The writings of Michael Kinsley, former editor of Slate and The New Republic, are often intelligent, insightful, and invariably, incorrect. His latest article for Slate, Science Fiction: What pro-lifers are missing in the stem-cell debate, is a prime example. 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 a talk at Cambridge University in England entitled "Hype, Hope and Hair-raising: How the British press saw it," former Science Editor Tim Radford of the UK's The Guardian acknowledged that he and his fellow science journalists hype stem cell research to sell more newspapers. 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).
But 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.
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.
For Christians, medical intervention to overcome infertility is certainly acceptable -- providing that they do not violate established biblical principles in the process. The most ethically unproblematic methods of aiding the reproductive process should, therefore, be preferred whenever possible. The use of fertility drugs and artificial insemination, for example, do not require the production of multiple embryos that must be discarded or frozen and placed in storage.
Fortunately, these are also the first options that most physicians would consider. Other methods, however, such as gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), or in vitro fertilization, can also be approached in a way that is respectful of human life.
IVF, however, is an inherently expensive procedure, often costing between $10,000 – 30,000 per treatment. The likelihood of success is also dismally low. Even the best of techniques offers less than a 50% chance that a live birth will occur. Because of these obstacles, couples may be tempted to set aside the ethical concerns in order to increase the chances of fulfilling their desire for a child.
Christian couples, however, should never be willing to unnecessarily sacrifice an innocent human life, even for such a noble purpose. The extra expense required to may be substantial or even prohibitive. But the cost of destroying the embryo is even higher.
While reproductive technologies may not be inherently reprehensible, the intentional creation of embryos that will never be implanted is as immoral as cloning human life for research. Whether the intention is to relieve the suffering of infertility or to pursue research in hopes of finding miracle cures, embryonic human life must not be treated as a means to an end. Innocent human beings, however they are created, deserve our protection.
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?
Related: A shockingly semi-thoughtful article on IVF can be found in the far left magazine, Mother Jones. Liza Mundy look at how couples who undergo IVF are “confused yet deeply affected by the responsibility of deciding what to do with their embryos.”
In a recent press conference President Bush was asked a question that was intended to clarify his position on the moral status of embryos:
If I understood you correctly, the embryos put together for in vitro fertilization do contain life. And if that's the case, do you believe that those people who create those embryos for in vitro fertilization have an obligation to ensure that they are brought to term if they are, in fact, not needed by the original --
To which the President interjected…
No, the issue that involves the federal government is whether or not we use taxpayers' money that would end up destroying that life. That's the issue at hand.
While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Bush and appreciate the way in which he has defended the sanctity of life, he is wrong on this point: our obligation to embryonic human life is the issue at hand.
No doubt it is easier to oppose those who would destroy embryos for speculative scientific research than it is to criticize 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.
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.
For Christians, medical intervention to overcome infertility is certainly acceptable -- providing that they do not violate established biblical principles in the process. The most ethically unproblematic methods of aiding the reproductive process should, therefore, be preferred whenever possible. The use of fertility drugs and artificial insemination, for example, do not require the production of multiple embryos that must be discarded or frozen and placed in storage. Fortunately, these are also the first options that most physicians would consider. Other methods, however, such as gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT), zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), or in vitro fertilization, can also be approached in a way that is respectful of human life.
In deciding which method is most appropriate, Christians should seek out the guidance of a physician or other expert who shares their concerns about the sanctity of life. Some issues that should be addressed are outlined by Daniel McConchie, Director of Public Relations and Public Policy for Americans United for Life, in an excellent article on how to treat the embryo with the utmost care:
1. A couple using IVF should decide ahead of time how many embryos to implant and attempt to create only that number of embryos. If more than the ideal number of embyros are created, the extras may be implanted with the others or frozen (to be implanted later)--whichever option poses less risk to the lives of the mother and embryos. No embryos should ever be discarded.
2. Only a limited number of embryos should be implanted following in vitro fertilization. Such an approach will decrease the chance that too many embryos will implant, thereby risking the lives of all the embryos and/or the mother.
3. A couple considering fertility drugs should research the options carefully. Some drugs may cause multiple eggs to mature rather than merely putting the body back into a normal, healthy, fertile state. Potentially harmful multiple pregnancies can result. One drug, clomiphene citrate, does not carry the risk of multiple pregnancies that some of the other fertility drugs now available do. Also, the multiple pregnancy risk can be minimized with the use of ultrasound to monitor the maturing egg(s). With monitoring, multiple pregnancies can be avoided.
4. Selective reduction (abortion of some implanted, developing embryos so the others have a better chance to survive) is not an ethical option. However, selective reduction should not be necessary if an appropriate number of embryos are implanted in the first place.
5. A couple should only consider implantation procedures whose percentage of success is equal to or greater than that of unassisted natural implantation. Otherwise, embryos are being placed at greater risk than is normally the case in human reproduction.
IVF is an extremely expensive procedure, often costing between $10,000 – 30,000 per treatment. The likelihood of success is also dismally low. Even the best of techniques offers less than a 50% chance that a live birth will occur. Because of these obstacles, couples may be tempted to set aside the ethical concerns in order to increase the chances of fulfilling their desire for a child. Christian couples, however, should never be willing to unnecessarily sacrifice an innocent human life, even for such a noble purpose. The extra expense required to may be substantial or even prohibitive. But the cost of destroying the embryo is even higher.
In a response to my post on embryonic stem cell research, Tyler Simons wrote:
If every embryo is a life that must be protected, as Joe seems to believe, is it moral to create 3 embryos in a lab knowing all the while that two will never see the light of day and feel their mother’s arms? In short, if Joe’s arguments are true, Is not In Vitro Fertilization itself reprehensible? Is it not hypocritical to oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research -- or, for the wimpy, Government funding thereof -- while remaining silent about IVF? [emphasis in original]
While reproductive technologies may not be inherently reprehensible, Tyler’s main point is indeed valid. Creating embryos that will never be implanted is as immoral as cloning human life for research. Whether the intention is to relieve the suffering of infertility or to pursue research in hopes of finding miracle cures, embryonic human life must not be treated as a means to an end. Innocent human beings, however they are created, deserve our protection.
And that, Mr. President, is the issue at hand.
[Note: This originally appeared on this blog as a post and has been revamped in order to be used for CBHD’s monthly newsletter. To complete the loop I’m posting the recycled version as a new blog entry.]
“Is it a boy or a girl?"
Whether after a sonogram or a new birth, the first question we have about a child is almost always about sexual identity. For millennia parents have anxiously awaited the answer to a question that underscores the mystery and uniqueness of being created male and female. But what happens when the outcome can be decided before the child even enters the mother’s womb?
Although rarely discussed, reproductive technologies have made it possible for parents to have complete control over the sex of their child. The most common method requires only a prenatal diagnosis (either through a sonogram or amniocentesis) followed by abortion of fetuses having the unwanted sex. A more advanced means involves a preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) followed by selective implantation based on the desired sex. An even more rare, and less certain technique, entails the pre-fertilization separation of X- and Y-bearing sperm followed by selective in vitro transfer. The first two techniques select post-conception, while the last seeks to determine sex before human life begins.
In a country that prizes both consumerism and the unquestionable right to abortion, it’s not surprising that the two have melded together, providing would-be parents with the means to control the sex of their offspring. "These are grown-up people expressing their reproductive choices,” said Jeffrey Steinberg, director of the Fertility Institutes, which offers the service at clinics in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. “We cherish that in the United States." Indeed, we value the concept of freedom of choice more than we do equality. While countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan and Switzerland all ban such procedures for non-medical use, in America it's gaining greater acceptance. Though relatively few IVF facilities currently offer the services, research continues in order that the techniques might be perfected.
Until parents are able to gain a 100% assurance that they get the boy or girl of their choice, though, abortion always remains a viable option. "If you ask couples coming in what they will do if they get the wrong sex, these couples say very frankly they will terminate the pregnancy," said Mark V. Sauer, director of the division of reproductive endocrinology at Columbia University. "I don't want to be a party to that."
Because sex plays such a fundamental role in the development of character and personality, it is understandable that some parents might have a preference either for a boy or for a girl. But it is precisely because the sex of a human is so intrinsic to their being that it should not be left to the whim of parental desire. The reliance on questionable or unethical reproductive technologies strips away the sense of mystery that surrounds the creation of new life. Instead of accepting children as being created in the image of God we attempt to make them in the image of ourselves. Even our language exposes our attitude of control over the process. In Toward a More Natural Science, bioethicist Leon Kass wrote, “The premodern Christian English-speaking world, impressed with the world as a given by a Creator, used the term “pro-creation.” We, impressed with the machine and the gross national product (our own work of creation), employ a metaphor of the factory, “re-production.”
While sex control may cause social problems such as lopsided sex ratios or contribute to gender stereotyping and discrimination, the most troubling aspect may be in what it says about our expression of love toward children. In his book Faith, Hope, Love, the Thomist philosopher Josef Pieper explores the various meanings and connections between the concepts we use to describe “love.” What, he asks, is the “recurrent identity underlying the countless forms of love?”
My tentative answer to this question runs as follows: In every conceivable case love signifies much the same as approval. This is first of all to be taken in the literal sense of the word’s root: loving someone or something means finding him or its probes, the Latin word for “good.” It is a way of turning to him or it and saying, “It’s good that you exist; it’s good that you are in the world!”
Parents who choose the sex of their child, however, are expressing a contingent form of love: “It’s good that you exist if you’re a boy” or “It’s good that you exist if you’re a girl.” The very process of gender selection makes the parent’s love conditional on the child’s sex. All children that don't meet the criteria are simply not chosen. They are discarded, never to exist. In essence, they are being told that since they cannot be created in the way the parents’ desire, its better that they not exist.
Every child, though, deserves to be loved in the way that God intended parental love to be given, the way he gives it to his own children -- unconditionally. Even if technology provides the means we should not usurp God’s role. The question "Is it a boy or a girl?" is one that should only be decided by our Creator.