1

Hi Joe:

Interesting post.

I think your note here is telling:

Considering that adult stem cells (ASCs) have already been used to treat Parkinson’s (as well as 70 other conditions) while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can't be used to treat any disease, shows that [Michael] Kinsley [a Parkinson's sufferer, and formerly of CNN's Crossfire, Slate etc.] is not only not objective, he is not committed to learning the truth. But the blames lies less with the suffering than with those who blatantly overhype the potential of ESCs for cures.

A handful of researchers, abetted by the media, have misrepresented the “promise” of ESC for their own personal gain . . . Those who play on the emotion of people like Kinsley have much to gain (e.g., research grants, magazine sales) and very little to lose (i.e., the last scraps of their integrity).

It is clear that he truth has long since been suppressed in teh main stream media of the USA and elsewhere, distorting dialogue much less debate. [I think this is also the case on why there is so little public opposition to IVF -- relatively few know about all those extra, non-implanted embryos. Guess why?]

But I must note on the most non-invasive, most obviously morally non-controversial and long since proved successful way for infertile couples [too often, tied to the medical implications of promiscuity] to have children: ADOPT.

In short, there is a highly sustainable and even morally good alternative to abortion, and IVF games -- and now, the temptation to use the "extra" embryos "for good" by killing them in the name of medical treatments.

But then, why is it that these dots are not collected and connected?

[Or, should that be a cynical "guess why" . . . for, once life is reduced to an accidental product of time, chance and matter-energy in a chaos we only imagine is a cosmos, all things are emptied of moral value, so the issue is only manipulation of perceptions and emotions in the name of education and news. But, we cannot live like that at all and should face the implication of the inescapablility of morality -- it points to God, as Rom 1 - 2 highlights.]

This brings me to yet another Pauline remark on what happens to cultures that turn their backs on God:

EPH 4:17 So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you [Christians] must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18 They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19 Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

2

While I don’t believe it is intentional, Kinsley misconstrues the pro-lifers primary view of “human rights” for the embryo. I suspect that most of those who respect the inherent dignity of all humans at all stages of development will agree that while the moral status of human embryos may not require the recognition of all human rights, it does require that we respect one primary negative right: the right not to be killed.

I don't think this is a minor quibble as you describe. Some human rights require a mature, fully healthy brain to be utilized. For example, a person with a severe mental retardation may not be allowed to enter into a contract because we don't believe they can exercise informed consent. Likewise sex with children is illegal partly because children cannot give informed consent to sex because they are too young to understand what it means. However if you do recognize embryos as fully human then how do you deny them certain rights but grant them others? Sure in cases where the right requires things like a mind or body to exercise the answer is clear but how would you decide when other rights get granted?

We should not, however, dismiss the pain and suffering caused by infertility. The inability to become pregnant is a problem that affects thousands of potential families. (After one year of sexual relations, 15% of American couples are unable to conceive a child.) This inability can become emotionally trying and lead couples to seek a medical solution to overcome their affliction. Every year couples spend millions of dollars on reproductive technologies for the mere chance of conceiving a child.

But you can dismiss the pain and suffering caused by an unwanted pregnancy? A while ago there was a gruesome case where a woman murdered a pregnant woman, cut the baby out of her stomach and then briefly went on the run with the child (it was amazingly unharmed). There have been a handful of cases where women have killed a late-term pregnant women with the goal of stealing an unborn child. If anyone ever said "we sould not, however, dismiss the pain and suffering caused by these women wanting a child of their own" they would probably be strung up by their necks! Kinsley's point is that if we take pro-lifers at their word, IVF is no different than killing a late-term pregnant woman to get her baby. In both cases, the women and the embryo are equally human beigns.

Kinsley is foolish to trust the hype over ESC research. He is also wrong in thinking that that humans as the earliest stages of development don’t deserve protection. But he is right about the hypocrisy of pro-lifers. For decades we have protested the destruction of human life when it occurs in abortion clinics. So why do we turn a blind eye when it takes place in IVF facilities?

Ahhh but what about you? Even here you say Christian couples should not be tempted to use 'unethical' IVF procedures. Where's the demand that they be banned? That those who perform them be charged with murder? If this is about protecting life then why does it matter whether or not the couple is Christian, non-Christian or some mix? Wouldn't you feel odd writing something like "Christian couples should try really hard to refrain from having a pregnant woman sliced open and killed to get her baby."

3

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime

4

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look down there. Would you really feel any pity if one of those dots stopped moving forever? If I offered you 20,000 pounds for every dot that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money? Or would you calculate how many dots you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man, free of income tax. The only way you can save money nowadays. ~ Harry Lime

5

I just want to say that you're filling a very important niche with this post. Pro-abortion liberals and establishment conservatives are everywhere on the Web, making their points in editorials and blogs. Christians are nowhere by comparison. Whenever I want to find out what supporters of a position really think, I look for a blog by a member of that group who honestly believes what he's saying. You're being that member right now. (And by actually reading, acknowledging, and interacting with my side of things, you're making your side look goooood.)

Never heard anyone make the distinction between adult and embryonic stem cells in that way before, but I learned enough out of this article, Stem Cells: The Real Culprits in Cancer? that it makes sense.

6

From William Saunder's The Unchosen Frozen, in the March 2004 issue of Touchstone Magazine,

IVF substitutes technology for the natural marital act. Oocytes are surgically removed from the wife and sperm is obtained from the husband (or sometimes from another male) by masturbation, and the two are then combined in a petri dish by a technician. The biological parents merely provide the “material” that the technician combines to “create” life. The child is truly “manufactured.” He does not come into being by virtue of the couple’s one-flesh union that is realized in the marital act, poetically described in both Christian and Jewish traditions in Genesis 2:24.

...Perhaps because Americans were largely unwilling to face the realities of IVF and to wrestle with its moral implications when it first became possible, the country today stands on the brink of becoming a society in which moral reflection is reduced to a question of technical feasibility.

7

Gordon
It is clear that he truth has long since been suppressed in teh main stream media of the USA and elsewhere, distorting dialogue much less debate. [I think this is also the case on why there is so little public opposition to IVF -- relatively few know about all those extra, non-implanted embryos. Guess why?]

Hmmmm, except when the issue of embryo stem cell research comes up it is almost always mentioned that the embryos almost always come from extra IVF embryos that are destined to be, in Kinsley's words:

In any particular case, fertility clinics try to produce more embryos than they intend to implant. Then—like the Yale admissions office (only more accurately)—they pick and choose among the candidates, looking for qualities that make for a better human being. If you don't get into Yale, you have to attend a different college. If the fertility clinic rejects you, you get flushed away—or maybe frozen until the day you can be discarded without controversy.

Anyone who has casually followed the debate will be aware of the fact that IVF's do discard embryos. As Kinsley correctly points out, if people are ignorant of the pro-life argument against this it is pro-lifers that are to blame, not the media. After all the highest elected official in the US is self-declared pro-life has publically honored IVF clinics for their work. Who can blame the media for failing to pick up a pro-life argument that pro-lifers are generally not making?

8

The ethical way to do IVF is to create one embryo at a time, wait some reasonable time for checking viability, and implant. Wait, and repeat. That is what I assumed these clinics were doing.

I've only learned recently, that for economic reasons, they create many, implant several, in the hopes of one or two. That is much of the reason why we are seeing more twins and triplets...

9

The ethical way to do IVF is to create one embryo at a time, wait some reasonable time for checking viability, and implant. Wait, and repeat. That is what I assumed these clinics were doing.

I've only learned recently, that for economic reasons, they create many, implant several, in the hopes of one or two. That is much of the reason why we are seeing more twins and triplets...

10

The statements are clearly understood, and consistency on our part is certainly critical.

One challenge we face in the arena of influence to get these things done is the power of the new neoliberal "Left" and how their near-fascist Hegelian outlook will affect people of faith and being heard in the public arena.

http://www.ces.fe.uc.pt/bss/documentos/chapter1.pdf
http://www.ces.fe.uc.pt/bss/documentos/chapter2.pdf

Collin

http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com/

11

Fair enough nedbrek, but should the methods used today be made illegal? If not, why not and how can the pro-life movement reconcile that with their demands that abortion be made illegal.

Remember, embryo stem cell research is done on embryos that are almost about to be flushed down the drain. The outcry against the research has been amazingly oblivious to the fact that the embryos are going to be destroyed no matter what.

Colin
One challenge we face in the arena of influence to get these things done is the power of the new neoliberal "Left" and how their near-fascist Hegelian outlook will affect people of faith and being heard in the public arena.

Power of the 'neoliberal left'? What world do you live in? The White House and Congress are firmly in Republican hands, and conservative Republicans at that. This has been the status quo for nearly a decade now. If you couldn't 'get things done' it can hardly be blamed on a "Left"....neoliberal, liberal or whatnot.

As for being heard in the public arena, the reason you are not is because you are not speaking. A President who declares himself pro-life and seeks the support of the major pro-life organizations and gets it publically praises the 'good work' IVF clinics do without even a side note as to ethical issue of the numerous 'extra' embryos they create.

Are you telling me that Hegelian leftists have kidnapped the leaders of pro-life organizations and are preventing them from attacking IVF clinics?

12

I don't know anyone who is pro-life who isn't opposed to the way IVF is done. Kinsley's article is pure foolishness, and shows he hasn't really done his homework. He could have asked some pro-life people about this, but instead bases his argument on his perceptions--perceptions which are colored by his own beliefs concerning abortion and stem cell research.

Opposition to IVF by pro-lifers isn't even recent--the opposition has been there from the beginning. You have to wonder what planet Kinsley has been on.

13

Hmmmm, you don't know anyone who is pro-life who is not opposed to the IVF industry. How about President George Bush who Kinsley noted praised the work of IVF clinics in his speech outlining his opposition to stem cell research. Off the top of my head I am hard pressed to recall a single article or report about pro-lifers protesting outside of IVF clinics. Yet every day they do so outside of abortion clinics. Are you sure it was Kinsley who didn't do his homework?

14

Unfortunately, we have made a lot of noise over abortion and relatively little about IVF (in our defense, the one is, what, 30 years older, so time is certainly a factor), so lots of pro-lifers haven't even been made aware of the situation (ditto with "the pill").

However, don't let anyone take this too far -- inconsistency on our part only means that pro-lifers are inconsistent (regarding IVF), not wrong (re: abortion).

15

Christian "activists" who block abortion clinic doors will never be morally belivable unless they also block the doors of infertility clinics. In fact many more lives would be saved if they blocked infertility clinics than traditional abortion providers.

16

Chris B, it's not about whether pro-lifers being wrong. It is about why they are wrong. Are they wrong to accept IVF or are they wrong about abortion itself?

This touches upon an argument that a few people here have brought up (yours truely being one but not the only). In human history unborn children have rarely, if ever, been considered human beigns and even in cases where they were it has been in later term pregnancies rather than the embryo state.

Consider the fact that a miscarriage is almost never treated with as much gravity as the death of a born child. Even though they should technically be equal if we take pro-lifers at their word. Consider the fact that only a demented minority of the pro-life movement would subject a woman who got an abortion to charges of capital murder, yet it is routine for mothers who kill born children to be so charged. Consider the fact that a huge number of natural pregnancies end in miscarriage even before the mother is aware she is pregnant yet no one advocates spending serious money to stop this. In fact this is often celebrated as 'nature's way' of getting rid of pregnancies that have problems....yet no one would celebrate disease among the born as 'nature's way' of cleaning up.

In other posts on other subjects Joe has argued that we should be respectful of gut instincts. In other words, take something like cannibalism. Even if we have trouble articulating a perfect argument against it we should note that our natural disgust at the practice hints that there is something wrong with it. The fact that we seem to have a natural aversion to truelly considering embryos human beigns might likewise hint that maybe they are not.

In this light the inconsistency of the pro-life movement is not the problem, the inconsistency is a sign that something is wrong with their argument. In comparision, that we may feel disgust at the idea of cannibalism is not a sign that we have to get over it...it's a sign that there's something wrong with a proposal to alleviate hunger by grinding up corpses.

Kinsley's article therefore is raising a much more potent argument than simply that pro-lifers should do more against IVF. His argument is that even pro-lifers (for the most part) cannot take their own assertions seriously because if they did so it would lead them to advocate a lot more than simply banning abortion, even a lot more than simply banning or regulating IVF.

17

Boonton:
"Fair enough nedbrek, but should the methods used today be made illegal? If not, why not and how can the pro-life movement reconcile that with their demands that abortion be made illegal."

I am hesitant to call for laws. Ideally, it would be taught as ethics, and people would be ethical, and a law would be unnecessary. If a law should be required, how will it be enforced? Unenforcible laws just devalue people's opinion of the law (which is already badly damaged)...

I would like to see a Constitutional ammendment defining life beginning at conception, and better definition of "due process" for the application of the death penalty.

18

Boonton:
"Consider the fact that a huge number of natural pregnancies end in miscarriage even before the mother is aware she is pregnant yet no one advocates spending serious money to stop this."

I won't argue the assignment of research dollars until someone comes up with an economics of human life other than zero and infinite. Such a task is too big for me...

Let me also say, that I doubt autopsies are done when 100 years olds die in bed. People die, we can deal with that. People have been charged with murder when attacking pregnant women. If abortion were illegal, it would be possible, although terribly insensitive to charge a woman who received one illegally. It would be better to mandate counseling in these cases.

19

Chris B:

While IVF is nowhere near as prevalent as abortion, it's not "30 years [newer]" than abortion. Well, at least not assuming you're referring to 1973 (Roe) as your reference point. IVF has been around since 1978, only five years after Roe legalized first-trimester abortions.

The problem with the pro-life stance on IVF isn't that it's inconsistent: it's that it's hypocritical.

You can argue that abortion gets more attention because it's much more pervasive than IVF, but by that standard, IVF should get a lot more attention than ESC does, because IVF is much more pervasive than ESC research (and indeed, ESC research would primarily use the cast-offs from IVF procedures). That IVF has failed to capture the attention of the pro-life movement is, to me, evidence that the pro-life movement by and large does not view all embryo destruction as wrong, wether or not they're willing to admit it. Some (like Joe) have, to their credit, taken a consistent position and stated opposition to IVF, too, but I haven't seen any give IVF anywhere near the attention they give ESC -- which seems odd, because ESC mostly depends on IVF.

20

Joe:

Revealing and sadly all too predictable, isn't it . . .

The tone and substance of the detracting comments, that is.

It makes but little sense to try to take on much of the above point by point -- though Noumenon's link on stem cells as a cause of cancer is important and fresh news. [Makes a lot of sense of one of the known problems of ESCs -- they often end up causing cancers. ASCs by contrast seem to have less of a problem here, thus the rapidly growing number of successful applications. The silence on that contrasting success – and B that is the silence I am speaking of above -- reminds me of how the MSM media in the 80s, in the 1992 US election campaign and currently have contrived to make economic booms under presidents of the “wrong” persuasion vanish in popular perceptions. Same with how treason now dresses itself in the robes of freedom of expression and concern for privacy. No wonder those who look to the wisdom of the reporters and editors for their opinions end up in the sort of nonsense Mr Kinsley did as you pointed out, Joe.]

I pose a few questions:

Basic question no 1: What is human life and what is the worth of a human?

[This is a worldviews, i.e. comparative difficulties test. And, B, stage of brain development has serious implications for say the rights of the mentally retarded or brain damaged. In short, we are heading straight for the world of “might makes right” that lies at the logical end of secularist evolutionary materialism. In short, there is a reason behind the American holocaust of 47+ million unborn put to death since 1972, and it has to do with the perceived lesser worth of life in the womb tied to the perceived absence of worth of human life once we abandon the biblically rooted and historically liberating sacredness of life as made by God and endowed by him with unalienable rights, for the ashes and sawdust of evolutionary materialism and its inherent self-referential inconsistencies on mind meaning and morals: “survival of the fittest” boils down to “might makes right.”]

Basic question no 2: If your answer to 1 is less than a creature made in the image of God and endowed by him with unalienable rights, then on what basis do you assign “rights,” apart from power, politics, rhetoric and perceptions?

[The idea of "it's a tiny dot" is particularly telling -- now, size makes right? "They were going to be destroyed anyway" is even worse: one evil "justifies" another. And, I shudder to think of the implications of “it's a matter of brain function” -- as the publicly carried out, judge- assisted, MSM abetted murder of Mrs Terri Schindler Schaivo sadly demonstrates. And B you still owe me and a lot of others bigtime apologies for your abusive commentaries on that case. You can't “just move on” down the slippery slope to mass murder under false colour of law and assert principles that have destructive consequences. BTW, observe this recent discussion on Terry vs Terri onlookers. See the importance of repentance and reformation? Which worldview fosters that, and which undercuts it, as this thread demonstrates all too vividly?]

Basic question no 3: Why is it that the contrast between the much good being effected by morally non-controversial research and applications [ASC] is passed over effectively in silence, whilst that which fits in with an agenda that is highly questionable [ESC] is blazed across the headlines as the great hope?

[On this one, the ill-informed advocacy of Mr Kinsley you excerpted above, Joe, is telling. So is the passing over in silence joined to "let's move on to attacking the pro-lifers" rhetoric in too many comments above. Refusing to acknowledge a key poit of truth is not a healthy sign, and is step one to suppressing the truth and attacking those who will not get with the programme fo substituting lies for truth. Cf Rom 1 - 2 for details.]

Basic question no 4: Why is a move on the part of many advocates of the sanctity of human life to redress a gap in their position now being derided, as if learning the truth and making moral progress in response is nothing but a further proof of hypocrisy of the "wrong" people?

[Recall: it took nearly a decade of effort post 1972 to overcome the misrepresentations, outright lies and massive propaganda advantages of the MSM in the 1960s and 70s, to begin to see the serious implications of the advocacy of abortion, and that it was not just a matter of blind adherence to Roman Catholic dogma . . . and the hint of rebuke to antireligious bigotry in the rhetoric of that day and ours too is intentional and well warranted. Francis Schaeffer, thank you for this thankless and much attacked service even as you battled the cancer that killed you. Reformation takes time and implies that there is a gap between the ought and the is, so it is always easy to cry "hypocrite" -- slavery being another capital case in point. The issue is not hypocrisy -- to be a fallen human is to be morally inconsistent -- but rather, openness to repentance and reformation. Here it is interesting to see who are opposing repentance and reformation . . . and how, and why.]

+++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

GEM

21

I am hesitant to call for laws. Ideally, it would be taught as ethics, and people would be ethical, and a law would be unnecessary. If a law should be required, how will it be enforced? Unenforcible laws just devalue people's opinion of the law (which is already badly damaged)...

How about laws that prohibit a person from stealing a baby by cutting open a pregnant woman? Oddly no one worries too much about 'unenforcible laws' or delegating such things to ethics classes. Yet in the case of IVF it is hard not to see this as functionally the same thing....if you take your claims seriously.

I won't argue the assignment of research dollars until someone comes up with an economics of human life other than zero and infinite. Such a task is too big for me...

This is not some dispute over whether cancer should get more funding or AIDS research. We are talking about just about $0 versus everything else getting billions. If embryos are equally human beigns such a position cannot be reconciled.

Taking on Gordon's questions in reverse order:

Basic question no 4: Why is a move on the part of many advocates of the sanctity of human life to redress a gap in their position now being derided, as if learning the truth and making moral progress in response is nothing but a further proof of hypocrisy of the "wrong" people?

What is this move to 'redress a gap' by pro-lifers? The highest elected official in the country publically praises IVF clinics and their works without the slightest concern that this will cost him even a tiny bit of support form the major pro-life groups. Where is the 'redress' of a gap? Even on this very list people who agree in principle on IVF mince words. Joe, for example, advises us that 'Christian couples' should use more responsible types of IVF. As I pointed out if the issue was stealing babies by killing pregnant women no one would say this is something 'Christian couples' should refrain from doing as if it was just like eating meat on Friday or working a bit on Sunday.

Perhaps a better question is why does Gordon distort the truth here? Kinsley is not a noted pro-lifer trying to get the movement to redress a gap. He is pointing out that the gap among pro-lifers is quite stubborn and shows little signs of being closed (with the exception of maybe a handful).

Basic question no 3: Why is it that the contrast between the much good being effected by morally non-controversial research and applications [ASC] is passed over effectively in silence, whilst that which fits in with an agenda that is highly questionable [ESC] is blazed across the headlines as the great hope?

If ESC research had no restrictions than any other type of research there would be no issue. ESC would compete with ASC and all the other types of research out there and it would succeed or fail. However, since advocates are demanding restrictions on ESC it is valid to focus on whether or not ESC has any promise.

Also the issue has the characteristics of a neat little ethics textbook problem...do you kill one innocent person to save one hundred? is it ok to toss one guy off the lifeboat if it will keep the 20 on it from all drowning? In such academic debates fighting the hypothetical (gee, the lifeboat can fit 21 people if we just alter it's design slightly) is considered bad form.

Basic question no 2: If your answer to 1 is less than a creature made in the image of God and endowed by him with unalienable rights, then on what basis do you assign “rights,” apart from power, politics, rhetoric and perceptions?

Basically you are saying that rights are assumed from the beginning as an axiom. We assume that God gave us unalienable rights. There is no response to the person who asks how do we know God didn't decide to make people in his image with more or less rights. However such people are themselves offering nothing more than a different assumption. How do we know that group X has less rights than group Y? Simply because some people assume it to be so. Either way assuming we all have equal unalienable rights is simplier and complies with my "gut instincts". Can I say, though, that position is supported by something other than just rhetoric and perceptions (and perhaps politics and power too)? I'm honestly not sure.

Basic question no 1: What is human life and what is the worth of a human?
[This is a worldviews, i.e. comparative difficulties test. And, B, stage of brain development has serious implications for say the rights of the mentally retarded or brain damaged.

22

Basic question no 1: What is human life and what is the worth of a human?
[This is a worldviews, i.e. comparative difficulties test. And, B, stage of brain development has serious implications for say the rights of the mentally retarded or brain damaged.

It only has serious implications if you do not feel that human worth is a binary factor. What do I mean by that? Let's say we are having a debate over whether X is a human beign. X could be an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a Republican, a Democrat, a brain dead person, a wrestling fan, a rotting corpse, whatever. Whatever the answer is there are only two degrees, 0 and 1.

If X is not a living human beign (say a rotting corpse) then it does not have value as a human life (of course other values may be in play, a great painting may have value so that destroying it would be a crime even if it isn't the crime of destroying a human life...likewise treating a corpose with disrespect may be a crime even if it is not the same as killing a human life which we are concerned with in this discussion). However if X is a human life then it is equal to all other human lives.

So let's say our standard is having a working brain. If you and I have a working brain then we are indeed human lives but if my brian works twice as well as yours (forgive my modesty) that doesn't make my life twice as worthy as yours. Killing me would not be like killing two Gordons. Now I'm not saying that having a working brain is the standard, for one thing as the Schiavo episode demonstrated the brain is not a single organ but several. It's possible to have a brain that works in some areas but is dead in others.

So I agree with you that using a non-binary system of determining the worth of a human is dangerous and leads down a very dark path. Not only would it lead to concluding some people with mental handicaps are less than deserving of life but it would create a vicious caste system that would put to shame anything that was ever done in India. After all if the mentally retarded are less worthy then so are the simply below average and even the above average are less worthy than the best of the best and so on.

However this only helps us after we have found X to be a human life. It does not tell us directly whether X is a human life. Here what causes X to transition from not-humanlife to humanlife (and eventually back to not-humanlife) can indeed be a process rather than an instant. This seems to fit with the fact that most biological transitions happen as processes rather than instants (such as the transition from childhood to adulthood) as well as with our gut instincts (imperfect they are).

This brings us back to Kinsley's piece. It was not as Gordon attempted to distort it an attack on pro-lifers discovering they had overlooked unethical practices in the IVF industry. Rather it points out that even pro-lifers cannot really follow through on the implications of their assertions.

23

Basic question no 1: What is human life and what is the worth of a human?
[This is a worldviews, i.e. comparative difficulties test. And, B, stage of brain development has serious implications for say the rights of the mentally retarded or brain damaged.

It only has serious implications if you do not feel that human worth is a binary factor. What do I mean by that? Let's say we are having a debate over whether X is a human beign. X could be an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a Republican, a Democrat, a brain dead person, a wrestling fan, a rotting corpse, whatever. Whatever the answer is there are only two degrees, 0 and 1.

If X is not a living human beign (say a rotting corpse) then it does not have value as a human life (of course other values may be in play, a great painting may have value so that destroying it would be a crime even if it isn't the crime of destroying a human life...likewise treating a corpose with disrespect may be a crime even if it is not the same as killing a human life which we are concerned with in this discussion). However if X is a human life then it is equal to all other human lives.

So let's say our standard is having a working brain. If you and I have a working brain then we are indeed human lives but if my brian works twice as well as yours (forgive my modesty) that doesn't make my life twice as worthy as yours. Killing me would not be like killing two Gordons. Now I'm not saying that having a working brain is the standard, for one thing as the Schiavo episode demonstrated the brain is not a single organ but several. It's possible to have a brain that works in some areas but is dead in others.

So I agree with you that using a non-binary system of determining the worth of a human is dangerous and leads down a very dark path. Not only would it lead to concluding some people with mental handicaps are less than deserving of life but it would create a vicious caste system that would put to shame anything that was ever done in India. After all if the mentally retarded are less worthy then so are the simply below average and even the above average are less worthy than the best of the best and so on.

However this only helps us after we have found X to be a human life. It does not tell us directly whether X is a human life. Here what causes X to transition from not-humanlife to humanlife (and eventually back to not-humanlife) can indeed be a process rather than an instant. This seems to fit with the fact that most biological transitions happen as processes rather than instants (such as the transition from childhood to adulthood) as well as with our gut instincts (imperfect they are).

This brings us back to Kinsley's piece. It was not as Gordon attempted to distort it an attack on pro-lifers discovering they had overlooked unethical practices in the IVF industry. Rather it points out that even pro-lifers cannot really follow through on the implications of their assertions.

24

Yes, there are prolifers who aren't aware of the ramifications of IVF. I was one of them until I met Father Frank of Priests for Life at a Good Friday service. I have a nephew who was conceived through IVF and I never thought of the other embryos.

I know that Priests for Life has started picketing an IVF clinic in the city where I live.

I am saddened and ashamed of my ignorance about this.

25

Boonton:
"How about laws that prohibit a person from stealing a baby by cutting open a pregnant woman?"

Um, this is covered by assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, and (should be) kidnapping. There are heaps of evidence and witnesses.

A simple IVF case: Clinic A is ethical, and requires $20,000 per attempt and usually requires 3 or 4 attempts. Clinic B starts two embryos at a time, but only implants one. Clinic C starts four embryos, and implants two. Clinic B and C run more efficiently, and have greater profits (the motivation for the whole thing). They also generate embryos which they can destroy or sell on the black market. No one would ever know, except patients from C may occasionally have twins. Maybe we could track back C, but could we rule out cases where IVF overlapped natural procreation?

"This is not some dispute over whether cancer should get more funding or AIDS research. We are talking about just about $0 versus everything else getting billions. If embryos are equally human beigns such a position cannot be reconciled."

Why not? Is anyone arguing for money to be spent curing minor diseases that are terminal for 100 year olds? We treat people as best we can. It's understood that eventually, they'll die.

26

All:

I see B is returning to his old ad hominem tactics, sadly.

1] why does Gordon distort the truth here

--> FYI, sir [for want of a more apt but less polite term], the issue in this thread is not the existence of IVF, but the abuse of embryos in the context of further distorting the truth on which stem cells work in 70 treatments and counting, and which ones have not worked but are being misrepresented in the media.

--> Second, FYFI, sir, the president you have identified has put in place a law that makes the further destruction of embryos for ESC and cloning etc, something that the US Govt in effect forbids.

-->FYYFI, sir, the agenda to misrepresent the state on the medical science and treatments by ESC advocates is designed to undermine precisely this ban.

--> Finally on this point, the sort of informational job that Joe has done above, and that Focus on the Family and many others have begun to do, is addressing the stem cells issue and sets the context for addressing the questionable context in which that issue has arisen. Your first response is a personal attack -- precisely the issue highlighted in basic issue 4.

--> I note here, too, Texanna's testimony. In short, my point is only too accurate. Thanks, TA.

2] If ESC research had no restrictions than any other type of research there would be no issue. ESC would compete with ASC and all the other types of research out there . . . do you kill one innocent person to save one hundred?

--> but this is precisely the problem: ESC is in a highly questionable moral context, but in the rush to push for it, that is suppressed [as we just saw] and the contrasting track record Joe highlights is conspicuous by absence from the MSM reports [for want of a better term, again].

--> Further to this, the standard "values clarification" -- actually, "confusion" would be more accurate -- stories trotted out to undermine the understanding of the fundamental objectivity of morality in the classroom and hte public, are positively irrelevant. WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A NON-QUESTIONABLE, DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE THAT SHOWS ACCELERATIG PTROMISE AND DELIVERY, BUT WHICH IS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH CERTAIN AGENDAS.

3] you are saying that rights are assumed from the beginning as an axiom. We assume that God gave us unalienable rights. There is no response to the person who asks how do we know God didn't decide to make people in his image with more or less rights. However such people are themselves offering nothing more than a different assumption.

--> I see you have been reading Mumon on "axiom[s]." FYI, both of you are wrong here – worldview options need not be question-begging, as we can compare live options across factual adequacy, coherence and simplicity/ad hocness. I have long since discussed this and multiply linked it in this blog's comments. In short, kindly read here, esp the context for:

the simplest way to pull these threads of thought together, is to start with an abstract example, say, claim A. Why should we accept it? Generally, because of B. But, why should we accept B? Thence, C, D, . . . etc. Thus, we face either an infinite regress of challenges, or else we stop at some point, say F -- our Faith-Point.

At F, we may face the challenge of circularity vs proper basicality: are we simply begging the question, thus inevitably irrational in the end?

In fact, no:

1] Reason embeds faith: We have seen above, that reason and belief -- indeed, faith -- are inextricably intertwined in our thought lives. In G K Chesterton's words, "It is idle to talk always of the alternatives reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith." [cited, Clarke, p. 123.] For, if we must inevitably take some things on trust, we cannot escape exerting faith; i.e. the question is not whether we have faith, but: in what or in whom should we repose our trust?

2] Some beliefs are properly basic: Though of course, our trust in certain things is provisional, we plainly have a perfect right to believe a great many things non-inferentially. (Indeed, this is the largest single bloc of our beliefs -- consider for a moment how many sense impressions you had today, and how many of them you for very good reason took as accurate without even an instant's hesitation.) And, as [William] James pointed out, in contexts where alternatives are forced, momentous and live, we not only have a further right to make a passional decision as to which alternative to accept, but we cannot avoid choosing some option or other.

3] We may compare alternative Worldviews: Worldviews are clusters of core beliefs about important things concerning ourselves, the world and ultimate reality. Notoriously, they bristle with difficulties and unresolved challenges. But, if we compare faith-points F1, F2, F3 . . . Fn, relative to (1) factual adequacy, (2) coherence and (3) simplicty/ad hocness, we can make a rational choice of our faith-points. Thus, we are not reduced to vicious circularity.

4] We may recognise appropriate degrees of warrant: When we assess arguments, we can recognise that there is a gradation in degree of warrant that is possible for given classes of cases, as Simon Greenleaf has pointed out -- as have many others all the way back to Aristotle. So, where logical or mathematical demonstration is possible, we can insit on that. Where only moral evidence is possible, i.e. on matters of fact, we can respect that. When we come to basic beliefs, we can evaluate whether or not the belief is properly basic -- at least on a case by case basis -- by comparing the new belief with others that are already credibly deemed so. [For instance, Plantinga has argued that believing in God requires a similar process to that which leads us to believe in other minds.]

This approach can be properly termed, reasonable faith.

--> On this particular issue, we know intuitively as a FACT TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY ANY VIABLE WORLDVIEWS, that we have rights, as is evidenced [as C S Lewis famously pointed out] by what happens when we quarrel.

--> That is, we instinctively appeal to fairness/duty and failure to comply with it. As observers of quarrels can easily testify, hardly ever is there the dismissal of the issue of duty, but rather there is the attempt to justify an exception or claimn that the duty is not applicable ot this case. Indeed, your failed attempt to cry hypocrite above is a classic in point. In short, we KNOW that we have rights, i.e. can make binding moral claims on others based on our inherent worth as human beings.

--> The next question is, across live world view options, which best makes sense of that odd empirical FACT. I will link a useful discussion and briefly note on it:

a] Of the three main classes of worldviews that are live options, evolutionary materialism instantly fails as I pointed out yesterday [it boils doen to "might makes right" which is precisely the opposite of what a right-claim is usually about].

b] Pantheistic views immediately fal afoul of the underlying challenge of monistic systems: they cannot make room for a radical distinction between rights and wrongs.

c] Judaeo-Christian theism as expressed in the US DOI of 1776 makes sense of individuality and rights: we are Created, equal by God, and are endowed by him who made us in his image with rights.

d] Further to this, there is a vast array of other facts and phenomena in the world that make sense in a world made by God, but make no sense on the assumptions of either of the two main live options.

--> In short, we are here seeing an inference to best explanation case at worldviews level based on comparative difficulties, and it is not pointing in the direction that evolutionary materialists such as B wish. THAT is why they wish to pretend that it is a matter of begging the worldviews question.

4] It only has serious implications if you do not feel that human worth is a binary factor. What do I mean by that? Let's say we are having a debate over whether X is a human beign. X could be an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a Republican, a Democrat, a brain dead person, a wrestling fan, a rotting corpse, whatever. Whatever the answer is there are only two degrees, 0 and 1 . . . let's say our standard is having a working brain.

--> Onlookers, first of all, notice the wiggle-out game. It is asserted that the value we -- by overwhelming consensus [and indeed B is a participant in that consensus!] -- intuitively see in human worth is a mere assumption, then a mathematical continuum model for human worth is substituted for recognition of the implications of possessing human nature.

--> Even "a rotting corpse" is universally recognised as having a proper dignity due to it: that is why we have funerals, and why we have cemetaries or the comparable rituals in various cultures [strange though these sometimes are -- the issue is disagreement on what constitutes respectful treatment given vareious worldviews, not whether such treatment is due]. Respect for the dead is again a testimony that we all intuitively recognise the worth of a human being.

--> Next we see the attempt to smuggle in the notion that different stages of human life and other distinguishing characteristics can be used to rob some of human dignity. In short, we see exactly the point that evolutionary materialism leads to "might makes right" exemplified. We know from all too recent history, where that leads.

--> The proposed relativistic standard, "a working human brain," is then introduced. by what authority or justification -- why rhetorical might makes right, of course. [That is, if I can persuade its acceptance that is enough.] So, why should I reject the standard thsat if the working brain lives in a Jewish or balack-skinned body, it is not worthy of respect as a person, if dominant forces in my culture say so?

--> That is, radical relativism, which is implied by "might makes right," is revealed as utterly indefensible.

5] I agree with you that using a non-binary system of determining the worth of a human is dangerous and leads down a very dark path. Not only would it lead to concluding some people with mental handicaps are less than deserving of life but it would create a vicious caste system that would put to shame anything that was ever done in India . . . this only helps us after we have found X to be a human life. It does not tell us directly whether X is a human life. Here what causes X to transition from not-humanlife to humanlife (and eventually back to not-humanlife) can indeed be a process rather than an instant.

--> The horrendous implications of the logic employed, as just pointed out, have caused B to pull back from the brink, at least for the moment. Thank God.

--> But then, we rapidly thereafter see another attempt to introduce a sliding scale of worth: a timeline with gradations and processes.

--> A long time ago now, B, Francis Schaeffer walked down that road. A newborn baby is instantly recognisable as a human being. But,a mere 2 hours before that, the difference was, it was in the womb and taking in nourishment and oxygen by the placenta instead of breathing and suckling. [This BTW is why partial birth infanticide is instantly recognisable as a monstrous act, one disguised by the lie that it is often done to protect the mother. Anyone who has watched a boirth can tell you that that last part is the easy part. The major dangers to the mother are in getting the birth started and in the possibility of post-partum bleeding.]

--> Go back a few hours yet: what is the material change? And, repeat all the way back to conception: is there a recognisable moment where there is a step-transition? ANS: only at conception. So, what is the logical point to recognise the beginning of human life and our duty to protect it? ANS: CONCEPTION. (BTW, this raises implications over the use of the IUD and some forms of the Pill as so-called contraceptives -- they prevent implantation, not conception proper. And yes, there is another trick out there, to try to arbitrarily mediaclly -- mightr makes right again -- redefine the moment of origin as implantation not conception proper.]

6] Kinsley's piece. It was not as Gordon attempted to distort it an attack on pro-lifers discovering they had overlooked unethical practices in the IVF industry. Rather it points out that even pro-lifers cannot really follow through on the implications of their assertions.

--> Now, let us simply cite again what JOE -- not me! -- had to observe on Kinsey's remarks on ESC [vs ASC]:

Kinsley suffers from Parkinson's and has an intimate stake in the potential cures provided by stem cell research. He admits that he is “not an objective analyst” and firmly believes that, “No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others.”

Considering that adult stem cells (ASCs) have already been used to treat Parkinson’s (as well as 70 other conditions) while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can't be used to treat any disease, it becomes clear that Kinsley is not only not objective, he is not committed to learning the truth. But the blame lies less with the suffering than with those who blatantly overhype the potential of ESCs for cures.

A handful of researchers, abetted by the media, have consistently misrepresented the “promise” of ESC for their own personal gain . . . .

Kinsley makes another more damning point: that pro-lifers tend to have an inconsistent view on embryo destruction. When embryos are destroyed within the womb (i.e., abortion) we find it intolerable. But when it occurs outside the womb (i.e., in an IVF clinic) we hardly raise a fuss. As Kinsley notes:

In short, if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps—with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics. No one who truly believes in the humanity of embryos could possibly think otherwise.

While I don’t believe it is intentional, Kinsley misconstrues the pro-lifers primary view of “human rights” for the embryo. I suspect that most of those who respect the inherent dignity of all humans at all stages of development will agree that while the moral status of human embryos may not require the recognition of all human rights, it does require that we respect one primary negative right: the right not to be killed.

Aside from that quibble, I have to admit that Kinsley has a valid point. Whether out of ignorance or oversight, the pro-life community has until recently tended to overlook embryo destruction that occurs ex vivo. Unfortuately, though it has now caught our attention, we tend to oppose those who would destroy embryos for speculative scientific research while giving a pass to our fellow citizens who create “extra” embryos out of the desire to have a child.

But while the motives may differ, the embryo has the same moral status and deserves to be protected from harm. The pain of infertility does not provide an exemption to our obligation.

--> Here, Joe first pointed out a glaring gap on the publicly available facts, and the reason for that gap: the very condition Kinsley unfortunately suffers has joined the list of conditions treated by ASCs, but that does not fit the agenda of those who push for ESCs and all that comes with them.

--> Joe then went on to acknowledge the gap in the awareness, understanding and behaviour of a great many pro-lifers on the subject. Texanna substantiates this, adn up to several years ago, I did not make the connexion myself.

--> That brings up the force of my own point:

Why is a move on the part of many advocates of the sanctity of human life to redress a gap in their position now being derided, as if learning the truth and making moral progress in response is nothing but a further proof of hypocrisy of the "wrong" people?

. . . . it took nearly a decade of effort post 1972 to overcome the misrepresentations, outright lies and massive propaganda advantages of the MSM in the 1960s and 70s, to begin to see the serious implications of the advocacy of abortion, and that it was not just a matter of blind adherence to Roman Catholic dogma . . . Francis Schaeffer, thank you for this thankless and much attacked service even as you battled the cancer that killed you. Reformation takes time and implies that there is a gap between the ought and the is, so it is always easy to cry "hypocrite" -- slavery being another capital case in point. The issue is not hypocrisy -- to be a fallen human is to be morally inconsistent -- but rather, openness to repentance and reformation. Here it is interesting to see who are opposing repentance and reformation . . . and how, and why.

--> In short, we see a context in which there are morally acceptable and effective alternatives to ESC and to human IVF: ASC's, other infertility treatments, and even the oldest one in the book: adoption. So, there is no logical, moral or physical impossibility in being consistently pro-life.

--> But, as ever, there are gaps in our behaviour due to ignorance, failure to make a logica connexion and the like -- and openness to reformation is one means by which we correct these gaps, as once the glaring gap on slavery was closed. As Texanna shows, once she saw the link, she immediately moved to a more coherent and consistently pro-life view, with penitence over her previous inconsistency and ignorance.

7] Nedbrek:

--> Powerful, concise comment. Let us hear more from you!

--> your Clinic A vs Clinic B model is food for thought. Let's hear back from Joe or antother one who knows, whether serial, single egg IVF is technically feasible and practised.

+++++++++++

Grace, open our eyes and soften our hesarts to reformation

For, we need it . . .

Gordon

27

nedbrek

Why not? Is anyone arguing for money to be spent curing minor diseases that are terminal for 100 year olds? We treat people as best we can. It's understood that eventually, they'll die.

One of the implications of a binary view of human worth (in other words, all human beigns are considered equal) is that eugenics is wrong. Suppose we had a gov't team that went around to every pregnant woman and tested her and the father's DNA. Any that rated 'below average' (using whatever standard you would measure that by) would be forced to have abortions on the spot. A pro-lifer would have no problem at all opposing such a thing.

Yet eugenics would be equally wrong if carried out by omission. If we refused to make any effort at all for even basic attempts to correct life threatening conditions for those deemed 'below' while lavishing billions on cosmetic problems and late in life illnesses for those considered above, if we celebrated the 'natural' deaths of those deemed 'below' while we bemoaned and fought the deaths of those deemed 'above' then we are equally in the territory of eugenics.

So the implication of considering embryos full human beigns from the moment of fertilization is that it is wrong to overlook the massive rate of natural death that they incur. Here's a little known fact. Those who use the rythum method of birthcontrol (timing sex so you don't do it around a woman's fertile period) actually may contribute to miscarriages since fertilizations that may happen during the 'less fertile' period are more likely to fail to implant correctly in the uterus. It is not sufficient to shrug and say this is 'nature's will' or in God's hands. We have decided to alter nature on behalf of one class of human beigns (those already born). What right do we have to ignore another class?

Again this is not a minor dispute over proper funding levels...whether cancer should get more than AIDS because it effects more people or if AIDS should get more because it is a disease that can be spread if not stopped etc. This is a question of whether you can maintain it is ok to give one class of human beigns total, 100% neglect while lavishing attention on another class. I don't think you can consistently maintain so.

28

Gordon,

Minor point, the President has put into place a law that only applies to Federally funded research. Private entities and states are free to do embryo research provided they use their own money to fund it. You may be right about human cloning being banned, although even if it is not I do not think reproductive cloning will ever become anything more than a tiny niche. Since cloning has produced numerous defects with animals I would suspect it has a huge hill to climb getting approval as being safe for humans even if you have no ethical objections to cloning per se. Kinsley's point about the President and IVF stands, Bush has not only failed to request any law regarding the 'surplus embryos' created by the IVF industry but has publically praised their 'good work'.

--> but this is precisely the problem: ESC is in a highly questionable moral context, but in the rush to push for it, that is suppressed [as we just saw] and the contrasting track record Joe highlights is conspicuous by absence from the MSM reports [for want of a better term, again].

Which is why a few articles saying ESC may not produce any medical insights or discoveries is beyond the point. Deciding which research may or may not produce results is quite frankly not our job. In cases where the research is done with private money people are free to persue their own hunches on their own dime as much as they want. In cases where research is done with taxpayer money the better option is to ensure that the decision making process is sound since none of us have all the technical knowledge required to review all research funding requests and give them an objective ranking in terms of priority. So the only relevant issue here is whether the research is ethical or not. Whether it is likely to produce results is a distant second...so distant that it is more of a distraction. It is probably better to assume for the sake of the argument that such research will produce something useful. Our time and mental energy are limited so we should concentrate our resources on addressing the ethical question instead of trying to guess the results of real life research.

--> Onlookers, first of all, notice the wiggle-out game. It is asserted that the value we -- by overwhelming consensus [and indeed B is a participant in that consensus!] -- intuitively see in human worth is a mere assumption, then a mathematical continuum model for human worth is substituted for recognition of the implications of possessing human nature.

Actually read my sentence more carefully;

"Let's say we are having a debate over whether X is a human beign. X could be an embryo, a fetus, an egg, a Republican, a Democrat, a brain dead person, a wrestling fan, a rotting corpse, whatever. Whatever the answer is there are only two degrees, 0 and 1 . . . let's say our standard is having a working brain."

I didn't say this standard was derived by consensus, by a vote, by a panel of experts, or even by direct communication from a diety! I simply said that whatever the standard is it does not create a mathematical continum of human worth. Human worth is, on the contrary quite discrete. Something is either a human beign or it is not. If it is then it is equal in worth to all other human beigns.

A comparision might be the concept of citizenship in the US. By the Constitution, if you are born in the US you are automatically a citizen. Some people might be born here the day their parents stepped off the boat, others might trace their ancestors back generations to the first European settlers or even before to Native Americans but that has no impact on citizenship which is a binary condition. The first generation is no less a citizen than the nth generation American.

--> Even "a rotting corpse" is universally recognised as having a proper dignity due to it: that is why we have funerals, and why we have cemetaries or the comparable rituals in various cultures [strange though these sometimes are...

As usual you do not properly control your natural habit of being long winded. If you look at my post you'll see that I was limiting the discussion to the worth of a human life. I acknowledged that there are other values that are important but are not part of this discussion. In the case of a rotting corpse, we may indeed have an obligation to treat it with proper dignity but there is no debate over whether it is a human life....it is not. Cremating a corpse may or may not be showing it the proper respect but no one argues doing so is destroying a human life as would be throwing a live human beign into a furnance.

--> Next we see the attempt to smuggle in the notion that different stages of human life and other distinguishing characteristics can be used to rob some of human dignity. In short, we see exactly the point that evolutionary materialism leads to "might makes right" exemplified. We know from all too recent history, where that leads.

On the contrary, I simply showed how your are confusing two different questions as one. The first question is what defines a living human life. The second is what is the worth of a human life. The first question may indeed be answered with something that can be measured on a continuum. However that does not mean the second question is a continuum.

--> The proposed relativistic standard, "a working human brain," is then introduced. by what authority or justification -- why rhetorical might makes right, of course. [That is, if I can persuade its acceptance that is enough.] So, why should I reject the standard thsat if the working brain lives in a Jewish or balack-skinned body, it is not worthy of respect as a person, if dominant forces in my culture say so?

Actually I did not introduce this as a standard, I used it only as a hypothetical standard to evalute the second question you asked about human worth. I pointed out it is deficient as a real life standard to use because 'working brain' is a vague term (not a relativistic one).

Now what you are making up is the implication that I proposed any method for deciding upon a standard..you seem to have some imaginary post in mind where I proposed some type of vote on a standard. I have done no such thing. Such a standard would flow from the definition of what a human life is but I'm not proposing one...at least for now until we can get some of the fundamentals cleared up.

In reality I do not think the standards of life and death are set by 'might makes right'. On the contrary, especially with death, I believe there is a great concern about setting too lose a standard. This is why the 'beating heart' test was ditched long ago, because it has been proven over and over again that a stopped heart can be started again. I think most people who approach this topic are trying to make a sincere effort to find an objective answer to the questions, not simply one that happens to suit their personal interests. Indeed, since you mentioned the Schiavo case there is a bit of Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance' going on here. Most of us have no idea if we will end up in a situation more similiar to Terry Schiavo's or a situation more similiar to her husband's so our interests are to approach this question as objectively as our abilities can manage.

Onto IVF and Kinsley again:

--> Joe then went on to acknowledge the gap in the awareness, understanding and behaviour of a great many pro-lifers on the subject. Texanna substantiates this, adn up to several years ago, I did not make the connexion myself.

Indeed but the question Kinsley and I raise is why was this connection so hard to make and even now seems only a tiny portion of pro-lifers have begun to make it. One reason might be that it is indeed something that was overlooked and as this knowledge is spread will lead to more consistent behavior by pro-lifers. Another reason, though, might be that pro-lifers have made an error somewhere hence their natural inclinations lead to inconsistent behavior.

As I pointed out if you take the proposition seriously that embryos are equally human beigns then that seems to lead to a lot of conclusions that go far beyond simply reforming IVF clinics. These conclusions seem to run against the grain of common sense not only of the average person but also even pro-lifers. Look at this very thread, even after the information about 'surplus embryos' was articulated several times over. Even then people on this list backtrak and equivocate...talking about how 'Christian couples' should refrain as if this was about eating a hamburger on Friday or working overtime on Sunday. This is why I used the contrasting example of cases where a pregnant woman was murdered by women who wanted their children. If we heard someone speaking about that the way pro-lifers here speak about IVF clinics after they have been fully informed on the embryo situtation we would think there was something deeply wrong with them.

29

The more subtle point I'm raising may be reviewed by looking at Joe's 'Wisdom of Repugnance' articles (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001226.html).

Repugnance, therefore, may be a form of knowing that precedes rational thought in the same way that “fight or flight” responses work. When confronted with a dangerous situation we don’t have to wait until we've formed a reasoned response based on propositional knowledge before we react...

Or as he quoted Leon Kass:

Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday's repugnances are today calmly accepted - though, one must add, not always for the better. In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power fully to articulate it. Can anyone really give an argument fully adequate to the horror which is father-daughter incest (even with consent), or having sex with animals, or mutilating a corpse, or eating human flesh, or even just (just!) raping or murdering another human being? Would anybody's failure to give full rational justification for his or her revulsion at these practices make that revulsion ethically suspect? Not at all. On the contrary, we are suspicious of those who think that they can rationalize away our horror, say, by trying to explain the enormity of incest with arguments only about the genetic risks of in-breeding.

The gist here is that our gut instincts are worth listening too even if our rationalizations may point in another direction. A person who states a dead body is no longer anything but mass would conclude rationally that cannibalism is fine. Yet he will feel disgust when presented with it. This should raise the question, is he wrong to feel disgust or has he made an error in either his logic or his assumptions that lead him to conclude cannibalism is fine? Without going into a debate about cannibalism I think we can agree the person should at least re-examine their conclusions.

[Here please do not take this off into a tangent about cannibalism. That is not my focus here]

Likewise it does seem like considering embryos, fertilized eggs etc. as full human beigns contradicts our gut instincts. We simply have not behaved as if that was true nor do we act as if we really, really believe it. That may be because of simple ignorance and as pro-lifers and others realize their error they will change accordingly as Gordon says he did. On the other hand it may be a hint that the reason for this inconsistency is that there is something wrong either in the logic or assumptions just as the 'rationalist' still can't bring himself to be a cannibal even though he argues it is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

30

Boonton, your notion of eugenics by omission is unusual and confusing. Being a researcher, I am compelled to try and come up with a way of reducing the incidence of failed implantation and miscarriage. Unfortunately, I do not have a medical background. I am unaware of anyone even proposing a method for determining and reducing these cases (how do we even detect it is occurring, much less try to intervene?). If you have any leads, I would be interested.

31

WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A NON-QUESTIONABLE, DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE THAT SHOWS ACCELERATIG PTROMISE AND DELIVERY, BUT WHICH IS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH CERTAIN AGENDAS.

While Gordon has a diverse range of typograhical styles (which I'm not sure he uses any particular logic in employing), I think I should address this passage that suffers from a suplus of capitals.

1. We do not know if adult stem cell research is an alternative or complement or entirely unrelated to the potential treatments that may result from embryo stem cell research. That work on adult stem cell research yields promising stories here or there does not tell us that anything about what would result from work on embryonic stem cells. In other words, if tomorrow it was discovered that adult stem cells yielded a cure to 50% of Parkinsons cases that will not tell us if embryonic research would have yielded the no cure, the same cure or a better cure that would address 100% of cases.

2. Gordon cites supression but is unable to substantiate it.

a. To anyone who followed the debate by reading the main stream media the fact that IVF clinics produce 'surplus embryos' that are often destroyed or simply kept frozen so long that they are effectively destroyed is no news. In fact one of the arguments for the research was that it was absurd to ban it on the grounds that it destroys embryos when those very same embryos are being routinely destroyed anyway.

In fact, one of the proposed protocalls for such research was that women would be banned from specifically donating embryos....least they have an incentive to get pregnant just to donate embryos in hopes of helping a loved one or getting money. The scientist in South Korea who claimed to have perfected cloning was soon discredited for falsifying his reasearch AND for pressuing subordinates to donate their eggs. No to anyone who cared to follow this topic the IVF 'surplus embryo' story has hardly been surpressed.

b. Gordon also implies that embryonic research has been overhyped and good results with adult stem cells have not received the proper attention. This is probably true but in itself does not substantiate 'supression'. Naturally cutting edge research gets sexier play from the media and, of course, scientists competiting for limited funds have an incentive to spin the potential of their research. The fact that embryonic research has the ethical debate attached to it makes it a natural media magnet while stem cell research on adult cells does not have the dubious distinction of having such baggage.

Nevertheless, it is quite implausible to believe adult research has been supressed. By law adult stem cell research has an advantage in that it can qualify for federal funding while only embryo research on a handful of pre-existing 'lines' of uncertain quality can qualify under the law. For privately funded research one would imagine that most large corporations and foundations are quite used to people hyping ideas in the hopes of receiving funding from their deep pockets and the profit incentive would be sufficient to steer research dollars towards the most objectively promising research ideas.

So when Joe writes:

Considering that adult stem cells (ASCs) have already been used to treat Parkinson’s (as well as 70 other conditions) while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can't be used to treat any disease, it becomes clear that Kinsley is not only not objective, he is not committed to learning the truth. But the blame lies less with the suffering than with those who blatantly overhype the potential of ESCs for cures.

He is committing a fallacy. He is assuming that because ASCs have produced promising treatments ESCs cannot. He is also assuming that if ESCs are studied then ASCs cannot also be studied. Kinsley, on the other hand, is quite modest in his objectivity. He does not state that ASC's have not produced good results for Parkinsons nor does he claim that ESCs are the cure. Note what Kinsley wrotes:

Or at least it is not the moral dilemma often used in media shorthand: the rights of the unborn versus the needs of people suffering from diseases that embryonic stem cells might cure. (emphasis added).
http://www.slate.com/id/2145168/

To date neither Gordon or Joe have presented any evidence that ESCs could never produce a cure or useful treatment for Parkisons or any other serious disease. Yet they have the nerve to write that Kinsley is not committed to learning the truth when the fact is Kinsley was quite objective about the truth. That ESC might be overhyped in their potential (and what type of medical research starting with antibiotics and vaccines nearly 100 years ago hasn't been overhyped?) hardly terminates the debate by presuming they cannot produce useful things that ASC and other alternatives cannot.

32

Boonton, your notion of eugenics by omission is unusual and confusing. Being a researcher, I am compelled to try and come up with a way of reducing the incidence of failed implantation and miscarriage. Unfortunately, I do not have a medical background. I am unaware of anyone even proposing a method for determining and reducing these cases (how do we even detect it is occurring, much less try to intervene?). If you have any leads, I would be interested.

ned,

How are you compelled to find a way to reduce such incidence? As you stated the lack of knowledge here seems to hint that few people have felt compelled in anyway to do anything about failed implantation and miscarriage (except when addressing infertility...in other words not the interests of embryos but couples who happen to want to conceive....not the same thing). If embryos were really believed to be equally human could such a lack of enthusism really be maintained?

33

Boonton:
"How are you compelled to find a way to reduce such incidence?"

I am willing to discuss it with you here. If you can provide a method for detection, and some ideas for treatment, I am willing to consider it further.

34

nedbrek,

I think we are flying off the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that attempting to find a cure for miscarriages would be easy, it may even be impossible. What I'm saying is that we don't treat miscarriages as the death of a human beign even though pro-life rhetoric would tell us that is what it is. Let's imagine some illness was causing 50% or more of newborn babies to die before reaching a year old. How would we react?

Almost certainly all hell would break loose. People would demand answers, there would memorials and services, there would be movies, poems, and grieving. In short people would act as if 50% of newborn human beigns had died.

However when 'nature' claims 50% or even more of unborn human beings the matter is either meet with a shrug or even praised as the 'wisdom of nature' correcting things when there is a problem. As Gordon says this might be out of ignorance...people might just not be aware that so many human beigns are losing their lives. But notice here even when this is pointed out people on this list seem to have an instinctual habit of reverting to normal, business as usual.

Again look at what was written by Joe and others about IVF clinics. Kinsley accurately applied logic to the assumptions of pro-lifers and concluded that these clinics must be viewed as death camps. Yet even Joe treads gingerly, telling us that 'Christian couples should refrain' from unethical IVF clinics. Are people advised to 'refrain' from cutting open pregnant women?

35

All:

I do not think a further long point by point response makes much sense overnight, as onlookers can sort out for themselves the core issue:

1] pro lifers are waking up to a further implication of the culture of death for convenience or advantage and are responding. Texanna's testimony is a capital case in point.

2] While that waking up and consensus building happen, there will be all sorts of strange anomalies and compromises -- cf what happened as the antislavery movement in Britain built up steam back in C18 - 19 to eliminate first the trade then the institution, and similar patterns on other reformation issues over the years. [This is the situation with Mr Bush on the effective ban I discussed; perhaps i was less than clear in my comment.]

3] In the case of Embryonic stem cells it is plain that NO successful treatments have emerged after something like 20 years of serious investigation. Adult stem cells, so-called, are not subject to moral questions and are leading to an accelerating array of real treatments. Further, the "flexibility" argument seems to be falling by the wayside as ASCs show themselves more and more useful and less prone tot he problems that plague ESCs.

4] In particular, contrary to Mr Kinsley's remarks, ASCs are working on Parkinsons, as Joe -- and he should know -- reports. It is quite common in media reports to suppress the difference between the two and the differential success ands ethical positions. Indeed, to most ordinary people hearing the term "stem cells" what is brought to mind is EMBRYONIC stem cells. [The "it has been said in a corner once or a few times" defence fails. The issue is material fairness and balance in the reporting, and the Kinsley case is illustrative of a widespread pattern.]

5] IVF is the context in which the "extra unwanted embryos" are there, inviting the attempt to "harvest" them for ESC and cloning etc etc. but there are credible alternatives for infertility, going all the way back to adoption. So there is a moral challenge tied to the value of human life. And that is what the point in block caps was about. [BTW, B, a double dash is a parenthesis; it seems I invited the interpretation that you were saying explicitly what is an implication of what you said.]

6] So the matter comes back to the worldviews issue and the value of human life in that context. And, it is still the case that evolutionary materialism ends up in the reductio ad absurdum that it implies that might makes right. As already noted: if an embryo is not of human nature, of what nature then is it? [In short this is a case again of "dehumanise" first then do what is indefensible to do to those who we accept as humans.]

+++++++++

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

36

1] pro lifers are waking up to a further implication of the culture of death for convenience or advantage and are responding. Texanna's testimony is a capital case in point.

Not really, Texanna is an example of a single person commenting on a single blog. Anyone with any knowledge of the ESC debate would know that the embryos would come from 'surplus' IVF clinic stock. Therefore anyone who had studied the ESC debate would be aware of this. When President Bush praised IVF clinics it was at the conclusion of the ESC debate, ignorance therefore has already been addressed among the major pro-life people and organizations.

3] In the case of Embryonic stem cells it is plain that NO successful treatments have emerged after something like 20 years of serious investigation. Adult stem cells, so-called, are not subject to moral questions and are leading to an accelerating array of real treatments. Further, the "flexibility" argument seems to be falling by the wayside as ASCs show themselves more and more useful and less prone tot he problems that plague ESCs.

Again the fallacy of the false choice, if ASC produce 70 treatments that says nothing about ESC. Nor does it establish ASC as an alternative. If ESC produces 3 treatments and ASC 700 that is not an argument against ESC research. Again this is why I said the prospects of ESC research are so much of a secondary issue that they should be considered a distraction here.

4] In particular, contrary to Mr Kinsley's remarks, ASCs are working on Parkinsons, as Joe -- and he should know -- reports. It is quite common in media reports to suppress the difference between the two and the differential success ands ethical positions.

Contrary to what remarks by Kinsley? Kinsley never said ASCs do not work, never said that ASC research should be cancelled in favor of ESC research only, never even said that ESC would produce any treatment for Parkinsons.

Notice the distortion here? Kinsley only said that ESC research might produce treatments. In the interest of full disclosure he revealed that he had Parkinsons...no doubt if he didn't someone would accuse him of simply advocating any and all research in the hopes that such a shot in the dark would solve his personal problem. Kinsley simply said ESC research might, MIGHT, produce useful treatments. In that he spoke correctly since there is no way any of can really know. I do think some have overhyped ESC research, such as the late Christopher Reeve, but here you are just demonstrating that you're not really paying attention.

5] IVF is the context in which the "extra unwanted embryos" are there, inviting the attempt to "harvest" them for ESC and cloning etc etc. but there are credible alternatives for infertility, going all the way back to adoption. So there is a moral challenge tied to the value of human life. And that is what the point in block caps was about.

Are you sure you were referring to the problem of infertility when you wrote:

"WHAT IS RELEVANT IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS A NON-QUESTIONABLE, DEMONSTRATED EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE THAT SHOWS ACCELERATIG PTROMISE AND DELIVERY, BUT WHICH IS SUPPRESSED BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT IN WITH CERTAIN AGENDAS."

Adoption has been around quite a long time and is pretty good but I'm not sure anything has changed about it recently to describe it as showing 'accelerating promise and delivery". There are forms of IVF that do not need to involve surplus embryos but I haven't heard of any recent innovations....in fact the industry seems quite comfortable with the approach they are using now.

As already noted: if an embryo is not of human nature, of what nature then is it?

That was never a fundamental or core question here. The question is whether it is a human life. Of course it is 'of human nature'....a sperm cell is 'of human nature' too as is even a dead body.

37

"I think we are flying off the point I'm trying to make. I'm not saying that attempting to find a cure for miscarriages would be easy, it may even be impossible. What I'm saying is that we don't treat miscarriages as the death of a human beign even though pro-life rhetoric would tell us that is what it is. Let's imagine some illness was causing 50% or more of newborn babies to die before reaching a year old. How would we react?"

My boss and his wife just had a miscarriage. To say that it doesn't affect them is insensitive. It affected them very much. Maybe not as much as the death of a newborn. But if an uncle you never heard of dies, how much does it affect you? Is he less a person?

SIDS affects too many young children (nonzero). There appears to be little we can do about it. We have things to study, but little progress has been made (it appears to be something in the brain which shuts off the automatic breathing reflex). We know smoking is correlated, and perhaps cosleeping and blanket placement may help. Beyond that there is little we can do, and worrying or complaining does not help.

38

My boss and his wife just had a miscarriage. To say that it doesn't affect them is insensitive. It affected them very much. Maybe not as much as the death of a newborn. But if an uncle you never heard of dies, how much does it affect you? Is he less a person?

Indeed it would be insensitive to say that, I didn't though. You are correct, I am less affected personally by an uncle however society behaves as if a human beign had died as you would expect with those closest feeling the most grief on outwards. Even if you are emotionally removed from the death our social customs, habits and behaviors treat it still as the death of a human beign.

In contrast, suppose you are told vandals broke into a cemetary where some obscure relative of yours was buried and destroyed the grave. You might feel upset, the law would try to catch & punish the vandels but no one would treat it as the death of a human life.

Now in the case of your boss and his wife, while they are clearly hurt by the miscarriage this cannot be explained away by being emotionally removed from the situtation. They clearly knew she was pregnant and wanted the child so this isn't a case of being told you once lost an embryo you didn't even know you had. As real as their grief is, is it the grief of parents who lost a child or is it the grief of a couple that lost a chance to have a child?

39

SIDS affects too many young children (nonzero). There appears to be little we can do about it. We have things to study, but little progress has been made (it appears to be something in the brain which shuts off the automatic breathing reflex). We know smoking is correlated, and perhaps cosleeping and blanket placement may help. Beyond that there is little we can do, and worrying or complaining does not help.

True but this isn't my point. There's a lot of things that have defied our efforts to understand and prevent. What is the point is that we act as if SIDS kills human beigns...even if we are at a loss at the moment to do much about it. We do not act as if miscarriages kill human beigns hence we feel no need to even try to do anything about it (with the exception of couples who want to have kids, but even there the emphasis is not so much on saving embryos from miscarriage as satisfying the couples' desires...and of course the desire of doctors to make a nice living for themselves).

40

B:

I first note that Texanna is not an exception, but an example -- it takes years to break through the bodyguard of lies and cover-ups that hide the unspeakable in today's world. bit by bit that is happening with the embryonic stem cells issue, and as people wake up, the possibilities for reformation arise.

Similarly, the breakthrough to revival and reformation is a painful and complex spiritual struggle riddled with personal gaps and institutional half-way attempts, as I discussed here in my Caribbean Challenge magazine article series in 1999 - 2000. [This observation that there is the glory and the shame is not at all just a clever talking point thought up to counter the charge of hypocrisy. Indeed, Peter Hocken has written a wonderful book that bears just that title. There is a challenge to moral growth in any true Christian revival and reformation process, one that proceeds in the teeth of human failings and the inevitable struggles and accusations.]

Now on certain points worth a further note:

1] ESC vs ASC:

Similarly, the problem with ESC is not just that it has failed to produce cures, but that it is plagued by problems, including inducing cancer. [I noted on this above and a recent Sci Am is speculating on the role of stem cells in cancer propagation, guess why.] In short, despite the hype, it is technically problematic and likely to go the way of the late un-lamented fetal tissue research, another much hyped panacea that failed while being immoral.

By contrast, the approach that does not require immoral action is working, but the headlines and spin suppresses that. Guess why.

Further to this, ASCs are showing more and nore that they are broadly flexible, capable of generating the same intermediate cell types that then can be turned into all sorts of cells. THAT is why we see the success in question.

2] Kinsley never said ASCs do not work, never said that ASC research should be cancelled in favor of ESC research only, never even said that ESC would produce any treatment for Parkinsons.

As Joe excerpted and commented:

Kinsley suffers from Parkinson's and has an intimate stake in the potential cures provided by stem cell research. He admits that he is “not an objective analyst” and firmly believes that, “No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others.”

Considering that adult stem cells (ASCs) have already been used to treat Parkinson’s (as well as 70 other conditions) while embryonic stem cells (ESCs) can't be used to treat any disease, it becomes clear that Kinsley is not only not objective, he is not committed to learning the truth. But the blame lies less with the suffering than with those who blatantly overhype the potential of ESCs for cures.

A handful of researchers, abetted by the media, have consistently misrepresented the “promise” of ESC for their own personal gain . . . .

--> In short the issue is plain enough, and not the way you imagine.

3] Alternatives

--> What I pointed out is that ASCs are a morally non controversial -- and by sharpest contrast, effective -- alternative to ESCs. I then went on to point to the context in which we have been tempted to high-tech cannibalism: all those "extra" embryos produced by IVF since 1977.

--> I then raised the issue that there are alternative fertility treatments [alluding to Joe on that] and also adoption, which he did not mention. In short I am saying if there is a morally superior and effective alternative, the resort to the morally questionable is plainly unjustifiable.

--> Maybe a parallel I learned of in my first year in university will help:

a] In the Nazi concentration camps, there were a lot of “available” subjects, who were going to die anyway.

b] Medical doctors resorted to using them in medical experiments, as came out in the Nuremberg trials.

c] Some of the research, so-called was trivial, but some of it produced serious progress in medical science. Thus, according to those who told me of it, in fact far more lives were saved by the new medical knowledge than were lost in the death camps.

d] But here was medicine, sworn to do no harm, benefiting from one of the worst horrors of C20. The profession actually went back and re-did the research on scrupulously ethical bases to regenerate the knowledge on grounds that were ethically justified.

--> In short, to intentionally harm some to help others is indefensible, and what is on display is the disintegration of medical ethics similar to the breakdown in secularised Germany that led to the medical experiments of Mengele et al.

--> This collapse of medical values and ethics is of course exactly what Schaeffer and Koop warned of back in the 1970's and were ridiculed for.

4] The question is whether it is a human life. Of course it is 'of human nature'....a sperm cell is 'of human nature' too as is even a dead body.

--> Now, you have explicitly accepted the obvious -- that the embryo partakes of human nature. Good.

--> STEP 2: Is it alive? ANS: Obviously, yes.

--> Therefore it is human by nature and alive by observation; thus, is plainly worthy of protection if human life has an intrinsic, sacred worth that is to be protected.

--> Moreover, I should note that just because implantation fails in some cases does not justify us deliberately killing -- the death rate last I saw was in the end 100%, but that does not justify imposing death on the innocent.

--> Similarly, we do note and mourn the passing of the miscarried: for instance, I SHOULD have been a second child, but for a miscarriage. [Duly noted on my birth certificate. I do remember, and salute, my bigger sibling who never made it . . . at least, on this earth. I remember wondering about that big sister or brother, and hope to meet her/him One Day real soon.]

--> There are also uncles that I never met, who died in early infancy in the cruelly impoverished world of the 1920s and 30s in deep rural Jamaica. [An older uncle also died rescuing people from drowning while a war worker in the US in 1943. I remember the awe I felt when I met a security guard at a Bauxite plant who on hearing my name asked if I was related to my uncle Wilbur, whom he knew as a fellow war worker, and remembered as a hero. I have the same proneness to cramps while swimming, and that is a cautionary tale that will pass on down the generations of my family.]

--> All of these deaths have shaped my concerns, some of it in deep ways. In short, our response to human life and death is a shaping influence on us for good or ill.

+++++++++

Okay, and Nedbrek: great to hear from you, and to see your persistence in sticking by your guns. Keep up the good efforts.

Grace, open our eyes

Gordon

41

Gordon,

Texanna can be excused for her ignorance of the nature of modern IVF practices but not anyone who seriously has studied the ESC issue. The would include the major pro-life organizations, the President, members of his ethics committee and so on. All these people should be well aware that IVF clinics on a regular basis create and destroy 'surplus embryos'. To them Kinsley's article should not contain any revelations.

Yet to my knowledge no move has been made to get Bush to rescind his praise of IVF clinics, no serious legislation introduced to stop the surplus embryo production (which would not require Roe.v.Wade to be overturned). There are a handful of exceptions, Italy for example has a strict IVF law which includes a provision that only embryos 'intended' to be taken to term by a couple can be created (of course this can't be fully binding, if a woman decides she had enough when two embryos are left in the freezer the state cannot force her to take them on in her womb).

I guess I should just give up on the larger point since even just communicating it here seems to be too hard. Gordon argues that the inconsistent behavior regarding embryos throughout human history and even today among informed pro-lifers is simply a slow process of institutional evoluation and eventually people will rise to the challenge. On the other hand, we might have that or we might have what Kinsley believes is a deep rooted knowledge that there is something wrong with the assumptions of many pro-lifers and this leads them to behave in an inconsistent manner.

Similarly, the problem with ESC is not just that it has failed to produce cures, but that it is plagued by problems, including inducing cancer. [I noted on this above and a recent Sci Am is speculating on the role of stem cells in cancer propagation, guess why.] In short, despite the hype, it is technically problematic and likely to go the way of the late un-lamented fetal tissue research, another much hyped panacea that failed while being immoral.

Indeed however again this is the either or fallacy at play here. Organ transplant is also plagued by many problems not the least of which is often requiring patients to spend the rest of their lives on rejection blocking medications. Many therepies such as CV medication for high blood pressure have yielded much better results at a lot less cost than, say, heart transplants. Nevertheless heart transpl