Blogs and Stories
A 'Breakthrough' in the Stem Cell Debate
Sandy Huffaker, FILE / Getty Images
Just because two sides disagree over the issue of stem-cell research doesn’t mean both arguments should be given equal weight.
You call this a quandary?
“Potentially closing the book on this decade’s definitive medical ethical quandary,” the Daily Beast’s Cheat Sheet reports (crediting the Guardian), “British and Canadian scientists have discovered a way to produce stem cells without destroying an embryo.”
This is good news, to be sure. But let’s be clear: There is NO “medical ethical quandary” involved in the decade-long dispute over stem cells. There is only the appearance of an ethical quandary, created by people who either don’t understand or willfully misrepresent the facts. “Quandary” is a particularly insidious word. Compare it to “controversy.” There is undeniably a controversy about stem cells: two sides, disagreeing strongly. But “quandary” suggests that the controversy is legitimate—that a fair-minded person would have to recognize some degree of merit in both sides of the argument, wherever he or she might ultimately come down. In a “quandary,” there actually are (dread phrase) “no easy answers.”
The anti-abortion forces who have delayed stem-cell research by a decade are not morally serious. If they were, they would be trying to get laws making the work of fertility clinics illegal.
The stem-cell controversy is really about abortion, of course. And abortion is both a controversy and, for most people, a genuine quandary. That quandary usually is defined as, “When does human life begin?” I think a better way to put it is, “When do human rights begin?” That avoids the whole hopeless search for agreement about some mystical moment when humanity is conferred, all of which (conception, birth, “quickening,” sundry trimesters) are equally illogical, and concentrates on a question that can be debated or negotiated with some hope of progress. But many will disagree even with that preliminary assertion, claiming that it’s a setup for the pro-choice answer I prefer. It’s a quandary.
The debate over stem-cell research is different. There is a controversy, but no real quandary. Here is why. Virtually all stem cells used (or that will be used) in medical research come from fertility clinics. Standard operating procedure in fertility clinics is to fertilize and implant multiple eggs in the hope that at least one will survive. For that matter, Mother Nature’s method of producing a human being is not very different in this regard, and also involves fertilizing far more eggs than ever grow into babies.
If you wish to believe that every fertilized egg is a human being with full human rights, that is your privilege. I disagree, which makes it a controversy. If I felt you were serious, we would have a quandary as well. But there’s no quandary because you’re not serious. Your actions are too different from your words. You are doing absolutely nothing about the millions of fertilized eggs that are destroyed naturally every year (in miscarriages so early that the potential mother is not even aware of them), or the thousands that are produced and unused by fertility clinics going about their normal work (which are either discarded or pointlessly frozen in the hope of some miraculous ethical breakthrough).
The anti-abortion forces who have delayed stem-cell research by a decade are not morally serious. If they were, they would be trying to get laws making the work of fertility clinics illegal, not concentrating on the tiny fraction of surplus embryos from those clinics that are going to a worthwhile purpose. They would still be severely mistaken, in my view, but at least that could legitimately be described as an “ethical quandary.” But there is no political pressure against fertility clinics. While abortion clinics are routinely terrorized, fertility clinics advertise on the radio. If you really think that a microscopic embryo is a human being, which kind of clinic kills more human beings every year? It isn’t even close.
What difference does this all make, now that George W. Bush is gone and his ban on federally funded stem-cell research has been eliminated? It makes a big difference. When something is stamped as an “ethical quandary,” people and organizations that wish to avoid controversy stay away. Or they appoint well-meaning but slow-moving commissions to study the issue. Or they split the difference in some silly and irritating way. Whatever, the result is that the promise of stem-cell research is delayed or unrealized.
The essence of today’s report is that scientists have found some incredibly complicated way to create—someday, maybe even soon—a valuable research tool that already exists by the thousands and has for years. Some people think we should have been using it for years, while others say they think using it would be immoral, but can’t give a coherent reason. What a quandary.
Michael Kinsley’s column appears Fridays in the Washington Post. He has Parkinson’s disease, the condition for which stem cells are believed to hold the greatest promise.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
Return of the Health Care Villains
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
New York Times' New Columnist Is Full of It
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
The Gaffe-termath of Political Slips
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
Thanks to Michael for "saying it like it is" on this contorted set of questions.
As a professor of bioethics, I've had considerable difficulty figuring out how to address this issue in my classes. Unlike some colleagues in my field, I take religious arguments seriously, and believe that religious traditions provide important perspectives on enduring values often taken insufficiently seriously in our materialistic and consumer-oriented society. At its best, religion also recognizes the importance of community and relationships across time in our highly individualistic society.
All that said, the religious arguments opposing (and there are some religious traditions strongly favoring) research on stem cell medicine seem to me especially weak, indirect, and difficult to translate into any kind of persuasive secular language. Like Kinsley, I find many of these claims, advanced in the name of ethics, difficult to take at face value. I have great difficulty finding a way to present these claims in a respectful way in the classroom as part of a serious ethical debate, and am astonished that so many in the media and public life treat this as if it presented one of the important ethical questions of our times. It does not. Religious, yes. Political, yes. But not ethical--at least not in any terms I can understand and respect. It is simply a surrogate--and a poor one at that--for continuing to fight the abortion wars. I can respect competing views on abortion, but not on stem cell research. It's sadly all too rare to find a coherent public statement of that reality, and I appreciate this one from Mr. Kinsley--and I wish him well.
"When does human life begin?" I think a better way to put it is, "When do human rights begin?" That avoids the whole hopeless search for agreement about some mystical moment when humanity is conferred...
LOL, dancing on a pinhead isn't effortless and Kinsley must have sore legs...
why muddy the waters with the question of when life begins because if it does then ending it means killing it... can't have that so lets figure out when human rights begin... LOL ... I guess you could be alive but not have human rights conferred on you, but what department of the government do you go for that?? The Kinsley Multi-Level Life Conference Department???
Kinsley is just jealous because he will never have to consider an abortion, a right of passage for liberals
thank you, man. your article is well-reasoned and intelligent. the real moral problem is that actual people have died because stem cell research has been delayed.
Lovely article, succinct argument. I am a university educator teaching biology. I'm still toiling in the trenches trying to explain evolutionary theory, which ought to be even less controversial than stem cell research. We are living in a time when being an anti-intellectual is being a 'real' American, and when 'truthiness' trumps evidence, data, and critical thinking.
I hate to be the one to call out other commenters, but phillipjames, your hardly coherent statement seems to have been made without reading through the article and actually thinking about it. Mr. Kinsley was saying that if you are opposed to abortion, fine, but do not try to use your right to that belief to slow down the scientific progress that could be made with the help of stem cell research.
Life begins at birth, and ends at death.
The end.
I think this is a fair article on this issue. The stem cell research issue was hijacked as a political issue, and that is where the "quandry" really came from. When this became an issue, there was a fight going on in Congress about abortion, and this was brought into the debate as a stepping stone. I don't think the Bush administration would have felt compelled to prohibit the use of embryos for this purpose otherwise. And stem cell research continued, because all of the stem cells that were already harvested or could be harvested in other ways were still legal to use.
I personally believe that life begins at conception. Maybe that is because when I first had children it was through in-vitro and I saw my children through a microscope at 4 cells prior to implantation. They were a life to me. He makes a good point about the fertility clinics and the intellectual dishonesty of ignoring them in the debate.
Where have you been for the last 36 years, Michael?
First of all you dehumanize these human embryos by calling them fertilized eggs. A fertilized egg is a unique human life at its earliest existence. That is a unique being with its own unique DNA which if not destroyed, will grow to be a unique, living breathing human being.
You degrade humans by dehumanizing human life, a tiny one- cell created human.It is wrong to kill human life.
It is great that we have made discoveries about the human reproductive system so doctors can help people conceive a baby successfully.The line is drawn on conceiving a baby in the test tube and fiddling around with it as if it were a amoeba cell in a slide smear.
If abortion isn't wrong then, nothing is. It is evil. As Elie Wiesel oserved, "When you enter evil it is not static. You go deeper in."
Life begins on passing pre-college calculus, and ends at death.
The end.
Also, Michael. For too long, we have been going down the wrong road with fertility clinics. We are, as Elie Wiesel would so accurately characterize it, "going deeper in" to evil.
It is never too late to back out of this gravely immoral practice. And don't tell me I want to "to turn back the clock". None of us knows the future may bring. But we have the past to give us some clues of what happens when humans are degraded and dehumanized. Human lives become useful and disposable.
The human life you value and spare today may value and spare yours and your loved ones tomorrow.
"You degrade humans by dehumanizing human life, a tiny one- cell created human. It is wrong to kill human life."
Are you actively opposed to Iraq? Are you a pacifist? Are you against the death penalty? What is your stand about James Kopp?
Michael Kinsley,
I beg you and your readers to read this article. It will explain the Catholic position concerning embryonic personhood. Peter Kreeft, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at Boston College and at the King's College (Empire State Building), in New York City
Human Personhood Begins At Conception - by Peter Kreeft
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BEGINSCN.TXT
Beautifully argued, as always, Mr. Kinsley. Here's hoping this discovery helps end the unconscionable delays. (So happy to see you're back in the Post every week, too.)
The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. - Peter Kreeft
pricklypear...."will grow to be a unique, living, breathing, human being." Exactly, WILL BE, but not yet.
You're so right qnofrogs. For the last 8 years advances in science and evidence of everything from evolution to climate change has been suppressed or outlawed by the Bush administration in the name of coddling the ignorant religious right (or worse, filling the pockets of those profiting from preventing any other energy source than oil). Witness the $25 million dollar Creation Museum in Kentucky that portrays the earth as a mere 10,000 years old with humans and dinosaurs co-existing. I, for one, voted against the Republican ticket because we desperately need intelligence, integrity and public service in our leaders! Our country has been hijacked by the selfish and greedy warmongers who care nothing about anyone but themselves.
Prickypear is correct. This is like saying, "well, those African children are going to starve anyway, why not make them slaves". The abolitionists were viewed exactly as pro-lifers are today. In a thousand years, our decendants will view abortion the same way we view feeding Christians to the lions. They will not believe the selfish brutality. FYI, I have a disease that is incurable. The most promising cure is an embyonic stem cell based technology in England. I will refuse it on conscious.
"I think therefore I am." A dozen cells in a petri dish doesn't have neurons, doesn't think, and certainly doesn't have anything resembling consciousness. It's not a person.
flyoverland - I'm truly sorry that you have and incurable disease but you have entirely missed the point of the discussion.
I have major problems with your post. While I was willing to suspend my disbelief in order to follow your argument, the flaws were too glaring for me to ignore.
#1 You chalk up the anti-stem cell research into two groups: those are are for it and pro-choice, and those who are against stem cell research because they are anti-abortion simply because they believe life begins at conception. There are MANY more reasons than the belief that life begins at conception that make some people anti-abortion. That is why the anti-abortion camp may not be so anti-fertility clinics as you would expect or think.
#2 The entire "miscarriage" analysis is stupid and bordering on certifiable. The thought that anti-abortion people should be up in arms because miscarriages happen is not only idiotic, but cruel to those who suffer from those events.
This is a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but if we are going to have this debate, please let us use reasoned logic and not some poorly thought out rhetoric. And as a side note, it would be easier to take anything this author says seriously if his contempt and vile for the opposing side wasn't dripping from the pages. Logical arguments sound best when emotional entanglements aren't allowed to consume and choke the reasoning from the pages.
I have major problems with your post. While I was willing to suspend my disbelief in order to follow your argument, the flaws were too glaring for me to ignore.
#1 You chalk up the anti-stem cell research into two groups: those are are for it and pro-choice, and those who are against stem cell research because they are anti-abortion simply because they believe life begins at conception. There are MANY more reasons than the belief that life begins at conception that make some people anti-abortion. That is why the anti-abortion camp may not be so anti-fertility clinics as you would expect.
#2 The entire "miscarriage" analysis is stupid and bordering on certifiable. The thought that anti-abortion people should be up in arms because miscarriages happen is not only idiotic, but cruel to those who suffer from those events.
This is a difficult topic for many people to discuss, but if we are going to have this debate, please let us use reasoned logic and not some poorly thought out rhetoric. And as a side note, it would be easier to take anything this author says seriously if his contempt and vile for the opposing side wasn't dripping from the pages. Logical arguments sound best when emotional entanglements aren't allowed to consume and choke the reasoning from the pages.
Mr. Kinsley makes a fair point about the inconsistencies of the pro-life movement -- but he fails to note thedegree to which that is changing. Most Christian SRI's wont invest in companies that in the fertility industry, because the close association with abortion makes it seem like dirty money. Catholics have long been enjoined against using fertility clinics; among evangelicals, there's a new trend towards "adopting" and implanting fertilized embryos left over from past procedures. Pro-lifers encounter with the abortion issue is moving them to greater consistency on life issues. If Mr. Kinsley wishes to add more to this debate than his crankiness, he ought to address those developments.
He becomes flatly DISHONEST when he blames the lack of stem-cell funding solely on Republicans. In the last five years, while fetal stem cell research has contributed nothing to science but some tumors in rats, we've made lots of progress on other stem cell fronts -- adult stem cells, stem cells from cord blood, the extraction of stem cells from testicular cells. Republicans spent the whole Bush administration trying to fund these avenues of research. Democrats blocked their efforts. There's absolutely ZERO evidence that fetal stem cells are a more productive area of focus than the other techniques. So why are liberals so obsessed with embryo destruction? Why won't they explore alternatives that all Americans can accept? What are they afraid to discover?
Forgive me if this sounds provocative . . . but it seems to me like Mr. Kinsley doesn't want to see Parkinson's cured unless he gets to kill some babies along the way. I really don't understand that attitude.
I don't think so. The point is rationalizing uneithical behavior. I choose not to participate.
surlybastardo:
the zygote has no brain, true, but it does have what will grow into a brain, just as an infant does not have speech but has what will grow into speech. Within the zygote is an already fully programmed individuality, from sex and aging to eye color and aversion to spinach. The personhood of the person is already there, like the tuliphood of the tulip bulb. One must actually be a human being, after all, to grow a human brain.
I should have given credit:
"the zygote has no brain.............grow a human brain.
- Peter Kreeft, Ph.D.
from 'Human Personhood Begins At Conception'
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/BEGINSCN.TXT
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.