th spm nts th gg, that is th ut-o point. Th is now a (vy young) human bing
in xistn.I ma this assumption o two asons. On is in od to obviat thhag o ating a staw man agumnt. Givn my onusion, ogia igoquis m to ma th assumption that
least
hps my as. Two, I happnto biv, indpndnty o this onsidation, that this is th ony appopi-at assumption. With th advnt o modn thnoogy, bith is bomingsomthing o a matt o a hang o addss. Whth th baby ivs on thinsid o th womb, o in a tst tub, o in a host moth, is quiy bom-ing amost (i not quit) a matt o indin as a as its hath, w b-ing, and suviva is onnd. Th a hang is not vition om thpanta, but ath th mov om spaatd spm and gg, nith o whih wi gow into a human bing in that stat, to on wh th spmnts th gg, whih wi sut in th ation o a nw mmb o ou sp-is, und odinay iumstans. With this as bagound, w a amost ady to mov on to a onsid-ation o th ibtaian thoy o stm ownship. But on oth issumust b addssd bo w bgin: why shoud th non-ibtaian, vnth anti-ibtaian, siousy onsid this psptiv? Th po-i and thpo-hoi movmnts a at inttua ogghads. Th is, smingy,no possib oniiation btwn thm. Th ida that th dision shoudb movd om th da to th stat v onstituts no soution, at aston phiosophia gounds, o th qustion sti aiss, “How ought th 50dint juisditions addss this vxing and intatab issu?” This bingth as, on woud thin that
any
atnativ non-mainstam, non-pviousy had o thoy woud b appiatd. At a, whn th is an inttuaand moa og jam, “dynamit” o any sot shoud b appiatd. evn i suh a thoy is utimaty totay jtd, sti, it might st o thining in anw and possiby uitu dition. In tnnis, i you a osing by hittingto you opponnt’s bahand, th bst advi is to ty somthing dint.Mayb, ty to sna a w past his ohand. In i mann, i th usuathois (po-i, po-hoi) hav sutd in an inttua impass,phaps th antidot is to at ast onsid an amost totay dint way o ooing at th matt.
A Libertarian Perspective on the Stem Cell Debate
3
So muh o any nw dpatu om psnt thining. Why, patiuay,ibtaianism, in this ontxt? Th advantag h is that this psptiv ispdiatd upon a thoy o homstading vigin and. Ys, it is somwhato a ap to xtapoat om ownship o titoy on th ath’s sua toights o, and ov, tiizd ggs, but, givn a w thought out and dn-sib thoy in on ontxt, it woud b th hight o oy to not vn on-sid how insights gand in this on ana may b appid to a vy dint on. With ths intodutoy mas, w a now ady to onsid th sub-stan o th agumnt. Pas hav patin with what oows: it wi soundat st gan somwhat avai, vn u and od. But this is bausoo dispassionat anguag is somtims quid to addss xdingy vxatious pobms.II. lIBerTArIAN THeOrY AND cHIlDreN Youngsts oupy a midd-gound, homstading-wis, and btwn own-ship o popty, suh as a ow, and that onning oth pop, whodo not yt uy xist.
Th way to dmonstat ownship in a hithto un-ownd bovin is to domstiat it; on th homstading piod is ov, you a th pop and ompt own.Pisy, th sam ogi appis to th hid. Stats rothbad in this -gad: “. . . vn om bith, th panta ownship is not absout but o a‘tust’ o guadianship ind” (rothbad, 1982, 99). Th ah-typia way to“homstad” an inant is to ngag in sxua intous, and thn povida “hom” o th baby o 9 months and that. But i a ma and masintist instd a spm bonging to on o thm into an gg bonging toth oth, and thn gw th suting mbyo in a tst tub, o in a wiinghost moth, and thn ad o th baby at th 9-month gstation piod,thy, too, woud and shoud b onsidd th pop pants. Th ony di-n btwn th ow and th hid is that in th om as outightownship is possib, whas in th att a that is “ownd” is th ight toontinu to homstad (.g., a o) th hid. Doing so stabishs thight to p doing so, unti th youngst ahs aduthood. A th any positiv obigations to bing up a hid? Not in th ibtaianphiosophy,
th a ony th ngativ quimnts that on ain ominvading th pson and gitimaty ownd popty o anoth. Statsrothbad:
Appying ou thoy to pants and hidn, this mans that a pant dos not havth ight to aggss against his hidn,
but also
that th pant shoud not hav a
legal obligation
to d, oth, o duat his hidn, sin suh obigations woudntai positiv ats od upon th pant and dpiving th pant o his ights.Th pant may not mud o mutiat his hid, and th aw popy outaws a
Add a Comment