In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Stem Cell Moral Dilemma

One man says that it’s not a dilemma at all — or shouldn’t be. And I agree with him. But I think he underestimates the so-called “right to life” movement. His argument is that most of the embryos used for stem cell research would be derived from fertility clinics, which produce more embryos than they need in order to maximize a woman’s potential to become pregnant. These fertility clinics discard large numbers of embryos, with very little political consquence.

In short, if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps—with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics. No one who truly believes in the humanity of embryos could possibly think otherwise.

And, by the way, when it comes to respecting the human dignity of microscopic embryos, nature—or God—is as cavalier as the most godless fertility clinic. The casual creation and destruction of embryos in normal human reproduction is one reason some people, like me, find it hard to make the necessary leap of faith to believe that an embryo and, say, Nelson Mandela, are equal in the eyes of God.

Proponents of stem-cell research like to emphasize that it doesn’t cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and it misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it’s not OK to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway. The better point—the killer point, if you’ll pardon the expression—is that if embryos are human beings, the routine practices of fertility clinics are far worse—both in numbers and in criminal intent—than stem-cell research. And yet no one objects, or objects very loudly. President Bush actually praised the work of fertility clinics in his first speech announcing restrictions on stem cells.

From what I’ve read at anti-choice websites, a lot of these people do think that fertility clinics are death camps with a side of eugenics. And if it were up to them, they’d shut the clinics down. After all, fertility clinics allow women to take their fertility into their own hands — and that just ain’t right.

But the author is right — mainstream anti-choice organizations are notably silent on the issue of IVF and fertility clinics, because speaking out against them would be tremendously unpopular.

The anti-choice strategy with stem cells, “snowflake babies” and fertility clinics is nearly identical to its strategy on abortion: Go for the unfamiliar and the scary-sounding stuff first, and slowly chip away at reproductive rights. Fertility clinics are far too socially accepted and ingrained for the anti-choice nuts to promote shutting them down. But stem cells are new, unfamiliar, and potentially scary — stem cell research can be conflated with human cloning; the word “embryo” can be used interchangably with “little tiny baby” and many people just don’t know better. So it’s an easier battle to fight. And if they win, they can put more effort into going after the bigger things — like fertility treatments. And birth control.

Moral sincerity is not impressive if it depends on willful ignorance and indifference to logic. Not every stem-cell opponent deserves to have his or her debater’s license taken away. There are a few, no doubt, who actually are as horrified by fertility clinics as they are by stem-cell research, and a subset of this subset may even be doing something about it. But these people, if they exist, are not a political force strong enough to stop a juggernaut of medical progress that so many other people are desperate to encourage. The vast majority of people who oppose stem-cell research either haven’t thought it through, or have thought it through and don’t care.

I wish they would think again.

Except that those people who aren’t a strong enough political force to stop a juggernaut of medical progress have already been fairly successful with stem cells. And his contention that these people might not exist is demonstrably false:

The public doesn’t like to admit the fact that IVF does the same thing that abortion does – it kills preborn babies,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League. “It is no secret that the excess embryos created in fertility clinics are destroyed once the parents achieve the pregnancy or pregnancies they desire. It is never acceptable to destroy innocent human persons.

Even clinics with the highest standards have a cavalier attitude toward embryos. If, for the sake of argument, they were to agree to a Christian couple’s stipulations, how are they treating other people’s offspring? Fertility clinics are all too willing to create far more embryos than can possibly be allowed to live. They will discard ones that seem unfit. They will advocate “pregnancy reductions” when more than two embryos implant in a woman’s uterus. They will freeze “surplus” embryos for years on end, or sell them to researchers who then put them under a microscope and disassemble them for spare parts. It is incongruous for pro-life Christians to go to great lengths to find physicians who don’t perform abortions or refer women to other doctors who will, yet think nothing of what their fertility clinic is doing.

An Illinois judge declares that an early embryo is a human being, allowing a couple to sue a clinic for destroying a fertilized egg.

A U.S. senator suggests that couples seeking fertility treatment should not be allowed to produce more embryos than they wish to implant simultaneously.

Anti-abortion activists picket a fertility clinic in Virginia, proclaiming, “IVF kills babies.”

They’re also good at blaming infertile women for their situation (naturally, through spreading complete misinformation):

Infertility has many causes. Some – but certainly not all – are the result of sin. High on the list are sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), which are often the result of immorality.

Chlamydia and gonorrhea can lead to the greater complication of pelvic inflammatory disease. PID may cause miscarriages or tubal damage and scarring that complicate efforts to conceive. Women are often unaware of an infection or inflammation until after they miscarry. As many as one million American women each year will be diagnosed with PID, and one-quarter of them will become infertile.

Studies show that STDs are aggravated by certain forms of birth control (oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices) and elective abortion.

Abortion, especially when repeated, is a leading cause of infection and changes in the uterus (scarring) that make later conception and implantation difficult or impossible.

Both abortion and PID cause ectopic (tubal) pregnancies which lead to infertility in many women. The number of ectopic pregnancies has also sky-rocketed in recent years.

It is ironic that one result of the “sexual revolution” is a rise in infertility. Other causes include pollution, alcoholism, drug abuse, marijuana use, and smoking.

The author of the Slate article is right when he points out that the anti-choice forces haven’t started a full-frontal assualt on IVF and fertility clinics — yet. But he’s sorely mistaken if he thinks that this is indicative of the issue not being on their radar screens.


33 thoughts on The Stem Cell Moral Dilemma

  1. There’d be no moral dilemma — and there’d be a lot more cures — if researchers would stick with the proven track record of adult stem cells. Adult stem cell treatments are producing cures. Embryonic stem cell treatments are producing dead mice. But, you see, researchers can’t patent treatments using adult stem cells, so there’s not as much potential to get filthy rich from other people’s desperation. So those whose motives are less cure-oriented and more wealth-oriented zero in on what they can patent, rather than what is most likely to benefit the patient.

    http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

    I’ve added you to my Blog Roundup for the day.

  2. There’d be no moral dilemma — and there’d be a lot more cures — if researchers would stick with the proven track record of adult stem cells.

    I’d rather give the researchers all the tools available to them and let them determine, scientifically, which methods are the most effective.

    They simply haven’t had a decent chance to work with embryonic stem cells. And when it comes to curing things like Parkinson’s disease, I think researchers should try every possible track — meaning both adult and embryonic stem cells. But I’d rather have scientists deciding this issue that ideologues.

  3. And just out of curiosity, Christina, what do you think about IVF?

    (Not trying to be aggressive here, just wondering if you individually fit within the writer’s thesis about pro-life people opposing stem cell research but supporting fertility clinics)

  4. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any type of cell. Adult stem cells do not. It is very misleading to make a comparison to the treatments developed with the two when research with the former has been largely prevented.

  5. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to become any type of cell. Adult stem cells do not.

    So you’re saying that magic babies don’t have the right to live?

  6. Outside the issue of whether or not embryonic stem cell research is ethical (and my own opinion, creating life with the intent of taking it is not morally defensible), there is the question of government funding. If embryonic stem cell research had as much potential as its proponents said it did, and had produced any result other than tumors in rats, private investors would want to fund it. Since it has so far proven ineffective, researchers who want funding have to turn to the government. The government, though, is notorious for not caring whether the money it collects and spends produces a measurable positive result, so I don’t trust it to fund the research most likely to benefit people.

  7. My original post went traipsing through the Ether and decided not to show, but this is the quote from Mother Jones that I found pertinent to this discussion:

    Traditionally, she pointed out, abortion rights involves weighing the interests of the woman against those of the fetus, and up to now the woman’s interests have been considered paramount. But now the interests of the embryo, or fetus, or potential child, can be separated out. This, she said, is a watershed development.

    For those who want to test the core of Roe v. Wade, Charo told the fertility specialists, “you guys are the perfect opportunity to separate the question of embryos and best interests, and the woman’s right to direct her body.

  8. I was talking w/a friend about IVF and she was surprised that I was “against” it. Not for other people – that’s their choice – but if I couldn’t get pregnant I would not try IVF. She asked if it was a moral issue (her sister had twins w/IVF) and I said no – its just that I work in healthcare and have seen a lot of very premature babies in the NICU who were a result of fertility treatments, the agony their parents went through when the children were hanging on by a thread, the issue of selection reduction when more than 2 embryos implant (hard decision for parents and a lot of high risk OBGYN’s will not peform this procedure) what to do w/the embryos that aren’t used, and the developmental disorders they are finding in the IVF preemies when they are about 8-9 years old. Its just a long hard road to go down. I don’t have a strong desire to get pregnant in the first place and can’t put myself in the mind of a woman desperate to have a child – I’m sure they’d all say it was worth it. But for myself, no.

  9. Funny thing, I am more opposed to detruction of IVF embryos than I am to abortion. In my mind, IVF embryos are deliberately created with the foreknowledge that some will be destroyed. Every fertilized egg is a potential person. My view on abortion is that the right to one’s own body is not trumped by the needs of another person, even if that person has only 8 cells. Creating people knowing that you are going to destroy them strikes me as wrong.

    I’m opposed to fertility treatments, anyway, for other reasons. There are so many unwanted babies in this country. If you are dying for a kid, there are plenty available. yeah, you may not get one that shares your race, but so? I’m not blind the problem of raising a child which is not the same race as you, but I don’t see it as a deal breaker. You would get the same result by producing kids with a partner of a different race, and I don’t see the big deal in that, either.

    Of course, I hate children and don’t understand why people want them. so I don’t really see the issue the way most people do.

  10. Hi Jill,
    What interests me here is that you (at least from my reading, and please correct me if I’m wrong) usually take the abortion should be legal because of the bodily autonomy argument. Basically, that women should be allowed to control their bodies and have abortions regardless of whether the unborn are human beings or not as opposed to pro-choicer who basis there favor for legal abortion on the incorrect notion that the unborn are alive.

    But with killing human embryos for research, the human embryos aren’t in the woman’s body so there is really no bodily autonomy argument to make.

    Yet you still support killing human embryos for research, correct? Do you just support killing human embryos for research if the embryos are from IVF clinics and their parents don’t want to implant any more embryos or do you also support creating human embryos for the purpose of using them for research?

    I find this interesting because it reminds of something Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in his book about abortion supporters who use the bodily autonomy argument.

  11. Kinsey is either extremely ignorant about the current controversy over stem cell research or is extremely deceptive. He claims that the U.S. has a “continuing near-ban on stem-cell research.” This is a laughable assertion to anyone who knows anything about stem cell research.

    For one, there’s no ban on stem cell research (I’m assuming he means embryonic – although actually differentiating between them would be nice) in the U.S. at all. In fact, the U.S. government supports stem cell research (both embryonic and adult) with millions of dollars. Individual states have also invested millions of dollars into embryonic stem cell research. So have biotech companies. Only an extremely misguided individual would claim that the U.S. has a “near-ban” on something which is legal and the government spends millions of dollars on.

    Strange how Kinsey accuses others of willful ignorance in a piece where he displays an unbelievable incorrect view of reality.

  12. oh, and I should add that as long as people are going to create embryos for IVF (and it’s not like they will stop) the least we can do is use the unwanted embryos for stem cell research which can benefit other people. I’d prefer that they not be created in the first place. Since they will be, I like to see some good come of their destruction.

  13. Basically, that women should be allowed to control their bodies and have abortions regardless of whether the unborn are human beings or not as opposed to pro-choicer who basis there favor for legal abortion on the incorrect notion that the unborn are alive.

    But with killing human embryos for research, the human embryos aren’t in the woman’s body so there is really no bodily autonomy argument to make.

    Yet you still support killing human embryos for research, correct?

    You just answered this question yourself. The bodily autonomy arugment is that

    women should be allowed to control their bodies and have abortions regardless of whether the unborn are human beings or not

    This argument works even if embryos are alive/human/people. However, it does not rest upon the premise that they are. The acceptability of killing embryos for stem cell research is based on the belief that the embryos are not people. Which does not contradict any part of the bodily autonomy issue, nor does it rely on it.

    Support for abortion rights based on the bodily-autonomy argument, and support for stem cell research based on the the embryos-aren’t-people argument, are perfectly compatable with each other.

  14. My understanding is that this idea of creating human embryos for stem cell research purposes is an urban legend. According to a guy I know who is a research scientist (an American who took a job at a Canadian university in part because of restrictions in the US which affected his ability to do his research, and now he’s applying for Canadian citizenship), fertility clinics have more than enough excess embryos and couples willing to donate them to universities to supply the needs of science, even if the number of individual projects increases exponentially. At this point,he said, clinics are probably destroying at least 100 embryos for every one that is taken away and used for research. Probably more.

  15. I was under the impression that the “ban” on stem cells was only on the creation of new stem cell lines, but not on continuing research using existing stem cell lines.

  16. I think what befuddles the right to life community (in which I have so many friends) about IVF is that it involves folks who desperately want to be parents; abortion involves a woman who with at least the particular pregnancy at hand most definitely does not. From a psychological perspective, it’s harder to criticize an action undertaken to create life than one undertaken to take life (presuming one believes that a fertilized egg constitutes life.) This is where I think some moderate right-to-lifers end up creating a kind of indefensible moral hierarchy in which the destruction of some embryos is more acceptable than others.

  17. So you’re saying that magic babies don’t have the right to live?

    I’ve never encountered a magic baby to know, but I’d assume it would have a right to live. Seriously though, where’d that come from? I was pointing out one advantage of embryonic vs adult stem cells and that the comparison being made was disingenuous. If people really want to know about the research being done they can just do a search on pubmed. People might also want to check out the NIH’s page, though some of it’s a bit dated.

  18. Of course, the real sin that causes infertility is the sin of waiting to have children. A forty-year-old woman needs IVF to get pregnant? My God! Why didn’t she get herself knocked up at fourteen?

  19. Anyway, embryonic stem cell research isn’t in opposition to the bodily autonomy argument. Those embryos can’t survive on their own. If they were taken out of the freezer and left alone, they would die, just like any fertilized egg that doesn’t attach itself to a woman’s uterus.

  20. This is not a permanent problem. The United States constitution through SCOTUS supported second class human status up to the mid 1800’s. Much of common law provides support for second class humanity or viewing humans as property. I wish that the prochoice movement would be honest and embrace this. It would put the argument on firmer ground if they won. It would also clear up legal objection to any and all genetic engineering. This would also clear up the legal resistance to creating a human for the purpose of destruction for other human benifit. The only question is what status is the human being destroyed. All the arguments are leading in this direction anyway. Those of a lower class will be sacraficed for those of the upper class. It all becomes clear.

  21. I was going to say what Kyra said.

    I cannot relate to persons who believe that they must put their own DNA to use and cannot raise someone else’s. My anthropologist mother says its all biology; like men who can’t overcome the horrible notion that a woman would actually wish to expel his DNA.

    The government may have to step in and mandate some procedures for mandatory disposal or donation to research, of unused embryos. But then with our ignorant and superstitious population, the reverse could ensue and we’d be drowning in a sea of DNA waiting to be spurned into human form.

    ANd that isn’t even touching on the selection process which means this frozen DNA tissue carries attitbutes deemed worthy or minus some that aren’t, based on someone’s subjective value judgement.

    We have a responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of the planet and those persons living today. I cannot believe that storing embryos for years on end for no reason other than vacillation, superstition or worse, some deemed DNA superiority serves the greater society at all.

    For me it just defies logic that people get emotionally involved in tissue that contains their DNA, that with more costly technology, a woman’s body and some luck of the draw, might become a person. Should we collect and freeze all sperm that ejects from a penis because it also has the potential to become a person and it is wrong to just discard them and let them die on someone’s thigh?

    Should we examine our underwear to ensure that we haven’t ejected any eggs or to determine if any might have been fertilized, but not taken and been rejected early on? They are potential lives aren’t they?

    Just strange.

  22. I was under the impression that the “ban” on stem cells was only on the creation of new stem cell lines, but not on continuing research using existing stem cell lines.

    That’s my understanding as well, at least for institutions that receive federal funding (usually so broadly interpreted as to apply to any research university, even if the federal funding is not used for stem-cell research); it’s also my understanding that for one reason or another, the existing stem cell lines as of the executive order are more or less worthless now, due to age or some other reason.

  23. While a whole lot of the “causes of infertility” rant was absolutely false, it’s true that undetected chlamydia is a major cause of infertility. (At least here; we almost got rid of gonnorhea in the nineties, but I know it’s still a large problem in the US.)

  24. Yeah. The restrictions on funding are broad enough that they efffectively block further embryonic research outside of those strands.

    Personally, I think the conservative objection to the use of IVF embryos for research is based in a complete refusal to back away even slightly from their accepted definition of the point at which a human life begins. Those embryos lack the crucial element that permits any argument against abortion; they lack the capacity, in the state which they exist, to ever become a human life.

    I think that any argument against stem cell research on behalf of these embryos is so completely, objectively wrong in assessing these one-celled, unimplanted embryos as having greater moral import than the lives that could be saved by the research, that I can view opposition to this research as nothing less than evil.

    This was done over the impassioned pleas of Nancy Reagan, who cared for her husband, a conservative icon, as he slowly succumbed to a horrible disease, and she begged them to leave this research alone to spare others that fate. I’m not unsympathetic to conservatives on a number of issues, but anyone who can express greater concern for invisible specks in a petri dish than for Alzheimer’s patients, hell, than for Ronald Reagan, subscribes to a morality that’s just completely alien from anything I can see as decent or compassionate.

    Their success in shutting down new stem cell research may someday kill me or one of my loved ones, and accordingly, I view this movement as incompatible with my future survival, and I see it as my self-interested obligation to oppose this movement and its very existence, irrespective of any reservations I may have about abortion, which is of trifling moral concern one way or another compared to the politicization of research that could save the people I care about from dying horribly.

    Incidentally, I feel the same way about those who oppose therapeutic cloning of organs. I can think of no greater injustice than some people having to unnecessarily endure dialysis so other assholes can pretend they have magic invisible souls inside themselves.

    What’s more, the moral objection to use of excess IVF embryos for research implicitly indicts all IVF procedures, because the process entails the creation of excess embryos and the insertion of hundreds more embryos than could ever implant, which means that every treatment is a de-facto mass-murder.

    These people believe that folks who don’t want babies should have to have them anyway, that folks who do want babies should not be able to take achievable steps toward having their own children, and that everyone should die of Alzheimers.

  25. My comment is more on the basis of the entire argument. People keep stating “Sanctity of life” while wholly they are refering not to Life but rather human life. I say this because, a lot of the pro-life advocates are also meat-eaters. So, obviously animal life has no value to them.

    Now, onto innovation in reproductive science. I think it’s fascinating and inevitable. We are moving towards designer babies. I, for one, rather not have a child with congental or genetic defects, if modern medicine is able to prevent it. I however do think that limitations will eventually be placed to prevent abuse.

    The main problem, is that people who view embryo as living, will always oppose anything that destroys it. On, the other side, people who don’t consider embryo as a cogniscent being, have no problem, killing it. You can’t make someone change their ideals forcefully. I can not condone, forceful implemenation of one person’s faith on another. This is why I support the separation of Church and State.

  26. If embryonic stem cell research had as much potential as its proponents said it did, and had produced any result other than tumors in rats, private investors would want to fund it. – Quartermaster

    This is simply not the case: there are many things with plenty of potential that private investors or enterprise simply are not going to fund (this here internets has plenty of potential — I didn’t see private enterprise rushing to create it: government built it and then private enterprise has used the results to it’s own profit — and good for enterprise!). A lot of scientific development really amounts to a thousand monkeys typing on a thousand typewriters (I know — I’m one of the monkeys) trying to thus produce the works of Shakespeare. Private investors, rightly, don’t have the patience for this — which is why government and non-profit entities generally take the lead in scientific development.

    Not only does everything have external costs (that must be paid in taxes) reflecting services private enterprise needs but won’t pay for, but also a lot of R&D similarly won’t happen unless private enterprise can treat it as an externality and government can do. Private enterprise did not create the interstates, the internet nor (despite what the drug companies would have you believe) AZT and Taxol. So why should private enterprise be able to create stem-cell technology even if it can work?

  27. Both abortion and PID cause ectopic (tubal) pregnancies which lead to infertility in many women. The number of ectopic pregnancies has also sky-rocketed in recent years.

    It is ironic that one result of the “sexual revolution” is a rise in infertility.

    The damage here attributed to abortion can also be caused in child-birth. Indeed, in many of these pregancies wherein abortion leads to infertility, likely child-birth, which is far more physically traumatic, would so lead to infertility as well — indeed, in some moral systems which generally oppose abortion, the lower risk of infertility following abortion rather than carrying a problematic pregnancy to term is considered an acceptable reason for having an abortion.

    Of course, the whole tone of this article is that “infertility is a punishment for sin” — do people still believe that? And what if the woman didn’t sin but rather her partner did? Should she still be punished? This line of thought is just so bizarre I cannot pursue it further without wretching.

    Another odd aspect is their use of the word “ironic”. A sexual revolution (the significance of which has been highly overstated, FWIW) ought to result in an increase in infertility when talking about a K-selected species like humans in order to keep the reproductive rate about even. But having more sex to get the same number of kids is a problem, how?

  28. Steve, steve, steve….If you’re anti-choice what you’re supporting makes women into second-class citizens, and women have always had to fight that. I just wish anti-choicers would be honest about what they’re doing. You’re trying to take something that’s not human and give it precedence over a woman who IS human.

  29. Daniel@ NYU says:

    The restrictions on funding are broad enough that they effectively block further embryonic research outside of those strands.

    That’s correct, but it really isn’t broad a broad restriction. Keep in mind that before the current policy was established, there was a complete ban on federal funding for ESC research. IIRC, that was under a Clinton executive order. What we have now is the first authorization of funding, which is entirely insufficient.

    The rest of your comment is spot on. There’s an unresolvable contradiction in the position that holds IVF embryos are each individual human beings and still allows the implantation procedure and prefers simply discarding them over using them for research. It always amazes me when people can hold 2 or more completely contradictory beliefs concurrently.

    I once had someone who insists that each embryo is a human being justify discarding embryos because you’re not really killing them like you would be if you derived the stem cells from them, and they “die” on their own, which is somehow more moral. I countered that they must also believe it to be OK to leave a baby in a dumpster since you’re not really killing it, you’re just letting it die on it’s own. That’s when the namecalling started. 🙂

  30. Zuzu,
    Your impressions are incorrect. Scientists are more than free to create new stem cell lines. No federal law prevents them from creating new stem cell lines. They just can’t get federal funds on research involving those lines. And they can’t use federal funds to destroy embryos (this is in legislation called the Dickey Amendment) – as far as I know – no bills in favor of ESCR want federal funds to be used to kill human embryos.

    Secondly, a large percentage (I think it’s more than 50% – but I’m not certain) of the published scientific studies involving embryonic stem cell lines involve lines approved for federal funding.

    Kyra,
    I’m not sure if you understand my question. From my memory (and it could be wrong) Jill uses the bodily autonomy argument to back her preference for legal abortion. This argument has nothing to do with whether the unborn are “persons” or “people” – it is used regardless of whether the position’s holder believes that or not.

    This argument doesn’t work for killing embryos outside the womb because they aren’t in a woman’s body so her bodily autonomy can’t justify killing an embryo outside the womb solely on her bodily autonomy.

  31. Incidentally, I feel the same way about those who oppose therapeutic cloning of organs. I can think of no greater injustice than some people having to unnecessarily endure dialysis so other assholes can pretend they have magic invisible souls inside themselves.

    So. True. And I hate how people try to hide their own cruel beliefs behind Christianity – ’cause we all know Jesus was all letting people die, stoning slutty women, preaching to the embryos, etc., etc.

Comments are currently closed.