readme November 29, 2001, at
1:14 PM PT
The Incoherent Embryophile
Bush's position on cloning makes no sense.
By Michael Kinsley
If you're thinking about having a child through in vitro
fertilization, you might want to check out a cheery, helpful Web site
called "Healthfinder." Make sure you type "healthfinder.gov" and not
".com" because this "free guide to reliable consumer health and human
services" is produced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, which seems to regard IVF as some sort of human service.
This is odd, since the Bush administration policy on stem-cell
research and on human cloning is that embryos consisting of half a
dozen cells are humans who deserve the protection of the government
from those who would casually produce and discard these innocents for
their own selfish ends, such as curing dreadful diseases. Reacting to
news of the first cloned human embryo this week, President Bush said:
"We should not as a society grow life to destroy it. It's morally
wrong in my opinion." Taken literally, this would cover raising
cattle or even growing wheat. Presumably the president means human
life and includes embryos in that category.
Yet the first item on Healthfinder's list of references about
in-vitro is a brisk discussion, published in the New England Journal
of Medicine, of how many eggs should be fertilized (producing an
embryo), and how many should be implanted, in order to maximize the
chance of producing one baby and no more. Or, to put it another way:
How many embryos should you create and kill outside the womb, and how
many should you implant and hope all but one die?
The last item on the Healthfinder list is a set of questions to ask
in choosing an IVF program. For example, "Do I pay in advance?" And,
"Is donor sperm available?" Not recommended as questions to ask are,
"Why are you murdering innocent children?" Or, "How can you live with
yourself?"
If you're a federal employee, the government can be even more
helpful: It will subsidize your rampage of slaughter. Health
insurance programs for federal employees are not required to offer
IVF, but they are allowed to, and some do. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, for
example, will cover half of your IVF expenses up to a lifetime
maximum of $100,000, though only for married couples using their own
basic materials (among other restrictions).
President Bush has done nothing to stop or even discourage these
various government promotions of in vitro fertilization. In his Aug.
9 TV address on stem-cell research, Bush actually praised IVF as a
"process which helps so many couples conceive children." Yet the
unavoidable assumption built into his policies on the use of embryos
in medical research is that in vitro fertilization is deeply evil.
Stem-cell research does not cause the creation or destruction of a
single additional embryo. It uses embryos that are routinely
discarded as part of IVF. Once a stem-cell line is created, it can be
reproduced in the laboratory and requires no embryos at all. So
Bush's ban on federally funded stem-cell research involving embryos
destroyed after Aug. 9 will not directly save any embryo's life. His
rationale is that allowing such research implies federal government
approval of the creation and destruction of embryos, and thus may
encourage it indirectly. Meanwhile, the government encourages and
even subsidizes IVF directly, Bush praises it, and has done nothing
to stop it.
This is like putting a roadblock on the highway from Baltimore to
Philadelphia and claiming that your purpose is to indirectly reduce
traffic from Washington to Baltimore. Meanwhile, though, you're
leaving the Washington-to-Baltimore highway wide open. Your concern
for Baltimore is logically suspect.The cloning issue is a bit
different. Some folks oppose cloning on grounds of
where-this-all-might-lead. But Bush's objection, near as one can
tell, is to the destruction of embryos here-and-now. Cloning does
involve the creation and destruction of new embryos, not just using
surplus embryos from IVF. And since the medical promise of cloning is
replacement tissues genetically identical to the person who needs
them, creating and destroying embryos would be part of the treatment
itself, not just the original research. Even so, the number of
embryos involved will never approach the number discarded or lost
routinely in IVF.
Sincere embryophiles deserve grudging respect. I can't follow their
logic or share their belief that six microscopic cells equal a human
being just because they might become one some day. But if people
really believe this, after struggling with the implications, their
political passion is rather noble and unusual in American politics
because it is entirely unselfish. It is about protecting the lives of
a group they are not part of and can never join.
But George W. Bush's ostensible embryophilia is morally incoherent.
Despite all the furrowed-brow posturing, which impressed the media,
and despite his claims of deep moral struggle, he hasn't thought very
hard. Either that or he isn't a person whose hard thinking takes him
very far. Or he is a cynic who doesn't really care about either
embryos or people awaiting the fruits of stem-cell research. ("And
their families," as we always add in this country when we're making a
cheap bid for popular sentiment.)
It is impossible to imagine any president seriously attempting to
prevent or discourage in vitro fertilization. It is too
well-established and, as Bush observed, has brought tremendous
happiness to too many couples (and as he did not observe single folks
as well). But as long as Bush leaves IVF uncriticized and unmolested,
we need not take seriously his claims of moral seriousness about
cloning and stem cells.
--
.-. .-.
/ \ .-. .-. / \
/ \ / \ .-. .-. / \ / \
/__Murray_Kastner_____\_____/___\___/___\_____ mailto:[log in to unmask]
\ / \ / `-' \ / \ / \
\ / `-' `-' \ /
`-' `-'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
