The New Republic

I wonder how many of these people support the death penalty.

- rozenson

July 3, 2008 at 5:06pm

rozenson, yes, it is a bit of a contradiction (although being held responsible for ones actions is a hell of a lot more understandable than dying because of being conceived by the wrong mother) , but I am against both abortion and the death penalty.

And what biological details are you referring to Eric? The point is not to create any embryos unnaturally, not for infertile couples and certainly not for stem cell research, nothing inconsistent about that. Now I know you might think that is cruel to infertile couples but there is a logic to stating making ten embryos to make one baby is wrong. It is you who are glossing over a few essential facts. They would also add for infertile couples adoption is certainly an option, an adopted baby is as worthy of love as one born naturally.

And let us be honest, who the hell doesn't speak and think in moral absolutes about such an issue? Are you in favor of children getting married? Of slavery? Of murder or rape? Are you not willing to take a firm stance on these issues or are you going to say it is all relative? But God forbid someone be right to life and then they can be treated like some kind of religious nutcase.

- blackton

July 3, 2008 at 5:32pm

If I were you, Eric, I wouldn't.  I don't think prolonged exposure is likely to yield a more nuanced view.

- drdannyu

July 3, 2008 at 5:34pm

drdanny, I am not so sure of that, not all right to lifers are unyielding and inflexible. I am not a right to lifer per se because I don't believe society has a right to compel a woman to give birth to a baby, putting her own life at risk, however I am not averse to speaking in terms of moral (but not legal) absolutes and say a woman who kills her own baby for less than a very serious reason is committing a deeply immoral act, I am just not prepared to call it murder.

- blackton

July 3, 2008 at 5:54pm

blackton, stem cell research does not necessarily require the unnatural creation of embryos for that purpose.  Plenty of embryos are destroyed for other reasons, many of which could be used for research instead of simply being disposed of, which is the status quo.  I understand that you believe these embryos *shouldn't* be destroyed in the first place, but given that they in are in fact destroyed on a regular basis, doesn't it make sense to do something potentially beneficial?  Consider an organ donor who is the victim of a murder.  It seems sensible to support the use of her organs to save somebody else, even though we do not support murder (admitted flaw in the analogy: people can choose whether or not to be organ donors).

- AlanSP

July 3, 2008 at 6:37pm

AlanSP,

I think stem cell research (beyond the use of existing stem cell lines, which Bush actually supports) does require the destruction of embryos.

Your murder analogy doesn't apply here because the excess embryos from fertility clinics aren't necessarily going to die or be killed anyway. Strict Catholics (who believe it's wrong to create them in the first place, as well as to destroy them) would presumably favor laws barring such fertility procedures, in the same way that laws prohibit murder or assault. Other opponents of stem-cell research believe the excess embryos should be adopted out to women who are willing to gestate them. I sure don't agree with these views myself.

I think blackton's broader point is that there's nothing irrational or out-of-touch-with-biological-facts about these pro-life understandings of embryos and their moral value. And I agree with him. The mere "facts" about embryonic life can't settle the moral question about what kind of moral status embryos and fetuses have, or ought to have.

Maybe the good thing about Obama's willingness to speak to religious communities on their own terms is that it could finally bring some greater depth and mutual understanding to a debate in which pro-choicers and pro-lifers often talk (or scream) past each other. There is no knock-down rational argument or scientific fact that can irrefutably establish when life, in the *morally relevant sense*, begins or at which point an embryo/fetus/baby deserves the same degree of protection as a born person. Recognizing this would force both sides to acknowledge that the other side's views are at least reasonable (as opposed to being "murderous" on one hand, or oppressive of women on the other.)

- hemlock41

July 3, 2008 at 7:43pm

blackton,

One problem with attaching a moral absolute to a particular biological detail (e.g. life is always inviolable and it begins when an egg is fertilized) is that it can lead to some extreme policy conclusions that many pro-lifers would not embrace. For example, some research suggests that hormonal forms of birth control result in the destruction of already fertilized eggs by preventing them from implanting in the uterus. An absolutist pro-lifer would have to follow her convictions to their logical conclusions and advocate banning the use of such contraception.

Some pro-life students I've had are surprised to realize this about the pill, but they do end up rethinking their support for legal contraception. Others (who adamantly believe that inviolable life begins when an egg is fertilized, i.e. when the equivalent of a test tube embryo exists) have refused to believe that their use of the pill amounts to something morally equivalent to abortion, according to their *own* moral premises. I think this contradiction is interesting and says something about the limitations of the existing absolutist rhetoric on the pro-life side.

Another strange example: a student once told me that his grandfather, who was part of a conservative religious community, opposed extended breast-feeding because it subverted the procreative function of sex by preventing pregnancy. And if the grandfather had known that it might result in the destruction of already fertilized eggs, he'd have probably been a lot more opposed.

- hemlock41

July 3, 2008 at 8:08pm

hemlock, to clarify, my point wasn't that embryonic stem cell research doesn't require the destruction of embryos;  it does.  My point was that you don't have to *create* embryos specifically for that purpose.  It's possible to use embryos that would otherwise be destroyed anyway.  I have no objection to women volunteering to carry the excess embryos of fertility procedures, but I'd be willing to bet that there simply aren't enough women willing to do this; there would still be embryos that get destroyed, even if there were fewer of them.  I don't think it's enough to say "I think the unnatural creation and destruction of embryos should be illegal, so I also think that stem cell research should be illegal."  This is sort of like saying "I oppose drunk driving, so I oppose organ transplants from people killed in drunk driving accidents" (keeping in mind the caveat I mentioned in my previous post).

I largely agree with you about the role of biological facts, although I'd point out that biology can at least *inform* the moral argument, even though it can't indisputably decide that argument.  For instance, many people (though certainly not all) would consider it useful to know when a developing fetus can sense pain, or the time course for its development of awareness.  Science can potentially help with things like this, but such findings are a starting point for discussion, not an end point.

- AlanSP

July 3, 2008 at 8:32pm

AlanSP,

Yes, I see I messed up my response to your first point. (Sorry; I am always in too much of a rush.) I actually did mean to challenge your original point and "miswrote" my first sentence; but now I see your point is at least partly right. If the source of stem cells is fetuses that were going to be aborted anyway, the analogy applies. But I think with respect to fertility clinic "left-overs" it misses the point a bit. These embryos are created with the knowledge and intention that most will be destroyed. That intention is built into the fertility procedure. It's true that the intention is not to create them specifically so that stem cells can be harvested from them. But the initial creation is compromised enough by the intention to destroy them that I'm not sure the "they're going to be destroyed anyway" argument absolves the ultimate use to which the embryos are put (i.e. stem cell research)of this moral taint. I'm not sure about this; I'll have to mull it over more.  

And even if there aren't enough women willing to adopt embryos, they can be stored indefinitely rather than destroyed, with the hope that enough women will come forward. (I also worded that part of my response badly: I have no problem with women choosing to adopt and gestate embryos. I just disagree that the existence of such willing women is sufficient grounds for outlawing the destruction of these embryos when the parents want them to be destroyed.)

I completely agree that scientific facts can inform the debate in the way you describe. My point was just that, ultimately, the moral disagreement doesn't boil down to such facts. It boils down to a set of moral views about what makes human life morally inviolable. The biological facts are relevant, and can play a crucial role in helping each side communicate its perspective to the other; but they're not going to be definitive.

- hemlock41

July 3, 2008 at 9:20pm

"Conservatives believe that the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth." - Barney Frank

- nbarry

July 3, 2008 at 10:07pm

nbarry,

Actually, the Catholic Church has one of the most (if not the most) conservative position on pro-life issues out there and it often encourages the kind of social policies that would help sustain life after birth. So Frank's slogan is unfair. I'm strongly pro-choice myself. But I wish the abortion debate proceeded on more constructive terms. I think the fact that it's been fought out with so much mutual suspicion and even contempt by parties on both sides has had costly consequences for everyone, including pro-choicers (witness the steady backlash erosion of Roe v. Wade) and, perhaps especially, for the Democratic Party.

- hemlock41

July 3, 2008 at 10:43pm

Hemlock nails it with "the fact that it's been fought out with so much mutual suspicion and even contempt by parties on both sides has had costly consequences for everyone,"  Bill Clinton formulation that abortions should accessible, safe and rare is the most sensible think said about abortion in decades, because it is a potential starting point for talking about an effective compromise.

Unfortunately, most of both sides are unable to compromise.  If every fetus, from union of sperm with egg on, has a soul, then killing it is murder.  Abortion and in vitro fertilization are morally repugnant and have to go (and no, those eggs can't be stored indefinitely - even in deep freeze, biology has a shelf life).  This position, although I disagree with it has at least the virtue of being reasonably consistent and rational, and not particularly difficult to legislate in a clear fashion.  On the other hand, they are utterly irrational for the most part about policies intended to make abortion rare by making improvident pregnancy rare.  Go figure.

On the "pro-choice" side, way too many people are equally adamant that rights to access to abortion are absolute, and any diminution of the full right of choice is forbidden.  This is absurd on its face, and lacks even the veneer of respectability that the consistency and clarity of the pro-life position give that.  They at least are sensible about the "rare" part, for the most part.

A plague on both their houses.  Abortion law and moral understanding addresses a complex subject, and needs to be nuanced.   In that it is no different than the prohibition against murder itself - there are degrees of "murder" recognized in the law, and not all killings are in fact illegal.  I can kill to protect my own life, or in an accident lacking evidence of negligence on my part, without legal sanction.  This kind of subtlety needs to be part of abortion law.

And it will be, if we persist in the current court mediated path long enough.  The problem is that this should not be decided in the courts.  It belongs in legislatures, like any other policy matter that requires society to reach a nuanced, evolving agreement.

- sdemuth

July 4, 2008 at 8:01am

Is it possible to be against abortion, but also not want to send anybody to jail who performs or has an abortion?

I would never have an abortion myself, and I can't imagine the circumstances where I would ever encourage my daughter to have an abortion; however, I do not think those women who do have abortions should be punished criminally, nor should the doctors who perform the abortions for those women who want them.

- kyoung

July 4, 2008 at 9:18am

hemslock, thanks for making my point (in your first post) more concisely than I did. Good job.

I must also say I am a little pleasantly surprised at how civil all of the responses here have been, threads like this are one of the reasons why TNR is so great.

- blackton

July 4, 2008 at 12:36pm

kyoung: Your position is pretty much that held by most of the women I know.  I think it's the keystone of the "legal, safe and rare" formulation.

- sdemuth

July 4, 2008 at 2:58pm

The National Right to Life Committee held its annual convention July 3-5 near DC. Most of its workshops were tightly controlled retreads led by centralized players, a real waste of the talents, ideas, thoughts, and accomplishments of state and local.

- Anonymous

July 7, 2008 at 8:13am