Charles Krauthammer, a social conservative who is pro-abortion and pro-embryonic stem cell research, wrote an article today (1-12-07) in National Review titled “Bush’s Historic Veto.” It’s not the kind of article you would expect from someone I just described. I would suggest reading the whole thing, but I wanted to draw your attention to two sections: one bad, one good.
Krauthammer wrote, “I have long supported legal abortion. And I don’t believe that life — meaning the attributes and protections of personhood — begins at conception. Yet many secularly inclined people like me have great trepidation about the inherent dangers of wanton and unrestricted manipulation — to the point of dismemberment — of human embryos.”
I’m confused. How can someone who supports the idea that women have a right to dismember their unborn child through an abortion be morally concerned about doing the same to embryos? On the level of appearance and emotion, it would seem easier to stomach the dismemberment of days-old lab embryos (embryonic stem cell research) than it would weeks-old, or months-old embryos (abortion). The latter look and feel more human (even though both are fully human). So I’m not sure what to make of his logic.
Now for the good quote. Even though he supports embryonic stem cell research, he recognizes the moral implications involved, and admires the drawing of certain lines. He wrote:
You don’t need religion to tremble at the thought of unrestricted embryo research. You simply have to have a healthy respect for the human capacity for doing evil in pursuit of the good. Once we have taken the position of many stem-cell advocates that embryos are discardable tissue with no more intrinsic value than a hangnail or an appendix, then all barriers are down. What is to prevent us from producing not just tissues and organs, but human-like organisms for preservation as a source of future body parts on demand?
…
The slope is very slippery. Which is why, even though I disagreed with where the president drew the line — I would have permitted the use of fertility-clinic embryos that are discarded and going to die anyway — I applauded his insistence that some line must be drawn, that human embryos are not nothing, and that societal values, not just the scientific imperative, should determine how they are treated.
There’s a lot of truth and wisdom packed in those two paragraphs. Of course I have to wonder, given what Krauthammer just said, why he supports destructive embryonic research. Why does he think his line is better than Bush’s, particularly if he is interested in protecting the “intrinsic value” of human beings. Intrinsic value means that one’s value is not degreed, and it exists the very moment the thing in question exists. If humans have intrinsic value, then embryos—as humans—are just as valuable as Krauthammer himself. So why can they be killed in the lab, but his life should be protected? Again, the logic escapes me.
Thinking to Believe 
March 13, 2007 at 11:29 am
Although not stated here, I think his reason is probably a utilitarian one. I don’t agree with the argument, but it would go something like this. These embryos have already been created and are not going to be implanted into a woman but are going to be discarded. The discarding of the embryo destroys the embryo just as much as using it for ESCR. There is a potential that ESCR will provide humanity with medical advances for devastating diseases and conditions. Therefore, it would be better to use the embryos for some use (even if it destroys the embryos) than to just discard them and destroy them anyway.
In one sense this is appealing because it provides usefulness for an embryo that will be destroyed nonetheless. My problem is the creation of “extra” embryos at fertility clinics that create this problem in the first place. This is a sensitive subject because the economics involved with in vitro fertilization and the limited ability to harvest a woman’s eggs, but, in dealing with ESCR I think it is important to consider where the embryos come from and whether or not it is even ethical or moral to create them in the first place.
LikeLike
March 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Andy,
I agree with virtually everything you said. The problem only exists because of the creation of surplus embryos in IVF. I also understand the utilitarian argument Krauthammer is employing, but think it is deeply flawed (as you appear to as well). It assumes that the humanity of these embryos is not valuable, or at least not as valuable as our own. That is the only way he can sanction the killing of these embryos for medical research. Change the age a bit and this becomes clear:
There’s a surplus of unwanted children in this country what populate orphanages. Since the parents who created them do not want them, should we be allowed to kill them for medical research? After all, they already exist. They aren’t going to be implanted into a home (Krauthammer’s “womb”) so we might as well benefit from them!
Even proposing such a thing is outrageous. But how do toddlers in orphanages differ from frozen embryos? Are the latter any less human? No. They are just as human. They only differ in their size, location, and level of maturation, none of which have moral significance. So how are we justified in killing unwanted embryos, but not in killing unwanted toddlers? Krauthammer needs to answer that question.
It’s not wise to argue that these leftover embryos are unwanted anyway. First, there is at least one frozen embryo adoption agency that I know of, who adopts out unwanted leftover IVF embryos. They are wanted! Secondly, the number of frozen embryos that are unwanted is small. Of the 400,000 embryos sitting in freezers, only 2.2% are slated for the trash can. That’s only about 9000 embryos. That’s not enough for any meaningful research program. Scientists will need more. Where will they come from? They will either have to be cloned, or they will have to come from future leftover embryos. This will only increase the push to create more excess embryos during IVF, or the need for cloning. Thus, a decision to use soon-to-be-discarded-embryos for research would be an impetus to produce more unwanted embryos. This is an impetus for further immorality, and thus it is morally wrong.
Jason
LikeLike
March 25, 2007 at 12:57 am
Andy,
After posting my comments I ran across this on Scott Klusendorf’s blog:
“Imagine this: You oversee a Cambodian orphanage with 200 toddlers that are unwanted. The facility cannot care for them any longer. Funds are low and food is scarce. A scientist has offered to take the toddlers off your hands and use them for grisly medical research designed to cure cancer. He makes a good point: Many of these children will soon die or suffer grave hardship. Nonetheless, you refuse. You could never, even for a moment, consider turning the kids over to the scientist on grounds that ‘these kids are going to die anyway so let’s put them to good use.’ True, given your impoverished circumstances, you are powerless to prevent them from dying, but you would never be complicit in actively killing the kids, which is what ESCR does.
…
“In short, unless one begins with the assumption that the embryos in question are not human beings, the “they’re gonna die anyway” claim doesn’t work. So we’re back to the one question: What is the embryo? That question, more than any other, brings moral clarity to the issue.”
http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2007/03/destroying-left-over-embryos-arent-we.html
The fact that the embryos are going to die (which is only the case in a small % of leftover embryos) doesn’t justify the active killing of those embryos.
Jason
LikeLike