The Moral Status of the Human Embryo According to Peter Singer: Individuality, Humanity, and Personhood
Peter Singer is a prominent Australian philosopher currently at Princeton University who many might consider to hold radical views on human life. Singer argues that the early human embryo is not a human individual who is a person. He contends that the potential of a human embryo existing in the laboratory is not the same as the one who is already implanted in the endometrium of the uterus. Redefining the term "potentiality", Singer examines the potency of the egg and sperm alone as well as jointly. Central to understanding the philosophy of Peter Singer on human life is his rejection of the doctrines of specieism and sanctity of human life. Singer's thesis is that not all members of Homo sapiens are persons and not all persons are members of the species Homo sapiens. What constitutes a "person" for Singer remains open to be subjectively defined according to the characteristics that are chosen. This remains crucial for Singer in terms of which organisms can be subjected to clinical experimentation as regards moral rights . Peter Singer's arguments against the early human embryo being an individual human person are unconvincing. While admitting that he wants to free us from particular religious views, he fails to make an adequate argument that not all members of Homo sapiens are persons and not all persons are members of Homo sapiens. Peter Singer's use oflogic is consistently followed to the very end of his startling conclusions. Peter Singer argues that we should reject the view that a human zygote or early human embryo is a distinct human individual. 1 In his view,