More thoughts on the stem cell debate

I respectfully disagree; this is not an unresolvable issue, it’s a matter of where you draw the line. At one extreme, there are those that state that abortion is never justified, even if the fetus has a horrible genetic defect, is a result of rape, or will almost certainly result in the mother’s death if carried to term (I hope that you were not serious when you posited that some equate abstaining from sex as a pro-choice position). At the other extreme are people such as Peter Singer, who infamously recommends a 30 day period after birth when the parents can decide if they want to kill or keep their baby. The rest of us are somewhere in the middle, and every individual has a right to put the line where she wants to. The average position in this country is somewhere near, “Abortion is bad, but you should be able to get one early in your pregnancy, especially if there is something wrong with the baby or having the baby will really mess up your life.” My own line is much more conservative than that, and I hope that the political process will lead to a change in where that line is, but I’m not about to go around picketing abortion clinics or harassing women who decide that that is the route for them to take. I am definitely against using human embryos for basic research because that is where I draw the line, at conception, when a unique being is created. I believe that destroying a potential human may be justifiable to prevent damage to a living human (i.e., the mother), or if a terrible disease is detected before birth (e.g., Tay-Sachs). Some draw that line for less serious problems such as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, or Sickle disease. I was revolted by the recent article in the NYTimes about the woman who conceived triplets, and then selectively “reduced” two of them, not for health reasons, but because if she had triplets she would have to “move to Staten Island and shop at Costco.”

We draw lines all the time in our society. You can drive 55, not 70. You can keep 70% of your earnings, but not more, because the government has dibs on the other 30%. You can yell at your kids, but not spank them. You can dismember that fetus a minute before it passes through the cervix, but not a minute after.

Societal change occurs at the margin of what is acceptable and unacceptable. Technology breakthroughs can create opportunities for interested people to shift the location of the line in one direction or the other. As a society we are very schizo about this; witness in utero surgery to save the fetus’ life vs. dismembering it to get rid of an inconvenient or unwanted pregnancy. This is justifiable only if you regard the fetus as the absolute property of the mother, to do with what she pleases.

This has turned onto a rant. Sorry about that.

We do have to agree to disagree, but I have not made a “leap of faith,” as you put it, in reaching my position. There is nothing unique about any one of the millions of sperm cells that men create in a lifetime, or the hundred of ova that women produce. The embryos is unique. That is where I draw my line.

I draw my own particular line at the point where a unique human is created, i.e. conception. I’m not an absolutist; there may be a valid reason for a particular pregnancy to be terminated, such as a threat to the physical health of the mother, a major defect in the fetus, or rape/incest. I am an absolutist when it comes to convenience, as in the NYT article I mentioned. If I were enforcing speed limits, I might let everyone go 60 in a 55 mile zone, and you coud go 65 if you were taking your wife in labor to the hospital. You couldn’t go 90 no matter what.

Please note that the current Federal prohibition on stem cell research does not outlaw stem cell research. It outlaws Federal money being used for stem cell research. It is analogous to the Federal abortion policy, which does not prevent anyone from having an abortion, but does keep Federal money out of the equation. This seems to be a compromise that American society has decided it can live with.

I am fiercely opposed to this form of murder, to me it is killing another human being just to save another, and that is pointless and stupid. If the person with the baby is not smart enough to use contraceptives then give the baby to an adoption home, don`t kill it.