« Blogs and China | Main | Clinging To Orthodoxy »
Stem Cells
New column from me on what an incoherent mess the White House position on stem cells is. More on this theme from Justin Logan. I think the sheer nonsensicality of "killing human beings for research purpose is fine and dandy as long as no federal dollars go for it" has been one of the big undercovered angles here.
May 24, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834235b9653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stem Cells:
» Stem-cell supporters speak out from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
A new round of debate on stem-cell research opened Monday with emotional appeals by people who have [Read More]
Tracked on May 24, 2005 1:47:28 PM
Comments
Killing human beings to advance 'freedom' and oil pipelines is fine and dandy, too. Purple fingers justify any number of dead and maimed.
Posted by: Al Gore | May 24, 2005 11:30:21 AM
I love Matt's writing, if only because he is the one person in the world who uses more parenthetical phrases than me.
Posted by: Rebecca | May 24, 2005 11:49:47 AM
The doing/allowing distinction is probably playing some role in making this position seem plausible. Interpreted so that having one's government destroy an embryo is a doing, while letting godless scientists destroy the embryo is merely an allowing, you can at least get some difference between the badness of the acts.
It still doesn't make the position a good one, and doing/allowing is hell to defend anyway.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | May 24, 2005 12:01:53 PM
For whatever it's worth, this was Bill Clinton's position on abortion; pro-choice but no taxpayer funding.
I'm just sayin'
Posted by: Electoral Math | May 24, 2005 12:04:49 PM
For whatever it's worth, this was Bill Clinton's position on abortion
No it isn't.
pro-choice but no taxpayer funding.
When did Clinton say or imply abortions were "killing human beings?"
Posted by: Dan the Man | May 24, 2005 12:11:54 PM
Wow. This was just a very bad column by Matthew. In addition to the difference between (i) not trying to have the government ban the act and (ii) having the government fund the act, the column relies on a Straw Man. The White House thinks that the destruction of embryos is the killing of nascent human life. Not human life.
Here's Matthew's slight-of-hand. He first states "But many Americans believe that "life begins at conception," which is to say that embryos, even tiny ones with only a few undifferentiated cells, have the same moral standing as human beings with functioning brains and so forth." But then he says "But Bush doesn't want a ban on embryo destruction."
Do you see the Straw Man? We go from "many Amercians believe" to "But Bush doesn't want..." Matthew implies that, because "many Americans" believe that embryos have the "same moral standing as human beings with functioning brains and so forth", BUSH BELIEVES IT TOO. But that appears to be wrong.
Bush apparently makes a distinction between "nascent human life" and "homeless people" that Matthew fills full of straw. You can see the White House statement here.
Matthew can do better. He should.
Posted by: Al | May 24, 2005 12:31:30 PM
The idea, basicly, is that if a lot of people find something offensive, you shouldn't FORCE them to pay for it. Half your problems with abortion stem from not understanding this. It's easy to turn your back on something you don't like, and ignore it. But if somebody forces you to pay for it, you become directly complicit, and sitting the fight out ceases to be an option.
Bush is actually aiding stem cell research, by refusing to fund it through taxes. Because he's preventing the backlash that would probably result in it being banned here, if the only choice was to subsidize or ban.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | May 24, 2005 12:40:25 PM
Brett,
A lot of people find the invasion of Iraq offensive. Would you like to allow them to earmark their tax dollars so that they don't go towards supporting it?
Posted by: Foo Bar | May 24, 2005 12:53:33 PM
OK, Al. What exactly is "nascent" human life? I'm (at least nominally) a Catholic and my church does not recognize the concept. I.e. the morning after pill is wrong because it's murder; pre-embryo contraception is wrong for more esoteric reasons having something or other to do with natural law and purpose of sexual relations, but nothing to do with "nascent" life. So I'll need some tutoring on this concept, which is brand new for me.
If an embryo is a human life, then it's clear that the harm of embryo destruction would outweigh the good of both in vitro fertilization and putative stem cell therapies. If it's just an an assemblage of human cells, on the other hand, then it seems that the public good of providing federal funding for promising treatments outweighs the harm of destroying embryos. Research will be slower under White House policy than if funds had been available without the proposed restrictions. Thus, people hoping for these treatments will wait longer and some will die who might have otherwise lived. This is the inevitable consequence of protecting "nascent" human life--and given such grave consequences, I'm eager to find out what exactly this concept means.
Embryos are routinely destroyed merely to provide fertility to couples perfectly capable of adoption--or at worst, simply remaining childless, arguably less of a hardship than most of the conditions for which stem cell therapy has been proposed. So in practice, I'm not sure what this "nascent" life is, and how it determines our value judgments--it sure hasn't made a dent in the IVF industry. So you'll be patient I hope if I suggest it sounds like kind of a muddle, and nobody, probably Bush included, has a serious definition of the term and an understanding of its ethical significance.
Posted by: PaulC | May 24, 2005 12:59:07 PM
A lot of people find the invasion of Iraq offensive. Would you like to allow them to earmark their tax dollars so that they don't go towards supporting it?
Well, as Mr. Bellmore purports to be highly libertarian, I think he would support that. Personally, even though I believe that providing for the common defense remains a useful function of the federal government, attacking countries that pose no threat to us is indeed a waste of taxpayer dollars. I would guess that this is partially behind Dr. Ron Paul's ("R"-TX) opposition to the Iraq War, and he's the most prominent (only?) Libertarian in the federal government.
Posted by: mds | May 24, 2005 1:03:15 PM
So does your fearless leader think expending 'nascent' human life in pursuit of medical knowledge is acceptable, or not? The question is not irrelevant. Which is precisely why he will never answer it. He is just hiding behind the same old anti-gov't dodge.
What really pisses me off is that all the anti-stem cell research folks will first in line for treatments generated by this method.
Posted by: Michael7843853 | May 24, 2005 1:12:11 PM
If an embryo is a human life, then it's clear that the harm of embryo destruction would outweigh the good of both in vitro fertilization and putative stem cell therapies. If it's just an an assemblage of human cells, on the other hand, then it seems that the public good of providing federal funding for promising treatments outweighs the harm of destroying embryos.
Obviously, PaulC, the White House believes "nascent" human life is something that is less deserving of protection than human life itself, but more deserving than "an assemblage of human cells". As for what "nascent" human life means, I'll leave that for you and the dictionary; you can interpret it as well as I.
Nonetheless, the point stands that the White House makes a distinction between human life (i.e., homeless people) and nascent human life. And Matthew creates a Straw Man by ascribing to the White House the view that there is no such distinction.
Really, is it that surprising that embryos aren't given the same value as homeless people? I mean, even most pro-life people (and I'm pro-choice) accept that fetuses have somewhat less value than human beings, since most would accept abortion in the case of rape, incest, etc, but obviously would not accept killing a homeless person who is the product of rape or incest.
Posted by: Al | May 24, 2005 1:12:28 PM
The idea, basicly, is that if a lot of people find something offensive, you shouldn't FORCE them to pay for it.
I won't dismiss this argument out of hand--though as noted, my tax dollars go to plenty that I and "a lot of people" find offensive. But more to the point, it's not Bush's justification.
I could probably argue this based on the content of Bush's statements connected to his policy, but an even more compelling proof is the fact that his stem cell policy is contrary to the will of the majority of Americans (e.g. http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=51 ) Most Americans say that research is more important than embryo protection. Bush says otherwise and makes that the official policy.
Now, that leaves "a lot of people" who agree with Bush. But guess what, when it comes to federal funding we often allow the tyranny of the majority. I'd rather that more federal money went to public transit and bike paths and less to highways. I could find "a lot of people" who'd agree with me. Yet, we are a minority, and as part of the social contract we allow that some of our tax money is allocated according to majority priorities and not our priorities.
Posted by: PaulC | May 24, 2005 1:13:57 PM
Obviously, PaulC, the White House believes "nascent" human life is something that is less deserving of protection than human life itself, but more deserving than "an assemblage of human cells".
I guess that's obvious in a tautological sense because he is giving special status to embryos. I just find it hard to take that special status seriously until somebody gives me a better definition than a waffle-word like "nascent."
Posted by: PaulC | May 24, 2005 1:16:00 PM
And Matthew creates a Straw Man
This isn't about Matt or his rhetorical techniques. It's about a policy that purports to balance ethical goods, but amounts to nothing more than a hopeless muddle.
Posted by: PaulC | May 24, 2005 1:18:30 PM
I've always thought that we pay taxes to buy civilazation; enhance the common weal. To spend tax money routed through the Pentagon and Defense industries to R&D methods and weapons to destroy human life..and then refuse to spend tax money in an effort to enhance the health and welfare of the living while claiming that doing so destroys life..is beyond my comprehension. So it must be a political position pushed by a group that has no interest in the common weal. What am I missing here.
Posted by: lugbolt | May 24, 2005 1:23:53 PM
This isn't about Matt or his rhetorical techniques. It's about a policy that purports to balance ethical goods, but amounts to nothing more than a hopeless muddle.
Well, my comment was on Matthew and his rhetorical techniques, which I thought were extremely poor. If he wants to argue against the White House's position, he should argue against its position and not against some other position the White House simply don't hold.
Personally, while I understand the distinction the White House makes, I would fund embryonic stem cell research to the same extent as other sciences.
Posted by: Al | May 24, 2005 1:31:27 PM
"The White House thinks that the destruction of embryos is the killing of nascent human life. Not human life."
??? "Nascent" means new, or "just having come into existence." It does not mean "potential." Logan's point on the incoherence of the policy stands: that the same people who are against stem stell research are the same people who think it's ok to advance military science that kills people more effectively in preemptive wars.
"Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth." Barney Frank.
Posted by: glitter | May 24, 2005 2:12:54 PM
Dan the Man: in My Life, Clinton talks about questions he got on abortion after announcing his Presidential campaign. He says, something to the effect of 'my position didn't really make either side happy; I was pro-choice but against taxpayer funding'. In rationalizing this stance, he says 'still, I couldn't support using taxpayer dollars for what many believed was the moral equivalent of murder'. Now, he had no problems executing people, so, take that for whatever it's worth, but, it's what he's on record as saying.
Posted by: Electoral Math | May 24, 2005 2:41:02 PM
in My Life, Clinton talks about
nothing which says or implies abortions were "killing human beings" and none of your supposed quotes shows otherwise. Duh.
Posted by: Dan the Man | May 24, 2005 2:54:15 PM
Nascent" means new, or "just having come into existence."
It also means "coming into existence" or "emerging", which I think is the proper meaning here.
Posted by: Al | May 24, 2005 2:58:33 PM
in My Life, Clinton talks about
By the way Charlie don't you ever get tired of trolling about abortion? Especially since you're just saying the same things as you usually do in Kevin Drum's place, why don't you be more inventive in your trolling?
Posted by: Dan the Man | May 24, 2005 3:00:21 PM
I'm not quite sure how we got to the point where I constantly find rightwingers here on my site flagging Bill Clinton as a paragon of intellectual consistency and principled leadership. It's a very odd trend.
Posted by: Matthew Yglesias | May 24, 2005 3:00:38 PM
I'm confused - I really don't see the problem with the doing/allowing distinction. Do what you want, just don't make me pay for it. Isn't this the generally-accepted liberal attitude towards religion, offensive works of art, sports....?
Posted by: digamma | May 24, 2005 3:31:05 PM
How Democrats can win on stem cell research:
"The Ronald Reagan Life Legacy Act"
Posted by: Jon | May 24, 2005 3:47:30 PM
