Friday, May 20, 2005

Destroying Embryos

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council distributed an ALERT today with the emphatic subject line, Oppose HR 810 Federal Funding of Embryo Destruction. He writes:
Early next week, the House will consider a bill that will federally fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Sponsored by Mike Castle (R-DE), HR 810 will federally fund research on human embryos that supposedly are "leftover" from IVF. Instead of promoting the adoption of these human embryos, this bill would require their death.
Now let's take a look at the text of HR 810(b):
Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following: (1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. (2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded. (3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
This seems to me to be a pretty silly thing for pro-life groups to get worked up about. Tony Perkins says that the bill will "fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos." Well, I guess that's literally true; the research that the bill would fund does depend on the destruction of the embryos in question. But, as is very carefully and clearly spelled out in (b)(2) of the bill, those embryos would be destroyed anyway! There is no legislation under consideration that would result in more destroyed embryos. So why the fuss? I don't get it. I did a little googling and came up with an entertaining rant from Rhode Island Right to Life. They recognize the point I made above, but offer a new rationale for opposing the bill:
Though this bill focuses on so called “left over” embryos from in vitro fertilization, it is my understanding that the use of these embryos would not even begin to supply the number of embryos needed to cure the millions of Americans who suffer from disease and injuries. Thus, very soon, the push would be on to federally fund scientific research on cloned human embryos as well. If we allow this research on “left over” embryos from in vitro fertilization to be supported by federal funds, we will have embarked upon the classic “slippery slope.” ... Once the scientific community has used up the “left over” embryos they will turn to creating cloned embryos. I have grave concerns about the victimization of poor women in third world countries that would be paid large sums of money to go through the medically risky procedure of having their eggs matured and harvested in order to create the millions of cloned human embryos needed to cure diseases in America. Many of these women would be surrendering their health and possibly their future fertility for the promise of U.S. dollars. As with abortion, these women would be the victims of a utilitarian philosophy that looks for convenient solutions to societies problems even when human life is in the balance.
This is just one of the worst arguments ever. "If we use the left over embryos, then we won't have enough to do all the things we need embryos for, so we'll have to start doing horrible evil things to get more. Therefore, we should just keep throwing the left over embryos away." Here's a serious question for those who oppose embryonic stem cell research on pro-life grounds: why is there no outcry about the mere fact that lots and lots of left over embryos from in vitro fertilization are thrown away? It would be a weird view to think it's ok to throw them away, but not to use them for scientific research. Update: Bush says he'll veto it! sigh...

3 comments:

  1. I concur. I was going to ask Erin about this, since she made some comments on her blog about things pertaining to IVF, and I was curious how she felt about IVF generally.

    Alexis

    ReplyDelete
  2. Also, generally the 'slippery slope' is thought of as an argumentative fallacy, and in this case it definitely is, since the author provides no discernible warrant for why allowing this particular research would create sufficient impetus for further research.
    -Nathan

    ReplyDelete
  3. This argument is even worse than you said...

    "Though this bill focuses on so called “left over” embryos from in vitro fertilization, it is my understanding that the use of these embryos would not even begin to supply the number of embryos needed to cure the millions of Americans who suffer from disease and injuries."

    Well this sounds like a bit of bullshit right there. There are in the range of 80 million IVF eggs in storage RIGHT NOW in the US alone, and there are about 20-30 million new eggs that go uninplanted each year. Granted, I don't know exactly how many eggs scientists say they need to do all the research they want, but I'm pretty sure that would be sufficient. And even if it wouldn't, it'd be a shitload of an improvement over the 13 contaminated stem-cell lines they've got to work with now.

    "I have grave concerns about the victimization of poor women in third world countries that would be paid large sums of money to go through the medically risky procedure of having their eggs matured and harvested in order to create the millions of cloned human embryos needed to cure diseases in America."

    Of course, he doesn't seem to give a shit about the fact that those women are starving and dying of easily preventable disease right now. Paternailizing bastard thinks it's better for those women to starve and die then make an informed choice to see their eggs to get money to eat.

    "Many of these women would be surrendering their health and possibly their future fertility..."

    God knows we don't need any more infertile women in third world countries!

    "...these women would be the victims of a utilitarian philosophy that looks for convenient solutions to societies problems even when human life is in the balance."

    Um, why does human life being in the balance make convenience a problem? Is there some moral precept that says we should look for INconvenient ways to save human lives?

    "Update: Bush says he'll veto it! sigh..."

    Greg Saunders over at This Modern World makes an interesting case that he might be bluffing.

    ReplyDelete