Upon close reading, it really does seem as if the basic moral quandary in stem-cell research has now been overcome. That moral quandary was real, and it is a mark of a certain non-religious fundamentalism that some enthusiasts for the research refused to acknowledge that the objections were indeed serious. But we’re facing another moment when science in effect rescues us from our political and moral impasse.
Hogwash. It is only a moral dilemma in the sense that if I somehow, out of the blue, decided my sperm was a human being and then got myself wrapped into a moral quandary over whether or not I was committing murder while I had meaningless sex in the shower. It was a stupid artificial debate, little more than pandering, and pretending it is a real moral dilemma is to cede the ground to people we should be ignoring.
Additionally, no one on my side of this debate wanted to do this research because we just like ‘killing’ embryos. I will leave the sadism to the pro-torture right, of whom a not insignificant number are all wrapped around the axle about a blob of cells that is not human, will never be human, and shouldn’t be treated as such (in that regard, Sullivan is at least consistent with his regard for ‘life.’ He and I just strongly disagree as to what constitutes life- the folks we tortured in Abu Ghraib- human. A bunch of cells under a microscope- not human). Regardless, those of us who wanted this research to continue wanted it done because it had promise to help lead to cures that actual living people might need. If the science can progress without it, fine. If it can not, expect me to be calling out the faux moralists again.
*** Update ***
One thing I should probably make clear- I have no doubt that some people think this is a real dilemma, and are serious in their concerns. My position is not that they do not struggle with the dilemma, but that the dilemma/quandary really is no such thing.
jcricket
What if both ESC and this type of stem cell research both lead to cures (and for different diseases)? Or if ESC is better at curing stuff? Or…
Just like you said, there is a moral quandary for some, I’m fine with that. But the idea that scientists had to overcome it is, as you put it hogwash.
It is only because Sully is gay (i.e. doesn’t need contraception) that he doesn’t see his line of reasoning (abortion = contraception = stem cell research = death of babies) in the same light as progressives.
jrg
Riiight. Three words: Human. Animal. Hybrids.
The GOP is always one drooling focus group away manufacturing another “scientific debate” or “moral quandary”.
srv
But do you have a problem with torturing embryos?
Alan
The pro-life movement is a religion unto itself. It’s where “life” is taken to its utter absurdity.
Jake
Damn, I was hoping Mr. Sullivan would give us his opinion on IVF clinics.
I also wish he had explained how one determines the “seriousness” of an objection and WTF that has to do with scientific debate.
Has it really? Is this the Holy Grail, or is it something that looks like the Holy Grail and a number of people really believe is the Holy Grail but when someone drinks from it their face melts off?
capelza
Alan I agree. Up to murdering “abortionists” to save “life”…
HeavyJ
I too am deeply concerned about the untold billions of unique and special sperm lost each year to casual sex (something Provincetown Andy thankfully knows nothing about).
And I MUST be taken seriously by everyone.
Dave
How can there be an ethical dilemma over using embryos that would either remain frozen forever or be turned into ash? It has always frustrated me that no one ever seemed to call the Republicans on that.
And this new method, while intriguing, uses a virus for a delivery package. Is that less important than I think? Because not a single media outlet other than MSNBC has even bothered to mention that.
Punchy
Jesus Christ, Cole….quit it! Where in hell is the eye bleach??
r€nato
well actually, that’s completely logical.
If you knew someone was about to commit murder, and you had it in your power to stop them, you would be perfectly justified in using force – including lethal force – to stop the murderer.
This is the logical paradox of anti-choice advocates who constantly scream that abortion is murder.
If one truly believes that a fetus is a baby is a human life and if abortion is murder no different than any other sort of murder, then one should act on that belief and stop the murderer. One should also prosecute the woman who asks for the abortion, as an accessory to murder or manslaughter.
Of course, if the “mainstream” ‘abortion is murder’ crowd actually advocated or di either of those things, they’d be shown to be the extremists which they are, and people would immediately understand that it’s really not that simple of an issue.
Jen
I’m Catholic and I have never figured this out either. If you do believe that any zygote is truly life, then it seems to me that you must be against IVF, right? I mean, all these zygotes are being created for IVF (is that right? do they exist for something else?), not all of them can be used and those not used will be frozen or destroyed. So the problem isn’t with researchers who want to destroy them in a different way, it’s with their creation in the first place, right?
I don’t have a problem with IVF or stem cell research and believe that life begins somewhere further along than zygote on the continuum, before anyone flames me. Besides I have a feeling that this is something of a male-dominated blog.
David Hunt
If you subscribe to the point of view that embryos are as much of a human life as, say, a death-row inmate, then you can follow the logic-trail there. Just because you’re about to execute Ted Bundy, it still isn’t justified to perform medical experiments on him or break him up for spare parts even though he’s about to be killed. This is the same line of reasoning that can get you to not wanting to use ESCs in medical research, even if they were going to be destroyed. I don’t agree with that line of reasoning, but I can understand it.
David Hunt
And Jen,
As I understand IVF, you’re entirely correct. The moral arguments against ESC research should also mean that IVF would be a ghastly orgy of mass-murder.
Jen
That still doesn’t make any sense. Ted Bundy can feel pain. Breaking him into spare parts would probably be ‘cruel and unusual’. But a zygote doesn’t feel pain.
I hope that no one really thinks embryos are exactly equivalent to an actual human life. I mean, if the lab is on fire while you’re there with a suitcase full of embryos and a toddler, and you can only carry one, which one do you grab?
Zifnab
This still doesn’t address my moral quandry from the original open thread. If I’ve got ten artificial stem cells and ten all-natural stem cells, both of which are capable of becoming a human being, how are they different? One came from a sperm and an egg while the other came from my toenail clipping? Ergo, one is “alive” and the other isn’t?
The qualms never actually go away, unless you start drawing a bunch of imaginary lines across the definition of “embryo” and “life” and erase all the real lines between what constitutes a viable organism and what’s just a bunch of cells.
The “moral quandry” never went away. They just cranked the science up a notch and people got confused and wandered off.
Grand Moff Texan
it is a mark of a certain non-religious fundamentalism that some enthusiasts for the research refused to acknowledge that the objections were indeed serious
It is the mark of rational people that we don’t take superstition seriously. I’d tell Sully to blow it out his ass, but he’d have to remove the sock first.
.
The Other Steve
Quoting Sullivan.
Ok, this is a case where there are two sides to the argument and they’re both fucking morons.
The problem with Sullivan and the fundamentalists is that the only thing they didn’t want was public money being spent on this research. That’s it, that’s as far as they were willing to take it.
Well the problem is, once you take the public money out of the research, you also take away the public ethical discussion. So it’s interesting that Sullivan attacks some other side of not appreciating the ethics, when he himself was guilty of this. By denying the public dollars, you denied public oversight of how the money was spent.
This was pure Republican bullshit. Pander to the religious right, while allowing the evil corporations to have their way. And I’m not saying evil because all corporations are evil, I’m simply saying the companies who are evil and have no ethics, they allowed them to do whatever they wanted anyway as long as it was privately funded. Now you tell me how is that ethical?
It’s not. It’s just pure bullshit wedge politics.
The Other Steve
This is most certainly a valid question. I wonder why Sullivan won’t address it.
Punchy
Jen, you must stop immediately trying to make sense of the Catholic Church. As a fellow (fast-fading) Catholic, I’ve never understood their “no abortion” yet “no contraception” attitude. Inherently contradictory, unless you are saying that married couples can’t have sex once their family size has been met.
More incredibly, they’re also anti-vasectomy and whatever the female equivalent is. Pope Eggs Benny is living in dream-world if he thinks any of this crap is good policy.
TomMil
Opponents of gay marriage and civil liberties feel a real “moral quandary” too. It must be “a mark of a certain [gay] fundamentalism that some enthusiasts for the [lifestyle] refuse to acknowledge that the objections [are] indeed serious.”
The difference between the two “moral quandaries” is that Andy says so. Only he would use a whole bunch more words.
The Other Steve
It’s my understanding that the Catholic church has been consistently against IVF since the first test-tube baby came about.
Families who deny God’s will that they have no children in a natural way, and spend their fortunes on fertility stuff are guilty of Greed or Envy.
Jen
Tubal ligation.
Oh, I wasn’t trying to make sense of Catholicism, I know better than that. My mom’s a hard-core Catholic (candelight vigils for both abortion AND the death penalty) and she doesn’t give a hoot about stem cells or contraception. I’ve never actually met anyone who does, they exist for me kind of like unicorns or Ron Paul supporters.
I’m just trying to make sense of why, ultimately, the enemy is researchers trying to use the stem cells rather than the creation of those cells in the first place. I expect it may have something to do with it not looking so politically cool to take on formerly infertile couples thrilled to have kids. I may be cynical, though.
Jake
My guess is it’s the same reason he and his fellow Serious Objectors ignore the IVF issue: It drops a big old block of Logic in the We Love Life narrative stream.
Facts have a well known liberal bias don’tyewknow.
The Other Steve
It’s my opinion that morals frequently come from needs that society has. I think this concept comes from Hume or Smith in the 18th century. The theory of moral sentiments, or some such.
It made since 1,000 years ago to be against contraception and such because society needed many more children. In fact if you listen to some fundamentalists today, that is still their argument. The problem is there aren’t enough children in America and Europe.(well, specifically not enough white children)
Jen
Ooh, it could be the official Catholic position to be opposed to IVF. They don’t seem too vocal about it, though. Never heard it in the prayers or the homilies or anything. Haven’t read a papal bull in a while. Okay, ever. It’s probably in there, no IVF.
Face
I’d grab the nurse. They always have hot nurses in those IVF labs.
quickdraw
The Catholic church is vehemently opposed to IVF and has been for the last decade at least. And ever since the vatican started that whole “Culture of Death” meme, IVF’s been right up there with abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty.
I might (and do) disagree with Church policy, but at least they’re consistant. Protestant fundies don’t even have that to fall back on.
Zifnab
Close. Actually, the Catholic Doctrine implicitly states that you don’t get to pick your family size. God does. And God didn’t give you a sex drive to go slacking off on him. That’s why all good Catholics are expected to get married the moment their sex drives start kicking in, and start popping out babies like you and your significant other are the last two fertile individuals on earth.
The Other Steve
I remember it was a big deal in the early 1980s when this first came up. The problem is, that there are a lot of Catholics who want to have babies, and the church is dwindling so they need more babies. So they backed off on pushing it.
Do a google on Catholic and IVF…
catholic insight
lifesite
Jen
Well, the weird contraception thing to me is that they are not opposed to natural methods of contraception. The concept of recreational married sex when you’re not trying to conceive is o.k. as long as you involve a calendar and thermometer instead of a condom or a pill. This seems to me to be splitting hairs.
The Other Steve
Every sperm is sacred.
It’s the whole reason for the old stereotype about catholic families having 14 children.
Evinfuilt
One could say I’ve had a “hand” in that.
Okay, to be more serious. Once upon a time I spoke to my Catholic Priest about adoption (due to dangers of pregnancy at that time), but he thought that was wrong and we should just go about kids and get them the natural way (best for the women to die trying than not try at all.) If not, I should uhm, go about invitro-fertilization so that we could have actual child birth.
So this priest, would rather me spend thousands of dollars to make tons of “babies” and have a couple of them hopefully implanted. The rest discarded, instead of me going out and helping some child(ren) with no parent.
Its absolute madness everywhere. Its not about morality, its about asserting ones will on another person. I don’t think any of the “moral” crusaders against Stem Cell research have a single clue about where those embryo’s come from.
*since this time I’ve become completely sterile so uhm, who cares what the priest wants. Adoption it is :)
The Other Steve
They’re not stupid. If they told people not to have sex at all, the priests would end up with their heads on pikes.
Bubblegum Tate
Jen–
I have seen hardcore right-wing Catholics stand against IVF, but their dominant attitude is, “Well, IVF is already a reality, and we can’t put that genie back in the bottle, so we may as well turn our attention to making sure those cells in a Petri dish–that are the exact same thing as a fully grown human being, by the way–are not used in scientific research because that is MURDER!”
I’ve tried repeatedly to call them on that. All that happens is they dodge the question and say, “Oh yeah? What about the eleventy jillion babies who have been murdered by abortion? Murderer!”
The mistake is assuming they will give a rational answer to a rational question. They won’t; the narrative is the most important thing, and they will stick to it.
Jen
Yeah, but how do you even get through that explanation with a straight face? I would say the contraception thing is at least 98% ignored. Our former neighbors were a religion teacher at a Catholic high school and his wife, who stayed at home with the kids. She was of course on his health insurance plan. After three kids, she was ready to stop, and had of course forgotten that the Catholic health insurance plan wouldn’t pay for any tubal ligation. She was a religion teacher’s wife, and had forgotten the stance on contraception. That’s how ignored it is.
Evinfuilt
This is weird reading all the above. I guess my priest was just an anomaly. Well, at least there’s a little less hypocrisy in the world than I thought. Thinking about it more and more, that guy was just weird (no one else in the Church thought the marriage shouldn’t go forth because we weren’t willing to try for babies.) They would have been against it if they knew what I went through later :D
Jen
Evinfuilt, congratulations on your upcoming family, I am so happy for you. As a former guardian ad litem, I am all about some adopting by good people.
demimondian
[sigh]
First, IVF is unquestionably barred by current Catholic doctrine. The argument, far from being stupid, is typically subtle — it may indeed be that there is the blob of cells is not human, but we do not know. Then a classic risk-management argument suggests that IVF should not be performed.
However, more importantly, Sully misses a key point. This work depended critically on ESC work, and its equivalent in humans can not be done without reference wild type stem cell lines. There is only one way to get those lines — from genuine wild type Human (TM) Embryos. No substitute is acceptable.
Punchy
Preaching to the choir here, Zif. Mah sis is a Fundy Cathy, and now has 5 when they wanted 2. Doc told her to shut it down ‘fore her uterus fell out (I’m paraphrasing), and she excoriated him for even suggesting it.
And yes, they’re against IVF in a big way. They claim “it’s not God’s way”. I personally ruined Christmas two years ago vehemently arguing this crap with my bro-in-law. They’re completely unable to unhook themselves from their doctrine to see the illogic of their proclamations.
ThymeZone
Amen, if you will pardon the expression.
This reminds me of my fundamentalist brother who argues that if, in a laboratory, a test tube accidentally ends up with a fertilized egg in it, and that test tube gets washed, then the technician responsible is guilty of murder.
No, I am not making this up. He really said so, along with a lot of other phenomenally dumb things like that which make a mockery of real moral issues. I love my brother, but we no longer talk of religion and politics. It’s like trying to explain aerodynamics to a dog.
Jen
Wow, that’s special, Thyme. You can actually accidentally kill a live human being and not be guilty of murder, so that is a particularly intriguing argument.
Maybe you and Punchy could spend Christmas together and hook up your respective siblings for their own holiday.
Wolfdaughter
I personally know several people who would force women who have undergone IVF to gestate all of the embryos, bring them to term, and raise them. Mostly these are fundamentalists.
When I was in high school I was very good friends with a young woman of a Catholic family. The family was atypical of Catholic families of the time in one sense–she had only one sibling, a brother. I believe there was some problem with the parents’ fertility. Whatever the reason, because they couldn’t have more children, the parents did not share a bedroom. The mother shared a room with her daughter and the father with the son. There was some SEVERE pathology in that family, let me tell you.
I would not personally undergo IVF, but support it for couples who are willing to undergo the expense, pain, etc. If I had my complete drothers, abortion would never be necessary because all conceptions would be with loving couples who want the children, but that ain’t the case. I certainly don’t feel that it’s my place to judge women whom I don’t even know, who feel the need for an abortion.
To me, the Catholic position on contraception is perverse and actually morally evil. We don’t need to propagate like rabbits these days. Use of contraception LOWERS abortion rates, lets couples have recreational sex (promoting the pair bond and continuation of marriage), allows women to have sex for whom pregnancy would be dangerous, etc.
Zifnab
But it violates the Holy Commandment put down to the heathens of Babylon. Ye are required to go forth and multiply. That means if you aren’t a baby-making nomad family, you’ve violated God’s will.
ThymeZone
Sounds like fun. My brother is actually a great guy, and once you agree with him that he is morally superior to you, he would give you the shirt off his back.
grumpy realist
The funny thing is that the “pro-lifers” consistently ignore the fact that a sizable number of fertilized eggs don’t implant anyway. Which is why “God” is the greatest abortionist of them all.
I’ll love it when we get to the point when we can use any old cell whatsoever as a basis for cloning a new human.
(Argue from “different DNA”, then you have to say that killing an identical twin should then be ok. Plus the fact is that a certain percentage of cases where one zygote absorbs another, whoops, fratercide in the womb.)
If we ever do get around to actually ever legally defining “human life” to start at conception, there’s going to be a lot of unplanned for aftereffects. One theory I’ve heard about Thalidomide is not that it causes deformations, but simply keeps embryos-with-deformations from being miscarried. Mandatory Thalidomide for all pregnant women….? Yeah, that’ll go over well….
And if the Catholics want to bear kids with no restriction, you’d think they’d also be willing to make sure there’s no “going against god’s will” by using any medication, either….
ThymeZone
See, this is why you gotta love the Shakers. They avoided intimate contact.
That’s why you don’t have a lot of ShakerKea furniture stores in every big city in the country now.
jcricket
I for one welcome the fundies + catholics joining forces to have more public debate about contraception and IVF being murder. Let’s see how many votes (especially women, those under 30, etc.) that gets them.
One of the reasons fundies oppose Plan B (especially being available over-the-counter) is that they know it will end up like most contraceptives. Widely used and effective, and with almost no way to stop it. This takes away one of their most potent weapons politically (public protests at abortion clinics).
Hard to protest a million pharmacies across the US.
jake
I second that notion but for the entirely cynical and un-dirty hippish reason that fundies loathe RCers and before long they’d be too busy fighting to bother the rest of us.
Protestant Reformation II, Electric Boogaloo.
jcricket
Is Condi Rice going to be played by Chaka Khan?
It is amazingly true that mormons, evangelics and roman catholics – if actually forced to debate their positions on the issues – would likely disagree as much with each other as they do with liberals.
They don’t often portray it that way, but it’s the truth. The uneasy alliance that is the modern religious-base of the Republican party is a real weakness (almost as much as the demographic weakness of abandoning every minority group – from gays to blacks to hispanics to jews).
Enlightened Layperson
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would also be grounds for comdemning adoption.
Longhairedweirdo
I came to grips with this a long time ago.
If you want to say that you can cram personhood (not “humanity” because a single skin cell is “human”) int a cell, you can’t do it without pulling in a belief that is so faith-based that it might as well be religious. No, it might be a religious belief, but it requires some kind of leap, some kind of blind acceptance, some kind of “it just *is* true”.
I’m sure a lawyer could list the specifics of why that should be verboten in our society, people making arbitrary, non-evidence based designations like “a fertilized egg is a person”. I won’t bother; I might misuse a term.
But you don’t just get to declare things illegal, and put people in jail for no reason other than a bunch of loudmouths want it that way.
There was no controversy over stem cells, just a bunch of loudmouths trapped by their own rhetoric. They had to say “life begins at conception” or they have to allow early term abortions, and once they were wedded to that ideal, they had to fight stem cells.
jcricket
See Jose Padilla and Bhilal Hussein for two counter-examples.
r€nato
reading the comments on this thread reminds me again how happy I am that I am agnostic. I’m not opposed to all religious/Christian people, but the ones who take their dogma too seriously annoy the hell out of me.
Particularly the hard-core Catholics, they can be some of the most hate-filled, obnoxious, irrational people I’ve ever met. I’ve had way too many close encounters with that sort. If you’re not part of their cult, they treat you like The Enemy. Even in non-religious matters, they’ve turned out to be really awful, angry, vindictive people in my experience. Thank FSM I’m free of that crap.