Restoring integrity to science?
As you’ve probably heard by now, President Obama has signed an executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Actually, you might have heard that he “lifted a ban on stem-cell research” (that’s how a “snap poll” on local news station New York 1 described it). That’s not true. Those other, missing words are important to understanding what’s actually being done — and why it’s controversial.
A story on NPR’s “Morning Edition” quoted Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) saying that the ban on funding was one in a series of Bush Administration decisions prizing ideology over scientific evidence. But is opposing embryonic stem-cell research really the same as ignoring scientific evidence for global climate change, as she suggests? That seems like a careless analogy to me. I don’t think most opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research are denying the potential of said research. On the other hand, those who oppose government action to combat climate change generally argue that such measures are unwise (for a variety of reasons), not that they are morally wrong. This isn’t as simple as one side seeing a need that the other doesn’t acknowledge.
Obama seems to understand that this doesn’t come down to a difference of opinion on what constitutes conclusive scientific research. From his remarks:
It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.
His own conclusion is arguably less careful:
[I]n recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.
Still, he is a model of serious moral philosophy when compared with some other politicians who support the move. From the New York Times:
“Today, an extraordinary medical breakthrough was achieved with the stroke of a pen,” said Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. “With today’s executive order, President Obama has righted an immense wrong done to the hopes of millions of patients.”
(Perhaps Senator Kennedy gets partial credit for at least making reference to morality?)
To be fair to Congresswoman DeGette, the president’s remarks — and the memorandum he released today on “Scientific Integrity” — do tend to suggest an equivalency among any and all science-related issues. The order, Obama said, “is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda – and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” But there’s much to appreciate about that memorandum, broad rhetoric notwithstanding. Its provisions support this goal:
The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. …The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.
It may surprise some to learn that opponents of embryonic stem-cell research don’t (necessarily) oppose those guidelines, although perhaps some do. I think that sounds wonderful… I’m just not sure it gets us very far when it comes to funding research on embryonic stem cells.
Obama also promised, “We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse.” On that topic, I recommend checking out Fr. Tom Reese’s helpful analysis and suggested guidelines for research. Though his ideas “will not satisfy those who find any use of embryos ethically objectionable,” he says, they “will indicate that the Obama administration is trying to find some middle ground that gives some respect to the many Americans who find such research repugnant. …If science shows a way out of this ethical dilemma,” he concludes, “we should follow it.” Of course, that would require acknowledging that there is an ethical question in the first place, which is more than many people seem prepared to do.
There’s one more aspect of this whole debate that I can’t quite get past. Here’s how the president concluded his remarks:
There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us – the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like “terminal” and “incurable” are finally retired from our vocabulary.
Is that really our goal? Is medical science rightly understood as the pursuit of immortality? If there’s one truly ironclad argument we can make from Natural Law, it’s that life is a terminal condition. I’m not one to rail against big government, but even I’m skeptical that government (or science) should try to fix that particular problem.
P.S. Also see David Gibson’s take on Obama’s action at Pontifications: he “split the baby.” But does that make him Solomon?
A very thoughtful post, Mollie.
I’m most troubled by the following excerpt you quoted from the President’s speech:
“[I]n recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”
Of course we’re “called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering,” and I’d add that clarion call must be heeded by people of faith, little faith, or no faith at all.
What bothers me is that the President is defining an embryo’s moral worth by the potential medical value it has for others. I don’t think the good of easing human suffering can justify the use of human embryos as a means to an end. Such a view makes an embryo’s value purely utilitarian, and it starts us down a slippery slope where we will begin to devalue the lives of other categories of vulnerable human beings–e.g., the profoundly disabled. Once we use a calculus that balances the dignity and respect due all human beings–including embryos–against the benefit that can be derived for others, we’ll have reached the bottom of the slope.
William — Yes — it’s nice that he acknowledges that serious reservations to this kind of research do exist, but it would be nicer if he didn’t skip right past them in the process of overruling them. “You may not agree, but in my opinion, life would be better if people suffered less.” No kidding!
Mollie,
An excellent analysis. I am somewhat ambivalent about embryonic stem cell research. I would prefer scientists pursue stem-cell research that does not destroy nascent human life. I am also aware that many frozen embryos will be discarded anyway. If they are to be destroyed anyway, maybe it is not so awful that they be used for research (I hope I am not becoming a proportionalist with that statement). But, then again, maybe allowing embryonic stem cell research will encourage the creation of embryos specifically so they can be destroyed.
I hope and pray better methods can be created so that scientists won’t feel they need to destroy embryos for research. I also dislike the “science vs. ideology” meme, as if Science (always personified and deified) is in favor of destroying embryos and Ideology (always personified and demonized) is rigidly and dogmatically against helping people. Science just tells us WHAT can be done. It does not tell us what SHOULD be done. To support destroying embryos for research purposes is an ideology. To oppose destroying embryos is an ideology. It is not a question of science vs. ideology. It is one ideology vs. another ideology.
Here is a broader analysis by Michael Paulson at the Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/
There were a couple of points made in earlier threads – that this order by Obama opens up research on current embryonic stem cells but does not allow federal funding to develop more. Unfortunately, many probably would have preferred even stricter guidelines as a more balanced approach.
I am again reminded of the whole right to life partisan battle. We need to make a distinction between our Catholic Moral Principle and what is achievable via public law/acts in a pluralistic society. I still struggle to see the church present a comprehensive & consistent ethic of life across all issues from universal health care, nuclear proliferation, torture, death penalty, other life issues, poverty, immigration.
As Fr. Hesburgh said so well in 1985, there is a secret majority of Catholics who respect live but allow for exceptions in terms of abortion – rape, abuse, life threatening issues and today a majority of Catholics probably would lean to allowing this research if it is carefully and ethically set up.
I can imagine a discussion in the court of Herod [or in the court of Carthage] about balancing the rights of children against the rights of the court to be safe. I thought, perhaps incorrectly [new biblical insights may have occurred in classes of progressive theology], that Solomon solved the problem quite nicely.
One pregnant wife cried aloud while throwing a bowl of chocolate pudding at the head of her husband: “You men! Just because you can’t see it, you think it’s not there!”.
One wonders how Fr. Hesburgh was able to count “a secret majority”.
For questions of balance, one should remember Cardinal Newman’s dictum: “It is better that millions should be engulfed in a tragedy, that millions should starve, than that one deliberate venial sin be committed in defiance of God”. You see, Newman was concerned about the salvation of souls. As we must be concerned about the salvation of souls such as Mr. Obama’s. That he is not a Catholic, does not mean that he is not to be saved. But he is making it difficult.
Here’s the official perspective of the spiritual leaders of the Catholic Church:
“HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT MERE PRODUCTS TO BE HARVESTED”
WASHINGTON—Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, today called President Obama’s executive order on embryonic stem cell research “a sad victory of politics over science and ethics.”
Under the order, for the first time in U.S. history, federal tax dollars will be used to encourage researchers to destroy live human embryos for stem cell research. Cardinal Rigali also cited a January 16 letter in which Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, urged President-elect Obama not to issue such an order. Cardinal Rigali’s statement follows:
“This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested. It also disregards the values of millions of American taxpayers who oppose research that requires taking human life.
Finally, it ignores the fact that ethically sound means for advancing stem cell science and medical treatments are readily available and in need of increased support.
Cardinal George writes:
“If the government wants to invest in hope for cures and promote ethically sound science, it should use our tax monies for research that everyone, at every stage of human development, can live with.”
http://www.usccb.org/
‘..that everyone, at every stage of human development, can live with.”
Right, so where is the plan for those miscarriaged?
Mr. DeHas,
Thanks for the link to analysis by Michael Paulson at the Boston Globe. I thought the statement of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America was interesting.
“The Jewish tradition places great value upon human life and its preservation. The Torah commands us to treat and cure the ill and to defeat disease wherever possible; to do this is to be the Creator’s partner in safeguarding the created. The traditional Jewish perspective thus emphasizes that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life. Stem cell research is consistent with and serves these moral and noble goals. The UOJCA appreciates President Obama’s decision to have the federal government support stem cell research, a position the UOJCA has long advocated. We urge the President, and the leadership of the National Institutes of Health, to ensure that robust ethical guidelines and oversight bodies are put in place to ensure this important research is conducted in the most appropriate fashion – balancing science with ethics. We recognize that those who oppose this research and this executive order do so upon the basis of deeply and sincerely held moral beliefs. So too, the UOJCA supports the array of stem cell research options because of our deeply held moral and religious traditions. We commend all those who engage in this important debate with respect and civility for those with whom they disagree; that is the only type of debate this issue deserves.”
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/
The Jewish tradition places a very high value on healing the sick and alleviating their suffering.
On the status of the embryo, the classic Jewish position is expressed in the follow terms by Rabbi Moshe Dovid Tendler:
“The Judeo-biblical tradition does not grant moral status to an embryo before forty days of gestation. Such an embryo has the same status as male and female gametes, and its destruction prior to implantation is of the same moral import as the ‘wasting of sees”…The proposition that human hood begins at zygote formation, even in vitro, is without basis in [Jewish] biblical moral theology.”
“The Jewish tradition respects the effort of the Vatican and other Christians faiths to erect fences that will protect the biblical prohibition against abortion. But a fence that prevents the cure of fatal diseases must not be erected, for then the loss is greater than the benefit.
“Often the argument of natural law is brought into this type of discussion. Catholic bioethicist Daniel Callahan tells that the limitations of natural-law reasoning as championed by some religious traditions, especially the assertions made by proponents of natural law that the defense of the value of embryonic life does not rely on religious claims. Callahan wrote, “In practice, I can’t but note, [such arguments] don’t get very far with those outside of same
religious tradition.”
I think answering prayers is above the president’s pay grade.
This is bad science.
Literally — in the moral sense.
Obama made a very poor case for his decision. Indeed, I found myself (an Obama supporter) cringing while hearing a snippet of his comments tonight on The News Hour.
I condemn abortion because it involves the deliberate killing of human offspring. I condemn ESCR for the same reason. Regarding abortions for rape (including incest) and life of the mother, it’s not my call. I can condemn them in the abstract, as a matter of principle and respect for human life. Practically speaking, though, I can only leave each instance to God for judgment.
Bad science.
Bad presidential decision.
…and the Stanford U. medical researcher tonight on The News Hour:
…free of restraints imposed by politics, religion, ethics…
God forbid!
Joseph — I’ve heard scientists saying similar things on this topic. I’m uncomfortable with how much they sound like the mad scientists in 1950s horror films.
At the risk of being called a broken record, I ask:
Where does a Pope or a council of bishops pronounce officially that killing of an embryo is killing a person with a right to life? So far I haven’t found an unambiguous answer. JOhn Paul II straddled the fence — in the same document he said that the embryo at the earliest stage might not be persons, but he also said “human beings” have a right not to be aborted.
Where are the official *arguments* of the RCC which are meant to persuade both Catholic and non-Catholics that the embryo has a human’s right to life? Again, I have never found any. There are no official arguments
But some things are clear:
Taking a poll of bishops or rabbis or theologians of any sort or any combination thereof is not *evidence* of the embryo’s right to life. It is only evidence of what they think.
Being sympathetic to the tiny life is not evidence in favor of the tiny acreature’s having a right to life. Such sympathy is evidence only of a kindly heart.
Neither is deep sympathy with a mother who is having hard times evidence that the embryo does *not* have a right to life. No doubt President Obama knows that, but neither has he offered us any counter- arguments why killing embryos is morally acceptable.
When will this country get down to the essential issues: What is a person? How can you tell one when you find one? Which persons, if any, do not have a right to life?
Yes, this issue includes some hideously difficult biological/psychological/philosophical questions. But difficulty in answering them is not, I think, an excuse for not getting down to them.
Just for the record, I think that the strongest arguments support the President’s stance, that is, the earliest stages of the gestation process do not include a person with a right to life. What a pity he doesn’t seem to know the arguments.
Ann asked …. “When will this country get down to the essential issues: What is a person?”
I’m not sure the country can decide that, as the answer isn’t a metter of fact.
I was just reading a lecture by Keith Ward about Buddhism and aortion (http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=498) – their ideas are different from Christians about when life begins. Not even all Christians or all Catholics can agree on that subject. People who don’t believe in God might have different criteria – we’ve been experimenting on animals in science for a long time, but there are people who would say that a cat or a chimp is more of a “person” than an embryo, as they’re self conscious and have the capacity to feel fear and pain, unlike an embryo.
The cavalier attitudes of President Obama continue to amaze. Now he assures us that scientific research on stem cells will be carried out responsibly. Of course he also claims to see no conflict here between science and ethics. So rather than spend too much time worrying about responsibility he urges us to launch an “anything goes” science policy.
Crystal –
The fact that we disagree about what a person is, is no reason to ignore the question. As to the arguments at the end of your post, I think they’re on the right track — they appeal to evidence, and they attempt to distinguish different sorts of animals on the basis of what they are capable of doing.
By the way, although the Buddhists hold that there really isn’t a person at all, many also believe in the transmigration of souls, that the essential part of us goes through a cycle of different sorts of lives until release from the cycle is achieved. So to kill a fetus does not ental the being not ever living a full human life. They reappear. for instance, the current Dalai Lama is a reincarnation of earlier Dalai Lamas.
I’m not really sure this question will ever be settled. If it is, i suspect it will take a couple of generations of hard philosophical thinking plus more biological and psychological data. But that is no reason not to try. It took generations to rid this country of slavery, and anti-Semitism is only now on the wane after 2000 years.
Ann Oliver asks the right questions, in my opinion and deserves more attention.
But Obama may have a point because if he takes another route all he will get is interminable discussion, rancor and controversy.
Also when he says that we should make terminal and incurable a thing of the past does not mean that he is saying that we should be immortal.
Ann – thanks for your answer :)
I agree with you that the question of what constitutes a person is important. We’ll all agree that harming some persons to help others is wrong. I just hope we can all, given our different viewpoints, find an answer to the question of what = “a person”.
Crystal –
I’m not even sure that it is always wrong to harm some people to help others. Consider what we require of our military personall, knowing that some will be killed or maimed. Is this right?
Sometimes I think Western ethics, specifically the Catholic kind, needs to be re-thought from the bottom up. I might add that I’m also quite conservative in some ways — I think, for instance, that natural law ethics of the basic Aristotelian kind is still the best sort of ethics yet.)
This is such a bad science…and simply a bad choice of how to distribute resources…even if we table discussion about killing a fellow member of our species for her medical benefit. Consider:
1. Not a single therapy has been derived from embryo-destructive research…and this despite it going on in foreign and domestic states and via private funds. And we aren’t even close to getting one.
2. Dozens of therapies that have helped hundreds of thousands of people have been produced by non-embryonic stem cell research. Ironically, the limitations of the Bush administration have produced BETTER results in that we have spent out money and time and effort on sources of stem cells which actually work. (Funny how doing the ethical thing often works out this way.)
3. The last argument for doing ESCR was that they are the ‘best’ kinds of stem cells in terms of their pluripotency, but we not have at least two safe ways of procuring such cells: IPS cells and amniotic fluid stem cells. Game over.
This is why the headlines about Obama ‘ending the war on science’ or finally ‘taking politics and ideology’ out of this process completely misses what is actual going on here. It seems that Obama, like his predecessor (and most of the country), is using the debate over stem cells as a proxy for fighting the abortion war. Sick persons–and the science needed to help them–are twin casualties of this war.
The President, with his usual rhetorical power, spoke (like Detective Friday) of basing decisions on “facts.” Mr. Camosy has given a number of facts. Are they in dispute?
I share Mr. Jaglowicz’s extreme discomfort about the Stanford researcher who seems to have stepped out of a Kubrick film.
Today’s Times has a piece: “Obama puts his own spin on mix of science with politics”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10obama.html?hp
Rhetorically powerful spin-masters pose their own peculiar dangers. I certainly hope that Obama possesses the humility and self-scrutiny of his hero, Lincoln.
Fr. Imbelli – facts are facts; but interpretation can lead in many directions. Here is a more balanced approach to these various “facts” from PEW Research:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=316
Ms. Olivier,
You wrote: “Where does a Pope or a council of bishops pronounce officially that killing of an embryo is killing a person with a right to life? So far I haven’t found an unambiguous answer. JOhn Paul II straddled the fence — in the same document he said that the embryo at the earliest stage might not be persons, but he also said “human beings” have a right not to be aborted.”
Was the Pope’s statement in Evangelium vitae? I’d be very interested in the citation. Thanks.
Here is an article of interest on the topic by William Saletan of Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2213287/
Tony
Ann–
You have raised many interesting issues in yet another thoughtful post.
Steven Florent beat me to the punch, so to speak, about whether you were referencing Evangelium Vitae. That encyclical, IMHO, contains compelling arguments, both theological and secular, for recognizing that human life should be protected from the moment of conception. It’s true that JPII doesn’t get bogged down in the issue of when ensoulment takes place; for him, the issue is always human dignity and human equality, a theme which I think he brilliantly develops throughout the encyclical. Here’s paragraph 61, for example:
“Some people try to justify abortion by claiming that the result of conception, at least up to a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life. But in fact, ‘from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and … modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the programme of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act’ [quoting the CDF's Declaration on Procured Abortion]. Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide ‘a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person?’ [quoting the CDF's Donum Vitae].
Furthermore, what is at stake is so important that, from the standpoint of moral obligation, the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo. Precisely for this reason, over and above all scientific debates and those philosophical affirmations to which the Magisterium has not expressly committed itself, the Church has always taught and continues to teach that the result of human procreation, from the first moment of its existence, must be guaranteed that unconditional respect which is morally due to the human being in his or her totality and unity as body and spirit: ‘The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life’ [quoting Donum Vitae].”
Not a single therapy has been derived from embryo-destructive research…and this despite it going on in foreign and domestic states and via private funds. And we aren’t even close to getting one.
Scientists have been working with adult stem cells since the 1960s, but have only been working with embryonic stem-cells for about 10 years.
Ann, I too would like to hear some more of your reasoning on embryos and personhood. Evangelium Vitae doesn’t (to my reading) have the kind of room for doubt that would make this research licit, it seems to me. (I am troubled by a “creeping vitalism” I see in some church pronouncements, such as the growing doubts of brain death and organ donation–at a certain point a body is just a body, without a soul.)
Just an aisde, Mollie’s original post was very good and thoughtful, I thought, and I think this discussion has by and large been very constructive. I like Archbishop Wuerl’s statement that the Obama decision was “disheartening,” because it is very discoruaging, but I think the main problem was his attempted justifications. Exceedingly lame.
Trying to settle the moral issue by attempting to define personhood puts us on very dangerous terrain. Quite frankly, I don’t want some “other” defining my personhood, nor do I believe I have the qualifications to determine some “other’s” personhood.
Arguments about personhood, human, individual, etc. — all of these approaches take us off on a tangent.
The biological fact is that fertilization results in a new physical, concrete reality that, if left to natural processes of development, comes out eventually as either a “baby” or as a “spontaneous abortion.” In either case, we are talking about human offspring.
All of the philosophy and theology in the world will not be able to adequately address various intellectual constructs mentioned above. Opinions will differ based on religious background and other factors.
I fear that Obama (whom I still support in other areas) has unwittingly unleashed a brave new world of unfettered science.
Dangerous.
(BTW, I think that geriatrics lose their humanity and personhood. We don’t know the specifics of this deterioration, but we can rely on unadulterated science to eventually figure it out. After all, scientists don’t need to be preoccupied with politics, ethics, religion, morality, etc.)
The idea that trying to define personhood puts us on some kind of dangerous slippery slope which will result in the killing of the sick, the elderly, and the disabled is, in my viewpoint, plain silly. We already have a working definition of person, which is “a human being who has been born and is alive.” That covers the sick the elderly, and the disabled. It is the”pro-life” movement, by declaring a fertilized egg a person, that is trying to redefine personhood.
Never in the United States was a fertilized egg or an embryo or a fetus declared to be a person. Abortion, when it was against the law, was not homicide. What may have unintended consequences are the efforts, already well underway in the “fetal rights” movement, to start treating a fetus as a person with legal rights.
If the Catholic Church is correct, then a fertilized egg is a person (or at least must be treated like a person), but that is a religious doctrine, not a principle that we make secular laws by.
First an observation on the “politics” of science. The term chutzpah comes to mind. One might argue that conservatives have infused morality and ideology into decisions about science policy, but progressives have done more to actually shut down scientific inquiry when it doesn’t have the potential to support their political agendas.
On this issue, I found it interesting that as soon as the announcement was made there were scientists indicating that it didn’t go far enough – in two areas specifically.
First, the necessity to develop new lines of embryos. The idea that now scientists will suddenly be able to use thousands of frozen embryos from fertility clinics and other sources is, according to them, something of a pipe dream, given the lack of scientific control and rigor related to their creation and storage.
Second, cloning – Apparently, and I guess obviously, the most likely and beneficial use of embryonic stem cells would be from those that are genetically identical to the patient.
Anthony–
Thanks for the link to the Saletan article, which ties back directly to Mollie’s original post. Though Saletan has always been candid about his pro-choice, pro-ESCR beliefs, he’s also always been candid about the moral ambiguity inherent in the consequences of his beliefs. I hope everyone takes the time to read the article.
Joseph Jaglowicz said:
“The biological fact is that fertilization results in a new physical, concrete reality that, if left to natural processes of development, comes out eventually as either a “baby” or as a “spontaneous abortion.” In either case, we are talking about human offspring.”
This is not true. A fertilized ovum that implants into a receptive uterus may result in human offspring, if it does not first miscarry.
If you take a petri dish full of frozen embryos out of a freezer and let it thaw, and otherwise fail to intervene in any way, the fertilized ovum will stop growing in short order. That is a biological fact. And if the people who gave their consent and biological material to bring them into existence have ANY expectation that they MIGHT want to use them to create a pregnancy, they will NEVER agree to letting them be thawed in this manner, or used for purposes of research.
The inevitability argument has some resonance in the debate over abortion. It has virtually none in the debate over ESCR. These particular clusters of cells are never going to become anybody’s offspring no matter what else happens to them.
David N.–
“Person” is a legal term, and like all legal terms, its definition can change legislatively. Today a “person” may be defined as “a human being who has been born and is alive,” but that’s not written in stone. William Saletan warns of the ethical deadening that might possibly set in on life issues if science is given free reign, and changes in the law might follow. I’m not saying changes will occur, only that the legal definition of “person,” like all legal definitions, is fluid.
As to the Catholic Church’s position, even if all the religious language were stripped away from Evangelium Vitae, I think the document that would remain would still be a powerful secular brief for the argument that the ESCR debate is ultimately about human equality and our common humanity, and whether in light of those principles (which I don’t pretend are crystal clear to everyone) it is ever morally permissible to destroy a living human being in the interest of scientific inquiry, even scientific inquiry directed at alleviating human suffering.
William,
As I point out every now and then, and as some have mentioned over on Vox Nova, the source of embryos for ESCR is fertility clinics, and one rarely hears a peep from any pro-life source against in vitro fertilization and the practices of fertility clinics. Even now that “Octomom” is in the news and the practice of creating and freezing more embryos than will probably be needed is scarcely criticized. So it seems a little odd to me that there is a firestorm in the pro-life community over what Obama has done. I am not sure why it is more reprehensible to extract stem cells from an embryo than to dispose of it in some other way or to let it sit in a freezer until it is too old to be used.
The disturbing consequences of genetic manipulation and stem-cell research may be brought about just as easily, within a few years, by the use of other technologies that don’t rely on embryos. But for people who really care about the personhood and equality of fertilized eggs, it is fertility treatments as currently practiced, not stem-cell research, that creates embryos only to have them destroyed one way or another.
By the way, everyone knew this was coming. So why was all that effort wasted on an anti-FOCA campaign?
It seems to me a lot of the pro-life agenda is based on what stirs up emotions. Abortion is of course the big issue. Stem-cell research has some support from Republican pro-lifers (McCain, Hatch, and a few others), but nobody really cares very much what goes on in fertility clinics. And nobody at all cares that 60 to 80 percent of embryos die within about 10 days of conception. There may be little that can be done to prevent it (although who knows?) but to the best of my knowledge there is not even a prayer for these little guys.
William,
I too find Mollie’s post illuminating. She implicitly makes a distinction between technical know-how and professional integrity on the one hand, and a morally good judgment on the other. One may know precisely what is involved in creating an atomic bomb, and refuse to fudge any of the details and likewise refuse to falsify one’s findings before congress, but whether one ought to create and use that bomb is another kind of judgment altogether. Of course you and Saletan both hit on the move towards a utilitarian ethic. Like you, I wonder whether the argument over the embryo is a precursor to an argument about the mentally infirm and the elderly. Certainly anyone who has visited a nursing home could, if so inclined, make an argument that many of the residents are no longer “persons” or at least the person they were. The difference is rooted in tense: with the embryo, we are speaking of a person in the future; with the elderly and infirm, we are speaking of a person in the past. All of this also suggests limitations on who is truly worthy of our love, as if love ought to be based upon merit.
T.
Can anyone tell why we talk about what we are talking and not the fact that 26,500 children die every day and it can be prevented??????
“Today, over 26,500 children died around the world
Author and Page informationby Anup ShahThis Page Last Updated Thursday, January 31, 2008
This page: http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-over-26500-children-died-around-the-world.
To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links, use the print version:
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/715
Around the world, some 26,500 children die every day.
That is equivalent to:
1 child dying every 3 seconds
18 children dying every minute
A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring every week
An Iraq-scale death toll every 15–36 days
Almost 10 million children dying every year
Some 60 million children dying between 2000 and 2006
The silent killers are poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. In spite of the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage.
Why is this tragedy not in the headlines?
UNICEF’s 2000 Progress of Nations report tried to put these numbers into some perspective:
The continuation of this suffering and loss of life contravenes the natural human instinct to help in times of disaster. Imagine the horror of the world if a major earthquake were to occur and people stood by and watched without assisting the survivors! Yet every day, the equivalent of a major earthquake killing over 30,000 young children occurs to a disturbingly muted response. They die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.
— A spotty scorecard, UNICEF, Progress of Nations 2000
Unfortunately, it seems that the world still does not notice. It might be reasonable to expect that death and tragedy on this scale should be prime time headlines news. Yet, these issues only surface when there are global meetings or concerts (such as the various G8 summits, the Make Poverty History campaign in 2005, etc).
Furthermore, year after year, we witness that when those campaigns end and the meetings conclude, so does the mainstream media coverage. It feels as though even when there is some media attention, the ones who suffer are not the ones that compel the mainstream to report, but instead it is the movement of the celebrities and leaders of the wealthy countries that makes this issue newsworthy.
Even rarer in the mainstream media is any thought that wealthy countries may be part of the problem too. The effects of international policies, the current form of globalization, and the influence the wealthy countries have on these processes is rarely looked at.
Instead, promises and pledges from the wealthy, powerful countries, and the corruption of the poorer ones—who receive apparently abundant goodwill—make the headlines; the repeated broken promises, the low quality and quantity of aid, and conditions with unfair strings attached do not.
Accountability of the recipient countries is often mentioned when these issues touch the mainstream. Accountability of the roles that international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF, and their funders (the wealthy/powerful countries), rarely does. The risk is that citizens of these countries get a false sense of hope creating the misleading impression that appropriate action is taken in their names.
It may be harsh to say the mainstream media is one of the many causes of poverty, as such, but the point here is that their influence is enormous. Silence, as well as noise, can both have an effect.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-over-26500-children-died-around-the-world#Whyisthistragedynotintheheadlines
This thread is about stem-cell research, Bill. That’s why.
Thank you for posting the link to Saletan’s article, Tony — I might have missed it, and it’s very pertinent. I hadn’t thought about the similarities to the debate around torture/interrogation policy, but the parallels are insightful. I second (third?) the recommendation, if anyone hasn’t read it yet…
David N:
Please help me out.
Do you dismiss all ethical concerns about ESCR out of hand, even when they are argued apart from ‘Catholic religious doctrine’? I thought Saletan made several perfectly legitimate points unburdened from ‘Catholic religious doctrine.’
What is ‘silly’ about such concerns? What is gained by disparaging the concerns of those who struggle with this issue?
David, surely you aren’t equating modern day stem cell reach with the development of bone marrow transplants?
We certainly do not define personhood in terms of birth. There is a law against fetal homicide which can merit the death penalty. Birth is also an arbitrary line to use in terms of moral status…changing location in space or on whom one is totally dependent shouldn’t gain or lower moral status.
The claim that the most helpless members of the human species are persons and deserve special care might indeed be based on a religious doctrine…it certainly is part of a preferential option for the least ones. But one need not describe it in these terms. One could just say ‘all fellow organisms that are members of the species homo sapiens are persons’ or ‘all substances of a rational/conscious/relational nature’ are persons. One doesn’t need a religious doctrine to justify those claims anymore than would be needed to justify personhood in general.
“By the way, everyone knew this was coming. So why was all that effort wasted on an anti-FOCA campaign?”
Given the apparent personal enmity towards those who hold a contrary view to the speechwriter’s on federal funding for ESCR, what would you have suggested the pro-life movement have done? Seriously. I mean, these prepared remarks go beyond some sort of amicable disagreement but display an active post-modern hostility to dialectic as it has been understood for over two millennia, natural law, and morality in the public square with its straw men fallacies, attacks on the motives of those with contrary views, and messianic promises of immortality and fulfillment of hopes and prayers. By the speechwriter’s own admission, there was purportedly “much discussion, debate and reflection” on the topic and ultimately the decision was based on some sort of determination of a “consensus” of the “majority” of the author’s constituents. What could the pro-life movement have done to influence this decision? Also, this, unlike FOCA, is an executive order not a law, and thus not amenable to appeals to one’s local legislators.
Here is an update from the Michael Paulson link that Bill DeHaas provided. FWIW.
“UPDATE: Kristin Williams, at Faith in Public Life, e-mails:
” “Some groups are obviously opposed to embryonic stem cell research, but a lot of religious groups are in favor of using embryos that would be discarded otherwise to conduct potentially life-saving research. (Not everybody is reporting this well!) In addition to the groups you cited, the Presbyterian Church (USA) supports ESC research, as do the Episcopalians, the United Methodists and other mainline denominations. Also interesting is the Mormon stance—though the LDS church doesn’t have an official position, Sen. Hatch has been an outspoken supporter of ESC research.”
” And Dan Gilgoff, at God & Country, posts a list of religious guests at the White House ceremony today — Jews and mainline Protestants, it appears.”
http://www.stemcellresearchfacts.com/index.html
Beyond the disheartening news of this executive order, I believe that all of us, even those who are not troubled or opposed to ESCR, should be concerned about the marginalization of religiously informed opinion in the public square implicit in the President’s remarks. The false distinction made between science and ideology in this case could be extended – just substitute the convenient “good” for “science”. E.g. the reversal of the Mexico City policy represents the triumph of “health care” over ideology. The ending of vouchers for Washington DC public school students is “quality education” over ideology. Etc. It’s Orwellian.
I too thought Mollie’s thread opening was accurate.
However, it strikes me that the President’s decsion is congruent with the value structure of the secular worold(or post-secular world) of today and also , if reports here are correct, of many significant other religious groups.
Somewhere back in the the thread was the question of how to civilly engage them (and, I’d add, successfully enmgage them?)
Describing the decsion as Orwellian or simply saying it’s bad science (that won’t do much to convince the science community at the signing), we need to reopen real dialogue to move ahead or be in danger of talking to ourselves, no matter how correctly.
Bob, I agree with you about the value structure of the post-secular world, and the president’s aderence thereto. (Or does it rather come from his mainline Protestant religious background? — one of the reasons I posted that quote about the mainline support for this decision). And I agree about the importance of communication and dialogue.
However, if something is in fact Orwellian, it’s not always wrong – in fact it may be both right and necessary – to name it for what it is. Our civility needs to be broad enough to admit candid assertions. Nor does candor preclude dialogue; the basis for genuine dialogue is a full and frank acknowledgement of differences.
At any rate, we’re not the ones who are marginalizing or disrespecting opponents in the ESCR debate – it is the President and his surrogates who are presenting this false dichotomy of “science” and “ideology”. This rhetoric is both dishonest and disrespectful. Ironically enough, it’s an example of the the sort of demogoguery we should expect from … an ideologue(!) – in this case, an ideologue trying to wrap himself in the mantle of science. Is this the way to transcend differences?
What is ’silly’ about such concerns? What is gained by disparaging the concerns of those who struggle with this issue?
Mike McG,
I think there are tremendous ethical and practical concerns about any research in which scientists “play God” with genetic materials, but I was addressing the mentality that maintains Obama is in favor of infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia, and the concern that embryonic stem-cell research puts us on a slippery slope to denying the personhood of the disabled and puts us on a path to killing the sick and the elderly. That is what I think is silly.
As I said, it is not those in favor of stem-cell research or abortion who want to redefine what constitutes a person. Even the profoundly disabled are currently considered persons, along with anyone who has been born and is alive. I see no trend whatsoever to eliminate the disabled, the sick, and the elderly. For decades now the trend has gone the other way– to keep strengthening the rights of people with mental and physical disabilities. The political left is often mocked for bending over backwards to protect the rights and sensibilities of the disabled (or should I say the other-abled, or the differently-abled or the physically-challenged?) to be and do anything they want to. (Whether true or not, it is reported that advocates for the disabled demanded that all subway stations in the New York city be equipped with elevators for the disabled, and then-mayor Giuliani pointed out that it would be less expensive to provide every disabled person with a chauffeur and a limousine. All New York city busses are “kneeling” busses that can accommodate wheelchairs, at no small expense. I am not making a judgment here one way or another on these kinds of things. I am only pointing out that there is no trend toward doing away with the sick, the elderly, and the disabled. Even things like the Terri Schiavo case and assisted suicide are about honoring the wishes of the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.)
I think the need to extract stem cells from embryos in order to do stem-cell research will be short-lived (we already have possible alternatives, which opponents of embryonic stem-cell research are promoting), but I also think that we are on the verge of the kind of genetic manipulation that will make the difference between a fertilized egg and a simple somatic cell irrelevant, since it will be possible to coax a simple somatic cell into transforming itself into anything that is wanted or needed.
If there is a danger here, it seems to me it is that once the human genome can be manipulated, it will be, with unpredictable consequences. And I don’t think there is any way to stop it. I think it is not how the research is done that will be the problem. I think that what may be done with the results of the research may be the real problem. Are we smart enough now, or will we ever be, to take human evolution into our own hands?
I voted for Barack Obama knowing full well that his stance on stem cell research was wholly inadequate and his stance on abortion was even worse. i reasoned and still do that the last eight years and more have been a disaster for life issues taken as a whole: the wink and nod to greed, the waging of preemptive war, the use of torture, the winnowing down of civil liberties, and the desire to de legitimize the science of global warming and environmental concerns.
Still, the president’s arguments for the reversal on embryonic stem cell use is disheartening to me.
Although I have always wondered why George Bush’s position on this seemed to evoke such glowing regard from the Pro Life movement when the real moral question was once removed i.e. in vitro fertilization.
I can only hope that Obama’s stated desire to improve the condition of middle and lower income families with a more comprehensive approach to health care, education and standard of living will make abortion a rarer occurance. Maybe I am nieve. When I voted the viable alternative (John McCain) seemed worse although I believe he has served his country with honor.
There has to be a way for us as Catholics to be able to start a dialogue first with our own people and then maybe others about the inherent dignity of human life and the reverence that dignity deserves.
I am a prison chaplain and often find myself in discussions with fervent Catholics who are ferrvent pro life supportors but who cannot embrace the rest of Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment. It has always seemed to me that the acceptance of torture or indiscriminate war or inadequate health care or conditions of poverty coarsens everyone’s sense of the dignity of all life (innocent or not) and that is the real problem with all the life issues.
There were some nationally televised commercials from a group whose name/organization escapes me the theme of which were always LIFE IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. These commrecials tried to convey the notion of the dignity of life in the womb and outside and that there were alternatives to abortion. Does anyone remember these commercials (maybe 10 years ago).
Sorry to ramble on here but Bob Nunz’s comments above triggered my own sense that we have to find a way to talking to and educating people in seeing all life as to be reverenced. Simply working to elect one person or group, lobbying for one supreme court justice or many, or enacting one law or a whole slew doesn’t seem to me making headway.
By the way yesterday’s secular press highlighted as story from Brazil that doesn’t help us:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
I apologize if this is off message…
President and his surrogates who are presenting this false dichotomy of “science” and “ideology”. This rhetoric is both dishonest and disrespectful.
Jim,
I haven’t had the time to analyze Obama’s remarks, here’s a starting point for a response to your observation — the Publisher’s Weekly review of Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science:
I also remember, as another example of ideology versus science, that the World Health Organization had to speak out against a statement by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican’s Council for the Family, that the HIV virus that causes AIDS can “easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.” That is of course not true.
Regarding ideology and science, it’s interesting to me that a poll was taken of members of the House and Senate some time ago, and Democrats overwhelming believed that global warming was a real threat and changes in climate were the result of human activity. Republicans overwhelmingly believed the opposite. As I have asked before, why in the world should party affiliation determine what you believe to be scientifically true or false? You would think the two parties could agree on the facts, but differ on what should be done in response to them. But a great deal of the time, it is ideology that determines what people believe the facts to be.
Somewhere in this lengthy discussion, someone wrote that 60% to 80% of fertilized eggs are lost. That is a mere repetition of a vague statement supposedly supported with reference to an article which did not say that. Repetition of an error does not make the error true. [It is not impossible that there is confusion between eggs and fertilized eggs. Evidently most human eggs are lost in menstruation].
Perhaps instead of demanding proof that a fertilized egg is a person, might one might ask “how do you know it is not a person?”. If the possibility is but one in one million, are you willing to take the risk of killing it? Why? What is gained?
What foxes me is why reputable [or reputed] Catholics are willing to take the risk? I find, like the other Gabriel who just gave up commenting here, the suggestion of an attitude that if a bishop says it is so, it isn’t. May I recommend reading of William Oddie’s book THE CROCKFORD FILE; it describes the dangers besetting an organization that wanders too far from its Christian roots.
An attitude that confuses social work with saving souls.
And some clarification, some food for thought may be gained by reading Dr. Robert Jay Lifton’s THE NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. He describes how serious. thoughtful doctors were seduced – step by step = into using human beings in experiments.
Mr. Nickol’s “creeping vitalism” is a curious phrase.
Mr. Nickols writes:
“I also remember, as another example of ideology versus science, that the World Health Organization had to speak out against a statement by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican’s Council for the Family, that the HIV virus that causes AIDS can “easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom.” That is of course not true”.
Stanley Fish warned himself against using the phrase “of course”. He found that generally it is not “of course’.
Alas for your statement: the HIVirus can pass through a condom, even an unbroken one. But there is the question of torn condoms, condoms incorrectly used, and the escape of HIVirus infected semen around the condom. This is the reason that users are warned that there is no “safe” sex[ual activity], only “safer sex”. Again if the chance of being infected be but one in one million, who would take the chance?
TK,
Excellent message! Over on Vox Nova, those who were against Obama prior to the election are constantly haranguing those who supported Obama, saying, “See what Obama has done! It’s all your fault. Didn’t we tell you so?” But it seems to me that Obama has not done anything (not yet) that he didn’t clearly promise to do during the campaign. The reversal of the Mexico City Policy and the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research may disappoint those Catholics who voted for Obama, but unless they were simply not paying attention or were extraordinarily naive, they took such things into account when they made up their minds to vote for him. Those Catholics who put their faith in Obama may wind up regretting it, but in my opinion he has done absolutely nothing unexpected yet, so there is no reason for that faith to be shattered.
Regarding the disturbing story from Brazil that you link to, one wonders if the Church leaders there have ever heard of the word compassion and have even the vaguest idea of what it means.
The Nazi analogy has been invoked quite a bit, and quite unjustly and incorrectly, I think.
I’d also dispute the Orwellian epithet. While I largely disagreed with Obama’s decision, and its rationale, I think it’s perilous to argue in absolutist religious terms, or disparaging the decision as somehow “anti-religious.” The reality is that in fact most believers and religious traditions do not see this in the same terms the Catholic Church does, and they bring very good and bona fide arguments to bear. Disparaging Protestants and Mormons and Jews as benighted, and their teachings and traditions as post-modern or totalitarian corruptions, is shallow, at best, and something I don’t think Catholics would appreciate were the show on the other foot.
Moreover, pro-lifers have to get their strategies straight: If you protest that judicial decisions overide the will of the public, which would like to restrict abortion, then you must also (I would think) have to live with the public’s views when they support ESCR, in this case.
PS: I’m the “David” who referred to “creeping vitalism,” so don’t blame Nickol for my penny-ante coinage.
MAT said: What could the pro-life movement have done to influence this decision? Also, this, unlike FOCA, is an executive order not a law, and thus not amenable to appeals to one’s local legislators.
But — unless I misunderstand — the order doesn’t establish funding for ESCR; it just removes the ban that prohibits it. Congress still has to order the funding. And the Dept. of HHS is supposed to be putting together regulations now, aren’t they? The order just gets things rolling.
David Nickol — my disappointment with Obama in this case isn’t what he did (which as you say was predictable), but the language he used to explain the decision, and the context it’s been placed in. It’s careless about the differences of opinion he has pledged to respect.
Grant,
I reserve the right to disagree with you or anyone else here. You are certainly not perfect nor are you fair. I know what the thread is about and so far it is a very good one. My statement is that we need to be wary that it does not dominate the debate like the other abortion threads while the born children rarely occupy a post here.
You have had your contributions of incivility here. You have to be able to take what goes with the territory. One does not have to play by your rules. They are too often arbitrary.
Gabriel,
No one would object to someone pointing out that condoms do not protect as well as abstinence and that there is always a risk. However, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo said that HIV can easily pass through the “net” formed by a condom. That’s false. It’s a matter of empirical fact.
Again if the chance of being infected be but one in one million, who would take the chance?
The odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower are 2,232 to 1. The odds of drowning in a bathtub are 685,000 to 1. Those odds are far worse than sex with a condom. My warning to you: never bathe.
David (Gibson):
You write: “If you protest that judicial decisions overide the will of the public, which would like to restrict abortion, then you must also (I would think) have to live with the public’s views when they support ESCR, in this case.”
I suppose that depends on what you mean by “live with.” The argument against “judicial usurpation” has been that the Supreme Court should have left the abortion controversy to democratic deliberation instead of preempting such deliberation with a dubious interpretation of the Constitution. This is a procedural point, and an important one. Of course, democratic deliberation is open-ended, and it is quite possible (though I think unlikely) that we would find ourselves in about the same situation with respect to abortion law even if there had been no Roe.
Yes, most Americans support ESCR, and that means that American who don’t must decide whether to accept the disagreement as a tolerable annoyance (“I can live with it”); move to another country or organize some sort of rebellion (“I won’t live with it”); or devote themselves to persuading their fellow citizens (“I must live with it — for now — but I needn’t give up”).
Bill: the problem with your previous comment is not that it “disagrees.” It’s out of line to object to a conversation simply because it’s not about something else — which is what you did above. That’s not an arbitrary guideline, and I’ll enforce it here. And no, you don’t have to play by anyone’s rules — but you also don’t have to participate in this conversation, especially if its topic does not meet your approval.
Matt: I’d go for Door No. 3. But I think this dilemma covers more than just abortion. Consider Prop 8, for example. Gay mariage opponents hailed it. What if it goes the other way next time? If one is going to live by the ballot box, you can’t complin–it seems to me–when it goes the other way, or say that something should be undone because it is against the natural law. You can’t have it both ways, is what I’m saying. You can use natural law (and morality, and religious tradition ect) as tools in the political process. But not as objective “truths” that must be enacted by any means possible–unless of course you think that is legit. Which many on both sides would do. If slvery were legalized, e.g., mnay would be happy for the SCOTUS to overturn it with a reverse Dred Scott. No?
I’m the “David” [Gibson] who referred to “creeping vitalism,” so don’t blame Nickol for my penny-ante coinage.
I just want to make it clear that the term I actually did coin was “creeping Vitameatavegaminism.” It’s something altogether different.
David G.,
Many people who are committed to natural-law arguments are also committed to democratic process, and probably a majority of Americans believe that right and wrong, good and bad law, are not entirely determined by majority opinion. There are, of course, pragmatists whose commitment to democracy is not only a political philosophy, but also an epistemology, an ethics, and a replacement for metaphysics. For everyone else, though, the problem is how to relate a belief in democratic process to other fundamental political commitments. Some, perhaps most, would say that we have to “live with” the determinations of democratic process no matter what — at least until they are relaced by other democratic determinations. Others would say that a democracy is OK only so long as its collective decisions correspond to truth and justice, and that nondemocratic government that respects truth and justice (as determined by natural law, divine revelation, common sense, special intuition, etc.) is better than democratic government that doesn’t. Still others would say that democracy may be trusted with most important political questions and all trivial ones, but that certain very important questions need nonnegotiable answers, for which one must be prepared to sacrifice democratic procedure. So: the relationship of belief in democracy with other kinds of political belief is not at all straightforward. There is nothing hypocritical, self-contradicting, or otherwise unseemly about welcoming the result of a particular referendum, and arguing against the result of another referendum on the same issue by appealing to natural-law arguments.
There has to be a way for us as Catholics to be able to start a dialogue first with our own people and then maybe others about the inherent dignity of human life and the reverence that dignity deserves.
Ok, let’s start with the “brute fact” of the matter — a microphotograph of the conceptus or blastocyst at a stage of development in which it may be used as a source of stem cells. I wonder what arguments would be persuasive when confronted with such an image?
Ok, let’s start with the “brute fact” of the matter — a microphotograph of the conceptus or blastocyst at a stage of development in which it may be used as a source of stem cells. I wonder what arguments would be persuasive when confronted with such an image?
Here is an image of a human blastocyst. Here is another.
Now here is a mouse blastocyst and a horse blastocyst.
Do you think you can tell them apart, even under a microscope? This is not to say that they are all equal, but it is to say than an image of a blastocyst will not win any arguments about stem-cell research.
Just wanted to acknowledge a question a few threads back. TK and Bob Nunz – thank you very much for your thoughtful analysis and contribution. TK – your thoughts express my current position. Like Mr. Gibson, I may be disappointed in how this decision was reached and framed but I also know that the Mexico City decision and even stem cell research are complex and will require a nuanced and careful analysis down the road in terms of their impact; did they decrease abortions, increase the dignity of life, etc.
The research done about the Bush policies and their history in terms of playing to partisan politics and the right wing evangelicals is also interesting.
It appears to me that Obama is trying to make distinctions, keep science from being either partisan or controlled by politics/religion. Whether he went far enough to insure ethical directives, we will have to wait to see.
Mr. Gibson – appreciated your two additions: “creeping vitalism” and “Godwin Law”…..I also have concerns about the first which I continue to see articulated around end of life issues and a confusion between papal pronouncements that suddenly are accepted as infallible. Part of the above discussion needs to keep in mind that as a catholic church, we also face issues around Rome making statements that are taken as infallible when in fact they are not. We had a problem in the US with the “imperial presidency”….we face the same issue with the “imperial papacy.”
Robert George and Eric Cohen, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal make this claim:
“Inexplicably … Mr. Obama revoked not only the Bush restrictions on embryo destructive research funding, but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.”
Is that the case? If so, why?
Yes, Fr. Imbelli, that is the case. As to why, no one can be sure because the president didn’t say. But why would you make a point of encouraging other kinds of stem-cell research as an alternative if you thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong with embryonic stem-cell research, and that anyone who opposed this research was confusing science and religion, or science and politics?
…an image of a blastocyst will not win any arguments about stem-cell research
My point is just the opposite. Unlike the usual abortion rhetoric depicting a cherub-like fetus against a heavenly blue background, persuasive arguments for the moral status of the embryo must confront the reality such imagery presents.
To me, the images you refer to show how much of an uphill struggle it will be to make such an argument.
Bob, re the WSJ column and Obama’s reversal of the 2007 EO 13435. Others have also criticized that, but it is clear that Obama had to revoke that order otherwise it would have contradicted his new Executive Order thanks to language about embryos as human life etc that was tacked on to the end of Bush’s 2007 EO. (A not atypical kind of time bomb that administrations like to leave behind for the next guy, like the conscience clause rule and the respect life day causes that suddenly became important to W as he left office.)
Messrs. George and Cohen could have noted that, if they didn’t. But the thrust of the charge is right, I think, as Obama could easily have included Bush’s language, or his own, regarding funding and support for adult stem cell research promotion. It would have been easy, and would have been important in concrete and symbolic terms.
Perhaps there will be some other provision made, or will be if there is an outcry, but I’m not taking any bets.
(Here is some further info at my Beliefnet post if interested: http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/03/obamas-stem-cell-flop.html)
Fr. Imbelli: Obama’s decision to overturn executive order 13435 was unexplained, but it’s not inexplicable if you read the order (which I found here; there’s also a pdf here). It explicitly states that the promotion of adult stem-cell research is called for by the president’s responsibility to protect the dignity of life and the inviolable nature of the embryo. It’s even called “Expanding Approved Stem Cell Lines in Ethically Responsible Ways.” It would have been inconsistent for Obama to let it stand.
Edit: David beat me to it!
“As to the Catholic Church’s position, even if all the religious language were stripped away from Evangelium Vitae, I think the document that would remain would still be a powerful secular brief for the argument that the ESCR debate is ultimately about human equality and our common humanity, and whether in light of those principles (which I don’t pretend are crystal clear to everyone) it is ever morally permissible to destroy a living human being in the interest of scientific inquiry, even scientific inquiry directed at alleviating human suffering.
William C. –
Below are the sections of Evangelium Vitae which are concerned with embryos in the first days of life. John Paul doesn’t define the terms “human being” or “person”, and it isn’t clear whether or not they are meant as synonyms.. He doesn’t tell us how to identify one when we find one. He offers no biological or psychological evidence. He merely makes assertion, proclaims. Yes, he is proclaiming principles, but he offers no justification for them, at least no philosophical or scientific justification.
The text is from the Vatican’s site. There is an elipsis in one of the paragraphs. It is in the original. I wonder what was left out.
[I'm replacing the text posted here with a link to Evangelium vitae on the Vatican website; the relevant section is paragraph 60 and following. It was just too long for a single copy-and-paste in this thread. - MWO]
Here’s one interesting point in the text: “the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.”
Well, not exactly. The question is this: could one reasonably believe that an early human embryo is not YET a person? Sure–depends on how you do your Aristotelian hylomorphism, really. In order to have a human soul (therefore to be a human person, therefore subject of the rights of a human person,) you must have a human body. Is human DNA in an egg enough to count as a human body? No possibility of any neurological function, no capacity for relationship at least until implantation, and the intriguing possibility that one embryo is not yet ONE human person, but perhaps many or less than one. Don’t you at least have to be a human individual in order to be a human person?
If it’s reasonable to say yes to this, then, in Catholic tradition, it’s reasonable to disagree with magisterial teaching. In fact, to insist that where there is reasonable dispute, that one the most restrictive moral stance MUST be followed, is a form of moral reasoning called rigorism or tutiorism, which was condemned.
The magisterium may require absolute protection of embryos from Catholics, but in public debate, we must present publicly accessible arguments, and we have failed to do so. People of good will do in fact hold alternative beliefs about the early embryo that are as well founded as our own. The philosophical question hinges on personhood, or ensoulment (old language,) and, as EV says, this cannot be proven. The fact that something will become a human person is not the same as being a human person. If potentiality were the same as actuality, we’d regard eggs as morally equivalent to chickens and there goes quiche on Fridays during Lent.
depends on how you do your Aristotelian hylomorphism, really.
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve said that… ;-)
. . . but also the 2007 executive order that encourages the National Institutes of Health to explore non-embryo-destructive sources of stem cells.”
Is that the case? If so, why?
Fr. Imbelli,
I think there is another very good reason why Obama overturned the executive order about other sources of stem cells. Here’s a quote from a very informative article about the most recent advances in creating “non-embryo-destructive” sources of stem cells — which would be induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS:
The goal — the ideal — already is iPS cells, but the only path to getting there is through research using embryonic stem cells. I am no expert here, but I believe the only reason scientists have nearly succeeded in producing useable induced pluripotent stem cells (“artificial” stem cells) is because they have already done sufficient work on actual embryonic stem cells. And as the article states, the only way to validate and perfect the “artificial” stem cells is by comparing them to the real thing. Consequently, you can’t separate the two kinds of research, and you can’t encourage the development of iPS cells in the absence of work on embryonic stem cells.
But why would you make a point of encouraging other kinds of stem-cell research as an alternative if you thought that there was absolutely nothing wrong with embryonic stem-cell research . . .
Matthew,
The people who created Tang had to know real orange juice, the people who created Cool Whip had to know real whipped cream, and the people who created Pringles had to know potato chips. The path to non-embryonic stem cells is through embryonic stem cells, not a detour around it. If we get induced pluripotent stem cells, it will be because of work done on embryonic stem cells. (Or at least this is the way it looks to me.)
Assuming I am correct, I wonder if the Catholic Church will consider therapy with one’s own cells turned into iPS cells to be so tainted, because it had its origin in embryonic stem-cell research, that it will be forbidden, or approved only as a last resort, as remote material cooperation with evil. It would be somewhat like this rather fascinating case involving vaccines.
However, let’s hope the people who are developing iPS do a better job of emulating the original than the makers of Tang, Cool Whip, and Pringles.
The reason that research into induced pluripotent stem cells is advisable because they are derived not from embryos but from adult, mature cells. Such cells hold the promise of being able to do what natural pluripotent stem cells do.
The medical advantage of such technology would be that the patient himself could be the source of the induced stem cells, which would reduce rejection complications that are present when using pluripotent stem celll derived from embryos. Use of these adult cells would bypass the need for the embryonic kind thus avoiding the the attendant moral disputes.
Wikipedia has an article with more information than you’ll ever want to know, plus bibliography and links.
“I haven’t had the time to analyze Obama’s remarks, here’s a starting point for a response to your observation — the Publisher’s Weekly review of Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science:”
David N., I certainly don’t claim that there aren’t any anti-science right-wing wacko’s out there. I’m sure it’s true that some of them found the welcome mat put out for them by the previous occupants of the White House. Nevertheless, the Obama Administration’s characterization of opponents of Federal funding for ESCR as anti-science is dishonest and unfair. Stem cell research seems to have flourished under the Bush Administration guidelines, as it did under Clinton Administration guidelines that were (if I’m not mistaken) more restrictive than Bush’s.
My point is that we should strenuously object to the notion that there is an impermeable wall between science and ethics – that scientific progress should always override ethical concerns.
It isn’t antipathy to scientific progress but legitimate ethical concerns that is the basis for the Church’s opposition to ESCR.
“The reality is that in fact most believers and religious traditions do not see this in the same terms the Catholic Church does, and they bring very good and bona fide arguments to bear. Disparaging Protestants and Mormons and Jews as benighted, and their teachings and traditions as post-modern or totalitarian corruptions, is shallow, at best, and something I don’t think Catholics would appreciate were the show on the other foot.”
Inasmuch as I was the one who posted the quote of mainline Protestant and Jewish support for the President’s order, let me say that I didn’t disparage them by posting the quote, and didn’t intend to do so. I posted it because I think it’s important to note that there is not a broad religious consensus on this issue, and in fact I wonder if Obama is situating himself within one of those supportive religious traditions. My apologies for not making that more clear.
“Don’t you at least have to be a human individual in order to be a human person.”
A Human Embryo is a Human Individual. If a Human Embryo is not an Individual that is HUMAN, what is it?
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”-CCC, no.2258, citing The Gift of Life (Donum Vitae),no.5
This is consistent with the unalienable Right to Life mentioned in The Declaration of Independence as the first Right, without which there can be no other Rights. “God alone is the Lord of Life from its beginning until its end.
Which is why, in Heaven, there is no debate
oops, I left out PERIOD.
For those who are interested, here is the WSJ article by Robert George and Eric Cohen that Fr. Imbelli referenced:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html
Lisa and Jim – thanks for the careful analysis. Lisa – your summation is exactly where many, even catholic moral theologians are at. You have a number of different approaches and levels to this discussion:
a) even if you totally agree that life begins at conception – you have to deal with the moral structure and decision-making of individuals in light of this moral principle;
b) this same moral principle has to be applied to a pluralistic society – per Jim, you find that even christian churches or the Jewish faith have very different understandings on this principle;
c) natural law is frequently cited by catholic speakers – again, since Vatican II, catholic moral theologians have suggested that natural law needs to be revisited. Its over-riding principle may be correct but how it is expressed, interpreted, and lived in the 21st century needs to be looked at.
d) agree that Obama could have better expressed his decision (wish he had); wish he had taken the time to explain what he was doing, why he was doing it, and what ethical limits etc would be in place. (in his first week in office, he signed a bill and did a very good job of explaining what and why he was signing this bill).
My point is that we should strenuously object to the notion that there is an impermeable wall between science and ethics – that scientific progress should always override ethical concerns.
Jim,
I agree completely. The impermeable wall isn’t between science and ethics. It’s between science and religion. :-)
Here’s what I see as a major problem. The “pro-life” battle is being fought largely on the religious doctrine that a human being is a person and has rights from the moment of conception. That was never the argument against abortion prior to Roe v Wade, and we live in an age where people are less persuaded by religion than they used to be. There are arguments against abortion and stem-cell research that don’t assert that a person exists at conception, but we don’t hear them.
I am not quite sure what Antonio Manetti was saying about images, but what I was saying is that past a certain point, images of embryos or fetuses are recognizably human and can be used to evoke negative emotions about abortion. Images of the human embryo at the stage when stem cells are removed don’t look any different from embryos of other mammals.
“Images of the human embryo at the stage when stem cells are removed don’t look any different from embryos of other mammals.”
This does not change the fact that they ARE different. They are Human.
I am not quite sure what Antonio Manetti was saying about images, but what I was saying is that past a certain point, images of embryos or fetuses are recognizably human and can be used to evoke negative emotions about abortion. Images of the human embryo at the stage when stem cells are removed don’t look any different from embryos of other mammals.
I agree. What’s more, since they don’t look any different, the case they make really supports the view of those who favor ESCR. In this case, the persuasive power of images works against the pro-life position.
“In this case, the persuasive power of images works against the pro-life position.”
Antonio, how does your statement change the fact that Human embryos are different from other mammals because they ARE Human?
Nancy, nobody’s challenging that fact. If you’re not interested in discussing how to build a prolife argument about ESCR, that’s fine, but please don’t try to derail the discussion that’s taking place.
“Here’s what I see as a major problem. The “pro-life” battle is being fought largely on the religious doctrine that a human being is a person and has rights from the moment of conception. That was never the argument against abortion prior to Roe v Wade, and we live in an age where people are less persuaded by religion than they used to be. There are arguments against abortion and stem-cell research that don’t assert that a person exists at conception, but we don’t hear them. ”
That “a human being is a person and has rights from the moment of conception” sounds more like a legal argument, or perhaps an argument from normative ethics, than a religious argument. I don’t see that it takes a particularly religious insight to recognize that the embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development. Presumably, science(!) would easily confirm that judgment with a genetic or some other cell-level analysis.
It’s true that the country as a whole is less religious than it was two or three generations ago. But it is still quite religious – a huge majority self-report that they believe in God, and most of those who do believe in God belong to one Christian denomination or another. If there were consensus across Christianity on this question, it might be a winning political strategy to appeal to explicitly Christian principles. But there is no consensus, so that doesn’t fly.
That being the case, I suppose we’re left to appeal to non-religious notions of human rights. There does seem to be a consensus about basic human rights, as embodied, for example, in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given that there is no argument (at least scientifically) that the embryo is human, that may be a good strategy to pursue.
I’m still back at Ann O’s comment that maybe the Church need to rethink some things from the bottom up.
Here’s my individual stab at trying to sort out why ESCR bugs me on a visceral and moral level.
On the one hand, I have a hard time seeing a human embryo without a heartbeat or nervous system as a “person.” From a pain and suffering standpoint, if I’m completely honest, I have a hard time seeing the effects of ESCR on an embryo as on par with vivisection of fully formed lab animals that suffer and feel pain for some pretty questionable benefits to mankind (see the DOD’s nerve gas tests on beagles).
Many people who support ESCR believe that Catholics object to it on the grounds of cruelty. And perhaps many do, but I don’t find that argument persuasive.
On the other hand, without IVF there would be no ESCR. Without the incredibly lucrative fertility biz, there would be no IVF. And without the notion that reproductive material and human embryos are simply “products” that those with enough cash and desire to have a child from the womb have a right to manipulate, grow or discard at will, there would be no fertility biz, at least as we know it now.
I think ESCR–and the whole infertility “cure” movement that led us to ESCR–brings us closer cheapening the material that makes human life, and closer to cheapening human life itself.
Please note that I am not equating beagles and babies, though I fear that’s how some will read this post.
(Thanks to David N. for providing some comic relief here. Vitameatavegemin and Tang. And, no, I have not heard that there will be a “Danny Boy” marathon again this year in the Detroit area, and, if there were, I would not be going, same as last year.)
The Pro-Life argument about ESCR is that we must respect the Life of ALL Human embryos because they are Human.
“And, no, I have not heard that there will be a “Danny Boy” marathon again this year in the Detroit area, and, if there were, I would not be going, same as last year.)”
I can’t believe that event is conducive to human flourishing! Unless one were to knock back a few stouts …
Jim, Ann, Jean – your points resonate with me. At the beginning of this thread, I had provided a link that explains the position of the Jewish, Anglican, etc. religions on this issue. All three of you are correct in saying that it only makes it more difficult to enunciate a catholic position.
Hope this is not too far afield but here is a current issue about Caritas (catholic system) and Centene and abortion, etc. It is a series of responses from noted catholic moral theologians explaining how we respond to social and political decisions while maintaining our catholic principles. There are also some excellent insights into the delicate balance between holding a rigid anti-abortion position in the face of other significant social needs that have been benchmarks of catholic social policy: (long but good – replace is Boston Archdiocese cooperating with evil with are catholics cooperating with evil in terms of Obama’s Mexico City decision or his decision on embryonic stem cells) http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/03/caritascentene.html
Bill, as a primer to remote vs. proximate cooperation and material vs. formal cooperation, that link is outstanding!
Some good news: http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=31826