Nowadays, there is a regrettable ambiguity in the general modern debate concerning the exact nature of human “rights” and “laws” and “justice,” but by no means is this ambiguity particular or confined to the modern day alone. On the contrary, the struggle to determine and delineate the extent of human rights, laws, and justice has been the occupation of scientists and philosophers for centuries. It is nevertheless regrettable, however, because the exponential growth of scientific discovery is providing increasingly clearer methods and information by which we can at last begin to determine these age-old questions. Yet it appears that our reluctance and resistance to face these facts only grows with it.
It is common knowledge that there exists a clear distinction between the laws of a nation and the “laws” of science. What is meant by the former are the concrete, collective decisions of a people and their government to set into writing the rules and norms by which they intend to govern themselves. They answer to the people. What is meant by the latter are the observable, testable, recurring principles of knowledge that fundamentally seek to explain the physical world that we humans inhabit. As far as we can tell, they answer to no one. How often these two understandings of the laws intersect, or rather, when they do indeed intersect, should be of profound interest to anyone who wishes to live under an informed governance.
This discussion comes on the heels of a wonderful advancement in microscope technology for applications in in vitro fertilizations that now enables couples and their embryologists to observe with high clarity the development and viability of fertilized eggs. This new technology, aptly called the EmbryoScope, has allowed clinicians in the United Kingdom to observe, analyze and ultimately select eggs with higher accuracy. This appears to have the greatest chance of producing a healthy human being. Quite delightfully, the pregnancy rates for clinics that employ this innovative technique have increased from one in three successful pregnancies to one in two.
While this new technology is undoubtedly worthy of high praise, it also demands us to now answer pre-existing questions as well. Particularly, it is a technological advancement that sits not too far from the debate concerning abortion. It naturally follows that a technology that increases the likelihood of pregnancies could also, down the road, provide the information for terminating them too. Though the current state of this technology applies to in vitro fertilizations, it nonetheless indicates that questions, which had previously been unanswerable, are becoming increasingly answerable, particularly in the sphere of American legal affairs.
The abortion debate in the United States is both historical and highly complex. After all, it is an issue that deals with the mystical, sacred concept of human origin and identity itself. The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that constitutionally protected abortion rights was Roe v. Wade, and was followed by similar cases, such as Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which clarified its provisions. The essential, implicit, unifying question of Roe v. Wade was — at what point in time, from the moment of conception to the moment of birth or perhaps at some point in time in between, can the state rightfully recognize human life for protection? While the majority opinion judgment in the case relied primarily upon judicial interpretation of constitutional texts rather than an outright declaration of scientific judgment, the technical, biological undercurrent remained unanswered — one that has been tapped into consistently by advocates on both sides of the debate outside of the legal sphere.
EmbryoScope, and its likely successors, will eventually force us to realize that we humans are, whether we like it or not, becoming equipped with the tools and knowledge to address fundamental social issues. By doing so, we reduce them to understandable, justifiable, conclusive ends. It is important that we realize that through the long history of human affairs, many of our decisions and consequences have been dictated by our scientific understanding. While new technology and knowledge do not necessarily provide the obvious direction of action, they still enumerate our choices and construct a better view of the task at hand. It is in our best interest to revisit these old questions in earnest and with a new perspective.
