It's not Really about Stem Cell Embryos

Oh sure, there is a relatively small percentage of true believers who see any fertilized human egg as the moral equivalent of an adult human being. They earnestly oppose not only Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESR), but In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), the morning after pill, or any process in which a fertilized human egg is not allowed every chance to mature into a human. But most opponents of ESR fall into one or more of four categories. They are ignorant of the facts; they fear the "slippery slope"; they fear that any worthy research use of fetal or embryonic matter legitimates abortion, or, if they are politicians, they are pandering to a certain constituency.

My first question to anyone decrying the immorality of ESR is "Are you working just as hard or harder to ban in vitro fertilization?"

In vitro fertilization was certainly not without controversy when it was first introduced 27 years ago. Not only was there concern about fertilized eggs that wouldn't make it, but real questions about the role of science and technology in procreation, where it would stop, and concerns about the health of children brought into the world in that way. That last concern has been largely allayed, as many children now have come into being through IVF who are perfectly healthy and happy. Worries about "playing God" persist, and no one disputes that some fertilized eggs become waste in the process of IVF. That ship has sailed, however, and even opponents realize they won't be stopping IVF anytime soon.

Those who claim that ESR is a dangerous extension of IVF are either misinformed or being dishonest. While it is true that the "lives" of the otherwise discarded eggs are kept alive for an additional four days, embryos at that stage have not developed a nervous system, so claims of pain and suffering are simply not valid. If there is a wrong in having produced the eggs, that was a result of IVF, while ESR only provides hope that those eggs will serve a benefit far nobler than providing an infertile couple with genetically related progeny.

And yet IVF gets mentioned in a minority of any media reports on the matter, and not at all, as far as I can tell, by the political opponents making sanctimonious statements about "creating commodities out of embryos". If these politicians were truly grieving for the discarded eggs, they would be focusing their attention on IVF instead. But politicians are little inclined to fight losing battles, and so they pander to their constituents outraged by a procedure few understand fully, by feigning outrage themselves. And the media dumbly relays the political posturing of the "latest" controversy, rarely connecting the scientific dots for the under-educated public.

In fact, I would argue, that it is precisely the nobler purpose of finding cures for disease which really threatens opponents of this technology. Once science establishes a popular moral underpinning for technologies which opponents believe to be immoral, then the moral upper hand is lost in the larger battle against abortion or against science "playing God". It is rather akin to something I noticed during the cold war with leftist governments around the world. There were many two-bit tyrannical states around the world, and especially in Africa, which called themselves communist or socialist, but the left leaning nations that the U.S. government took interest in undermining were precisely those which had the noblest beginnings, such as the democratically elected government of Allende in Chile. Now much of that also had to do with economic connections and the relative interests of big corporations, but I'll wager the threat of legitimacy being lent to a socialist state played a big factor. In similar fashion, abortion foes are most threatened by the likelihood that embryonic stem cell research puts a humanitarian face on a procedure which consumes fertilized eggs.

One may legitimately believe that it is always wrong to fertilize a human egg in the foreknowledge that some of them will be destroyed, but I'll have more respect for those who acknowledge that if that is going to happen, science should be allowed to make beneficiary use of that otherwise discarded material, rather than insisting on cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. As biological technology advances, ethical questions will remain front and center in the debate over what to pursue and what to disallow, but the more that all the facts are put out in the open the more likely we are to arrive at reasonable compromises which consider both ethics and scientific reality.

O'Connor's Resignation

There was no need to turn on the news today for me to learn of Sandra Day O'Connor's stepping down from the high court. Five separate emails encouraged me to make my voice heard in one way or another about the selection of her replacement. Blogging about it is probably not what they had in mind. I can only imagine how many emails flooded the in-boxes of those who are involved in pro-choice politics. My own came from Democracy for America (Dean's old group), John Kerry, the ACLU, a gay rights group, and MoveOn.org. Of course the subtext here is mostly about choice/abortion since O'Connor was a swing vote, but fairly consistently voted to defend Roe v. Wade principles.

When conservatives complain that it's the Democrats who apply the litmus test to high court appointments they have a point. Of course there will be plenty of litmus tests to go around on both sides of the issue depending on who's doing the judging. In the Presidential debates though, it was Bush who rhetorically denied the application of a single issue litmus test, while Kerry in spite of eloquently expressing sympathy for pro-life sentiment, suggested that his court appointees would necessarily be pro Roe v Wade.

My concerns with O'Connor have largely been on other issues close to my heart, such as her dissent on the decision disallowing the death penalty for juveniles. Personally I would like to know a prospective justice's proclivities on a whole range of issues, and it does not necessarily follow that given a choice between two, my preference would go toward the one most likely to uphold Roe v Wade. I find it rather annoying that the Democratic Party's choice would almost automatically go to the pro-choice candidate regardless. Make no mistake, though, I still would much prefer that Kerry be making this choice than Bush. The political fallout will be interesting.

One email pointed me to this piece in the Washington Post in which Harry Reid publicly encouraged Bush to name one of the following Republican Senators: DeWine of Ohio, Graham of South Carolina, Martinez of Florida, or Crapo of Idaho. It seems quite unlikely Bush would do so, especially DeWine or Martinez, who come from states where Republican majorities are slim. I'm not sure, if for instance the just elected Martinez became a justice, whether brother Jeb, as Governor of Florida would get to name the replacement Senator for a brief interim until a special election, for a longer interval until the 2006 election where the voters would elect someone for the 4 remaining years of the term, or for the full remainder of the term.

Faith Partners

Those of us with unorthodox theologies err terribly if we disregard voices as being not worthy of consideration, simply because they emanate from within religious frameworks that we do not personally accept. The more I read, the more I realize that anyone who speaks from a deep moral center is deserving of a wide audience. Whether that person argues against all abortion or for important exceptions to its abolition; whether that person argues against all war of for important exceptions to anti-militarism; whether that person finds their strength in the life and teachings of Jesus, or in the Eightfold Noble Path of Gautama, this agnostic is certain that a genuine and deep religious conviction gives many adherents of various faiths very real strength and power in their ability to stand for their convictions.

Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourner's Magazine, writes plainly in his new book, God's Politics, about the self-defeating squeamish reluctance of so many on the Left to use moral language, or worse to wrongly ennoble the evil actions of, for instance, the Iraqi insurgents, even as he excoriates those on the Right for applying selective morality to the politics of the day in conformance with the desires of those who have most successfully politicized religion to the benefit of America's Republican Party. From the introduction of this book subtitled "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It", Wallis writes:

The ways in which both parties' visions are morally and politically incomplete must now be taken up by people of faith. That can best be done by reaching into both the conservative Christian communities who voted for George Bush and more liberal Christian communities who voted for John Kerry.

It's time to spark a public conversation in this country over what the "moral values" in politics should be--and how broadly and deeply they should be defined. Religion doesn't fall neatly into Right and Left categories. If there were ever candidates running with a strong set of personal moral values and a commitment to social justice and peace, they could build many bridges to the other side. Personal and social responsibility are both at the heart of religion, and the two together could make a very powerful and compelling political vision for the future of our bitterly divided nation.

After reading a few chapters of Wallis' book, I stumbled across this interesting project by the folks at Faith Forward to gather many voices of faith who offer a counterpoint to the mainstream impression that those who are concerned with "moral values" are predominately Republican voters.

But what compelled me to take a break from other activities and post anything today, was discovering this powerful message from a minister from my own community. The Reverend Doctor Dee Eisenhauer writes:

I stand for peace in part because I know that to do harm is harmful to the one who wounds and kills others. I learned this from my Dad, a gentle, thoughtful man who has been in his lifetime a farmer, lumberjack, sawmill operator, teacher, builder, and school bus driver. His first adult job was as an air force warrior in the Vietnam war, an excellent navigator who flew numerous bombing missions. When asked these days what he did in the war, he answers simply, “I was a mass murderer.” No human being should be put in that position. It’s inhuman.

and later this:

I feel strongly about these convictions of mine, as I’m sure you feel strongly about your ideas and your work for peace. I think it’s important that we be strong and articulate about what we believe and why. But I also want to say a word about being peaceful people as we seek peace. I think we need to look, act, and sound peaceful as we pour our heart-felt efforts into creating peace. We have to guard against allowing a heated and strident political atmosphere to determine how we express ourselves both within the many branches of the peace movement and as we turn toward the public or to those we perceive as opponents.

... Humility will help us cool our jets a little even as we seek to create peace. Here is a teaching I have found helpful for many years: I am right about 80% of what I believe and wrong about 20%; the trouble is, I don’t know which is the 80 and which is the 20. Some reserve even about our best ideas is appropriate. It’s not that there is no “right” and “wrong”—a huge liberal mistake—but in our speech we seek always to persuade and not pulverize, realizing we may be in error.