Kudos to on spending federal funds on human embryo destroying research.
For clear moral arguments on this issue, read Breakpoint or Maggie Gallagher.
Colson argues,
The supporters of embryo-destructive research want to cross a great moral divide. They are seeking not only to destroy human life made in God’s image but also to manufacture life made in man’s image. Tragically, we are losing this fight, however, because too few people understand the issues.
We are losing this fight even though many in Europe get it right : including Germany.
European countries have widely differing national laws, with Britain actively encouraging stem-cell research. Germany, with an aversion to genetic experimentation rooted partly in the legacy of Nazi abuses, effectively bans it.
This is a cogent point. Germany has tasted what it means to live in a society that uses personhood arguments to justify a biomedical vision. For further reading, see my posts on Eugenics, Forced Sterlization, and Medical Evil. I anticipate the objections claiming I am making an ad hominem attack.
Let me nip that in the bud. There is not a moral equivalence between Germany's biomedical worldview and ESCR. I am not calling those who support ESCR, Nazis. But back up for a second and look at reality. For both visions to succeed, a class of human beings had to be singled out and downgraded based on level of cognitive development (for the Germans, the "feeble-minded" were denied full personhood) -- and both visions view/ed health of those who are classified as persons as the moral justification for the vision. In the case of ESCR, it is the hope of personal cures. In the case of Germany, it was the curing of a nation (a twisted worldview which is admittedly hard to fathom).
While the moral argument is sufficient to keep Pandora's box closed on ESCR, Colson and others are correct to point out that private companies won't touch ESCR either. Why? Because adult stem cells work and human embryo stem cells don't. Private companies recognize that and put money where there is a proven track record of return.
Sadly, it took a veto to stem the tide on the misguided biomedical vision sweeping our country. Conservatives like Frist don't get it. Today, dicarded human embryos. Tomorrow, fetal farms. The day after that, who knows. There is no easy way to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Jeff:
I think the problem with this is that you're viewing it through a religious lens instead of through a political one. The act itself, as well as the Bush veto, were almost entirely political in nature.
Basically, somewhere between 70% and 75% of Americans support ESCR. Meanwhile, Bush's approval ratings are ever lower. How to resolve this? Get this bill passed, wherein conservative senators can vote for it and say "see, we don't walk lockstep with Bush," but know that Bush would veto it (he announced it before the bill was voted on), so that their vote wouldn't actually do anything.
This allows these conservative lawmakers to pass themselves off as more moderate, in an election year when many of them desparately need to do so. But they can do so in a way that doesn't actually change anything.
Further, it's doubtful that the evangelicals will abandon these candidates over this one issue, especially if the candidates are consistently pro-life in other ways.
So basically, this was little more than a tactical move.
As to the merits of the veto itself, given the fact that even if you concede that embryos are full human lives worthy of the same protections as, say, a newborn baby (I don't, but will stipulate it for sake of argument), this veto saved zero lives. Not a single one. Because for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on about the horror of destroying embryos any time the subject of ESCR comes up, nobody ever seems to complain about the process that creates the doomed embryos in the first place -- IVF.
Again, this is entirely political. Coming out against fertility clinics would be a political kiss of death. Yet from a moral and ethical standpoint, if ESCR is a great crime, IVF is a far greater crime. The former cannot exist without the latter, yet nobody seems to care about the latter.
Posted by: tgirsch | July 24, 2006 at 16:11
Also, I'm not sure I buy the slippery slope thing. Ignoring for the moment that we're already farming embryos and destroying them, and that nobody's complaining about this, there's a vast chasm between "feeble-minded" and an embryo, which doesn't even have a mind (or, for that matter, nerves). What you have in an embryo is something that is quite literally incapable of suffering of any kind. It's a stretch (to say the very least) to suggest that research on embryos necessarily leads to devaluation of fully-formed human life. This simply does not follow.
The vast majority of embryos that are created for IVF are destroyed (either as part of failed implantations, or for lack of use). Somewhere between half and three quarters of all human embryos created naturally (i.e., via sexual intercourse) are destroyed, too. Like it or not, embyro destruction (even in nature) is remarkably common. It is the rule, rather than the exception.
But I just keep going back to the cognitive dissonance on the part of most pro-lifers and evangelicals on this issue. ESCR is vehemently opposed, with nary a peep said in protest of IVF, even though it is IVF that is responsible for embryo creation and destruction.
Occasionally, you'll have someone attempting to be consistent and state their opposition to IVF in addition to their opposition to ESCR, but this always comes up in the context of the ESCR debate. When ESCR isn't on the table, objections to IVF simply disappear.
So in that sense, I'm "calling out" the pro-life movement. You should actively oppose IVF, with at least the zeal you oppose abortion and ESCR. There should be pro-life protesters constantly camped outside of fertility clinics, decrying the countless "murders" these clinics are responsible for. That this doesn't happen is an inexplicable inconsistency. (Well, it can be explained in cynical terms...)
Posted by: tgirsch | July 24, 2006 at 16:20