Andrew Hagen

Michael Kinsley jabs at George W. Bush’s stem cell policy. Kinsley says:

It’s not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.

(*) This misses the point I have raised: human embryos are potential life and deserve either a chance to be born or termination with as much dignity as possible. (†) As human embryos cannot give informed consent, human embryo medical experimentation is by definition without consent. It is worse to be used without consent for experimental fodder and then destroyed than to be simply destroyed. Abortion is justified because the mother’s right to not give birth outweighs the right held by the potential life, the embryo, to be born. Yet, the right of the embryo to not be made the subject of an undignified medical experiment outweighs the right of the parents to use the embryo they create for a purpose not only destructive of the embryo, but destructive of the dignity of the embryo, the potential life.

Embryos are not objects. They are potential life. Embryos do not have the full panoply of rights a living person has, but as potential life, embryos must have some rights. If an embryo has any rights at all, the embryo must have the right to be treated with dignity. It is the height of indignity and disrespect to be transformed from potential life into a dead object for only one purpose: scientific experimentation.

It is tempting to see the issue in a simplistic manner. Why couldn’t we just experiment on embryos enough to cure a terrible disease like Parkinson’s, and then stop experimenting? The ends would justify the means. It is unrealistic to presume, however, that we could stop there. Soon embryos would be experimented upon routinely for any purpose at all, no matter how unprincipled or barbaric.

Meanwhile, all of the benefits of embryonic stem cells are to be had with adult stem cells. Why don’t scientists just use adult stem cells? There are two main reasons. First, it is difficult to obtain informed consent from an adult. It’s easier to just skip that step and deal with speechless embryos. Second, private companies might find it harder to make loads of profits off a cure derived from adult stem cells. Kinsley should drop his personal anger toward Bush’s stem cell policy and direct his wrath at those who are failing to invest in ethical research into adult stem cells.

It should be noted that Kinsley has an ongoing argument with Jay Lefkowitz. That argument does not address my point. (‡) (§)

Updated: 31 October 2003.

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2003 at 21:53 and is filed under Stem cells. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.