Slate's Bizbox
readme: Policy made plain.

Reason, Faith, and Stem Cells

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET

Opponents of the new rules for government-funded stem-cell research are right that the rules are irrational. The rules forbid government-funded researchers to extract stem cells from human embryos, but they allow those researchers—on alternate Tuesdays when the wind is from the northeast and at least three members of five different review boards have dreamed of a fish—to use stem cells extracted by others.

Opponents of stem-cell research believe that "a microscopic clump of cells" (the New York Times' description of an embryo at the stage when stem cells are removed) has the same moral claims as a fully formed human being. Proponents believe that a clump of cells has no serious moral claim compared with people who "feel want, taste grief, need friends" (Shakespeare's description of a human being). No one believes that a clump of cells is just a clump of cells in private hands but becomes a full human being in the hands of a government grantee. You don't absolve yourself of murder by hiring a hit man.

The answer to this objection (which the authors of the regulations cannot make) is: Of course it's not rational. It's a compromise between two logically irreconcilable positions. And it stretches democracy as far as it can be stretched in deference to the strongly held views of the losing side of an argument. It says: "You cannot have your way. You cannot impose the burden of your views on others. But at least you can know that your own tax dollars won't be spent directly on something you find immoral." This is quite a concession. It's more than opponents of wars, for example, are allowed.

Even the burden of this compromise is heavy on those awaiting the tremendous promise of stem-cell research. That promise has already been delayed for years by the congressional ban these new rules are designed to accommodate. The breakthroughs will be slowed by more years because of all the elaborate safeguards built in to protect those clumps of cells. Imagine being paralyzed by a spinal cord injury in your teens, watching for decades as medical treatment progresses but not quite fast enough, and knowing that it could have been faster.

In the endless right-to-life debate, compromise is difficult for pro-lifers because the strength of their side of the argument comes from its absolutism. (Unless it comes from faith, about which there can be no argument.) Absolutism is their logical trump card. If you don't protect every human being from the moment of conception, where do you draw the line? Anywhere you draw it is another irrational distinction, conferring humanity—and, possibly, life itself—on one organism and denying both to another that is nearly identical.

But absolutism is also a great weakness, because it puts you at the mercy of your own logic. Opposition to stem-cell research is the reductio ad absurdum of the right-to-life argument. A goldfish resembles a human being more than an embryo does. An embryo feels nothing, thinks nothing, cannot suffer, is not aware of its own existence. Embryos are destroyed routinely by the millions in the natural process of human reproduction. Yet opponents of stem-cell research would allow real people, who can suffer, to do so in service of the abstract principle that embryos are people too. If faith takes you there, fine. Reason can't.

Ronald Reagan used to play the logical trump card this way: If we don't know for sure when human life begins, we're like rescue workers after a mine explosion who don't know if anyone has survived. Shouldn't we assume there is life to be saved, rather than assuming there isn't?

The problem with this analogy is that the beginning of human life is not a factual question to which we "don't know" the answer. Biology is not going to solve this puzzle for us someday. "Human life" is a label we confer, and the uncertainty is in how we choose to define it, not in some missing bit of information. Furthermore, the definition depends on why you're asking. In the context of abortion, it doesn't matter when a fetus develops hands or feet or a heartbeat. What matters is when it develops a sense of self, an ability to suffer, or—if you go that route—an immortal soul.

And the fact that these conditions (except for the soul) don't arrive at any clear-cut moment is not the logical argument for absolutism that pro-lifers seem to think. We used to learn in high-school biology that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny": The development of each individual human being resembles the evolution of the species. Apparently, these days that is regarded as unhelpful, if not inaccurate. But even most right-to-lifers do believe in evolution and are comfortable with the idea that humanity is one end of a continuum, not a thing apart.

They are comfortable drawing a crisper line than nature does between humans and lesser beasts and denying human rights to animals that share many human attributes. Why is it so hard for them to accept something similar about the development of an individual human being? That we each start out as something less than human, that the transformation takes place gradually, but that it's morally acceptable to draw a line somewhere other than at the very beginning. Not just acceptable, but necessary.

If faith tells you otherwise, listen. But don't mistake it for the voice of reason.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for Time and the founding editor of Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments from The Fray:


Kinsley represents that there is no reasonable argument against embryonic abortion, yet admits that drawing the line between human and non-human during early development is arbitrary. This doesn't make sense. His rational argument justifying abortion is a version of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Idiotic. Well-put, articulate-as-hell but idiotic. Reason looks for a logical place to draw the line between human and embryo-fetus-whatever, and, not finding such a place, sees all abortion as the death of a human. Screw faith. It's about logic.

--Jim Gooding

(To reply, click here.)


Not only reason and faith but the law mandates an unyielding defense of human life. Law is all about definition. If the point at which life begins within the womb is left at an arbitrary and fungible point, the law likewise becomes fungible, bringing us to the point of partial-delivery infanticide that has lately come to the nation's attention. There are only two objective, concrete signposts of the beginning of life: conception and delivery. The law currently (and heinously, given the evidence of prenatal awareness) chooses the latter; however, it has at least the modicum of decency to not force those who favor the life of infants to contribute to their murder. What few moral and ethical scruples remain in the American psyche condemn traffic in body parts as well as murder; the same logic should apply.

--John Keck

(To reply, click here.)


[Note from the Fray Editor: Is it ironic that Ronald Reagan stopped stem-cell research and now has Alzheimer's? Argue it out here. Might women one day be forced to donate cells?--a Fray poster believes so. Want to read a recap of every argument you've ever heard about abortion or embryo research, and quite a few you've probably never thought of? Reason looks for a logical place (thank you Jim Gooding, above) and finds The Fray.]

(8/30)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby