In Slate magazine, commentator Michael Kinsley ridicules pro-life opposition to research on embryonic stem cells. Kinsley notes that he had respect for the arguments of pro-life persons on abortion (although he disagrees with them), but that respect comes to an end with the stem-cell debate since it so obviously, to Mr. Kinsley, defies logic and common sense.
As Kinsley puts it:
“Against this, you have the fact that embryonic stem cells are extracted from human embryos, killing them in the process. If you believe that embryos a few days after conception have the same human rights as you or me, killing innocent embryos is obviously intolerable. But do opponents of stem-cell research really believe that? Stem cells test that belief, and sharpen the basic right-to-life question, in a way abortion never has.
“Here’s why: Stem cells used in medical research generally come from fertility clinics, which produce more embryos than they can use. This isn’t an accident–it is essential to their mission of helping people to have babies. Often these are “test tube babies”: the product of an egg fertilized in the lab and then implanted in a womb to develop until birth. Controversy about test-tube babies has all but disappeared. Vague science-fiction alarms have been crushed by the practical evidence, and potential political backlash, of grateful, happy parents.
“In any particular case, fertility clinics try to produce more embryos than they intend to implant. Then–like the Yale admissions office (only more accurately)–they pick and choose among the candidates, looking for qualities that make for a better human being. If you don’t get into Yale, you have to attend a different college. If the fertility clinic rejects you, you get flushed away–or maybe frozen until the day you can be discarded without controversy.
“And fate isn’t much kinder to the embryos that make this first cut. Usually several of them are implanted in the hope that one will survive. Or, to put it another way, in the hope that all but one will not survive. And fertility doctors do their ruthless best to make these hopes come true.
“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.”
Michael Kinsley obviously has an emotional stake in this debate. He suffers from Parkinson’s disease. We should also recognize that he has some points to make that we need to hear. There are far too many pro-lifers who oppose abortion but who think nothing of the assaults on unborn life in the “disposal” of “embryonic material” in fertility clinics. That’s why a pro-life ethic must be theological and holistic, not just issue-driven.
Kinsley says the brutality of nature makes it a “leap of faith” for him to believe that an embryo and Nelson Mandela are equal in the eyes of God. I can only remind him that, not too long ago, it was indeed an impossible “leap of faith” for some to believe that Nelson Mandela deserved equality and human dignity before the eyes of God and the eyes of man. And, like Mr. Kinsley, some pointed to the “cruelties of nature” to prove their point, and ridiculed the lack of common sense in those who disagreed. Blacks and whites deserving of equal protection under the law?
Some might even have called it “science fiction.”
