Blogs and Stories
New York Times' New Columnist Is Full of It
Carrie Devorah, WENN / Newscom
Ross Douthat, the conservative pundit, was just named a columnist at the New York Times op-ed page. Now, if only he’d listen to the point about stem cells and IVF.
Congratulations to Ross Douthat for inheriting the Bill Kristol Chair in token conservatism at the New York Times. Kristol’s problem was that, despite his sterling intellectual heritage, he turned out to be more of an apparatchik (or, to be generous, a political strategist) than a thinker. That will not be a problem with Douthat, who is the first blogger to break into the upper reaches of the traditional commentariat.
The day before his appointment was announced, Douthat took an extended and somewhat sneery poke at me for a piece in the Beast about the stem-cells controversy. Since he’s going to be so important, and because the subject is close to my heart (I have Parkinson’s), I want to reply.
My argument was that opponents of stem-cell research, who set back that research by eight years under the second President Bush (and even now have research funders cowed and cautious) aren’t morally serious. Why? Because they obsess about embryos used in stem-cell research while ignoring the vastly greater number of embryos created and destroyed in the everyday operation of fertility clinics.
My own suspicion is that this fertility clinic anomaly hasn’t even occurred to most pro-lifers.
Douthat’s reply was that (a) opponents of stem-cell research do indeed oppose the creation and destruction of all embryos in fertility clinics, and not just the ones that are used for scientific research; but (b) accepting fertility clinics as a given is a compromise with reality, and stem-cell opponents deserve congratulations for playing democracy according to the rules; and (c) in particular, they were, and are, simply asking not to be coerced through the tax system into having their dollars spent in a way they find morally repugnant.
Let’s start with (c). Although it’s rarely put this way, coercion—especially financial coercion—is at the heart of any political system, including democracy. Almost the whole point of politics is to decide what money is spent communally, and how. Obviously the system can’t work if everyone gets to withhold tax dollars from projects they disapprove of. I and many others, for example, would have preferred to not to have our tax dollars go to finance the Iraq war. I’m sure Ross Douthat would have had no problem seeing why that wouldn’t work.
Furthermore, President W. Bush’s research ban didn’t simply prevent the dollars of those with moral objections from going to stem-cell research. It prevented everybody’s tax dollars from being spent that way, including those of the majority who favored federal funding of this research. And Bush’s restrictions were as full of complex furbelows as the kosher dietary laws—requiring separate laboratories for this and that—all consciously intended to make all stem-cell research, not just federally funded research, as difficult as possible.
If it was a tactical compromise to make an issue of stem-cell research while ignoring the vast majority of surplus embryos produced in fertility clinics that are simply destroyed, this compromise was a mighty strange one. Ordinarily, if you intend to compromise, you start by playing up your maximalist position as much as possible, emphasizing how strongly you feel and how difficult it will be to accept half a loaf. Then you compromise. In this case, though, Douthat can only point to a couple of columns by Will Saletan in Slate—one about the octuplets controversy and the other about some law in Italy—to support his contention that pro-lifers “would like to heavily regulate fertility clinics.” Maybe they would, but this has played absolutely no part in the stem-cell debate. In Bush’s original speech announcing his stem-cell research restrictions eight years ago (now praised by conservatives as a masterpiece of moral reasoning the way liberals praise President Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia) Bush actually praised the work of fertility clinics, claiming—correctly—that in-vitro fertilization has brought happiness to many.
Furthermore, if you’re going to draw a line to facilitate compromise, the line between embryos used for research and embryos simply destroyed is an odd one to draw—at least if your intention is to ban the research but allow the pointless destruction to continue. Why not the other way around? Also, while stem-cell research involves the destruction of embryos, IVF involves the purposeful creation of embryos with the certain knowledge that many or most of them will be destroyed. Once again, it’s an odd compromise that saves the former by preventing scientific research while allowing the latter much larger and pointless slaughter to continue unmolested.
My own suspicion is that this fertility-clinic anomaly hasn’t even occurred to most pro-lifers. And I think, or hope, that when they realize that their logic in opposing stem-cell research would condemn all IVF as well, it will give many reasonable pro-lifers pause—maybe even about their pro-life position in general, certainly about their opposition to stem-cell research. That’s why I keep harping on this analogy. And that is why the leaders of the pro-life movement keep avoiding it.
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Return of the Health Care Villains
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
A 'Breakthrough' in the Stem Cell Debate
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
The Gaffe-termath of Political Slips
Michael Kinsley is a columnist for the Washington Post. He was founding editor of Slate. He has been editor of The New Republic and Harper's, editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times, American editor of The Economist, and managing editor of the Washington Monthly. He has written for numerous publications including the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker, and Condé Nast Traveler. For six years he was co-host of CNN’s Crossfire.
Religious people often talk about their mind-blowing moment, when they found God, and put down the bottle/needle/dead hooker. But I was raised Catholic so have always sort of assumed and hoped for justice in an afterlife. Naturally abortion is sort of distasteful to me, but then I don't have a vagina, so I shouldn't tell a woman what to do with hers.
But my "Aha!" moment on this debate came when I heard someone say: the difference between these cells and a child is you can freeze them, then thaw them out again and they will still grow.
I had honestly never even thought about that. That's the ultimate point. I assume there's a soul, but you can't call the atoms I am made up of me, nor the hair follicles and skin cells I slough off on a daily basis. so this guy is right there is no argument. Let the women decide what to do with their eggs.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Kinsley's claim that pro-life opponents ignore the relevance of their objections to stem cell research when it comes to in-vitro fertilization displays an almost wanton ignorance of the millions of words that have been written on this subject over the past twenty years.
Redhead5050, way to elevate the discussion. Over at Daily Kos you can use profanity to better express yourself.
I am surprised that some one like Michael would ignore the Catholic Church's public teaching against IVF that has been consistent for decades. I also wonder that he can be so certain that embryonic stem cell research is more likely produce treatments in the short term than other strands of research now progressing. Speaking of a lack of moral seriousness, aren't you just a wee bit concerned about the ethical implications of manufacturing human life to be used as spare parts?
I love it when pro abortionists like xbainx assert that only women should be able to voice an opinion about abortion because after all, men can't have babies. By this logic, none of us can voice an opinion that slavery is wrong because we ourselves have never been slaves.
And the only reason for abortion to be "sort of distasteful" to anyone is if it in fact destroys an innocent human life.
Why not let a couple decide the fate of their frozen embryos if they decide not to implant them? Why should someone else be able to decide what happens to a piece of my body?
Those who feel that this is a human being (I can't see that, but I take it on faith that some people really do believe that) can elect to have them destroyed (isn't this murder in their strict construct?). Doesn't it follow that people who are deeply religious and unable to concieve are interferring with the wishes of God if they resort to invetro?
The Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a right to decide what goes on--or doesn't--in her womb. Why can't a woman (and her partner, if he contributed) decide what happens to her frozen embryos?
I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-murder you. Now give me your address and we can really test how much I value life. And hopefully, we can both go to hell, where I will continue to torture you for all eternity.
You'll never get por-lifers to change their minds. They are partakers of the Kool-Aid without any pretense of thought.
None of them seriously sit down and think about their position
They just have it in their obstructioninst heads that they are right and that's all there is to it. This anti-science stance is not just absurd it is Foolish.
The problem is that you cannot debate with the pro-lifer since their basis for argument is based on religious belief and emotionalism (nothing wrong with that). So there is no way a rational, scientific debate is possible since the two sides come from different place.
It is always amaze me that most of the pro-lifer do not want the government to interfere in any aspect of their lives except when it come to abortion and gun. How strange! One to give life and oen to take life away (and animals, and targets etc).
1. Adult stem cell research has proven to be very fruitful in medical research.
2. Adult stem cell research does not require killing potential human life.
3. It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. You can not grow a human with out a human.
Michael Kinsley:
"the subject is close to my heart (I have Parkinson's), I want to reply."
------------------------
There are plenty of people who have Parkinson's, including my dad. He is 86 years old. He is an old rancher who always thought it was downright unnatural and inhumane to feed cattle feed processed from beef by-products, bones, etc. This practice is why we have the mad cow disease to contend with today.
I am sorry you have Parkinson's. I am sorry my dad is dieing. We are all dieing. The sooner we accept that and live our lives to the fullest, respecting all human life, the better off we will all be.
Gee, I thought the Republican, I mean Confederate party was all about getting the government out of our personal lives? I gues another lie about that party comes to light.
But let's not forget Bush's creepy photo op with "snowflake babies," the product of surplus IVF embryos that would have otherwise been left forever in ungestated limbo (http://tinyurl.com/cc8z7h). Fundamentally I believe most evangelical pro-lifers are opposed to manipulation of life on such a level. Indeed some of them won't use pharmaceuticals or undergo certain procedures. But that opposition mainly stems from a general ignorance of the science.
The point is largely moot. Researchers have discovered a way to create stem cells without using embryos.
That said, I have always had a problem with the discarded embryos from fertility clinics held as 'not the same' as embryos created strictly for research. Why is there any difference? Why shouldn't the rules for dealing with human embryonic cells be the same regardless of how or why they were created? Snacks of hypocritical double standard. And it is excused in the name of political expediency? Heard of Joseph Mengele, have you?
Do it or don't, but hypocrisy and political expediency should have no place in a debate over ethical standards.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
This is in response to fk4711.
What you said is just not true. For many years I was pro-life, in that I went to many rallies, witnessed outside of planned parenthood, etc.
However, when I began working in obstetrics, my opinion changed. I saw many women who did not want to be pregnant, should have never been pregnant, and who, as indicated by their behavior, would harm or allow harm to come to their newborn child.
Also, as I have started thinking for myself, I do not believe that a government has the right to decide whether or not a woman carries her pregnancy to term. It is actually quite troubling that many people (including people I know) find this kind of power over individual rights to be acceptable.
I still find abortion distasteful, as a personal choice.
I do believe that stem cells should be used to treat illness if they are available although I do have some concern that this treatment has great potential for abuse.
Michael Kinsley, Ignorance is not an excuse. Please read the Catholic teachings on IVF and abortion.
INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE IN ITS ORIGIN
Given at Rome, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 22, 1987
A couple of excerpts:
I.
"In the light of the truth about the gift of human life and in the light of the moral principles which flow from that truth, everyone is invited to act in the area of responsibility proper to each and, like the good Samaritan, to recognize as a neighbour even the littlest among the children of men (Cf . Lk 10: 2 9-37). Here Christ's words find a new and particular echo: "What you do to one of the least of my brethren, you do unto me" (Mt 25:40). "
II.
"Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. This doctrinal reminder provides the fundamental criterion for the solution of the various problems posed by the development of the biomedical sciences in this field: since the embryo must be treated as a person, it must also be defended in its integrity, tended and cared for, to the extent possible, in the same way as any other human being as far as medical assistance is concerned. "
* The zygote is the cell produced when the nuclei of the two gametes have fused."
There you have it. For the complete document go to:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_ cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html
This "Bush praised IVF" thing has got to stop. Bush didn't praise IVF; in presenting both sides of the argument, he noted the trivial truth that it has helped couples conceive children.
This is no more an endorsement of the ethics of IVF than noting that Mussolini made the trains run on time is an endoresement of Nazism.
By the same token, does that mean that I have to have respect for the living DNA cells in a root of one of my hair foliciles that I do for a near-term child?
Sound silly? Not exactly. The argument that life begins at conception ignores the fact taht every living cell in every living thing has the exact DNA that every other living cell of that organizsm has. In theory, scientists could take any living cell, extract the DNA and grow a human body or body part from it.
We aren't there yet, but the consideration is valid. If life begins
at the sub-cellular level, then every single human living cell must be treated as a living human being. Every single cell. This is an all-or-nothing proposition here. If life begins with the living egg, every period must be prosecuted for destroying a potential human. Every masturbatory emission must be prosecuted for destroying a potential human being.
On the other side of the argument it is legitimate to ask just when life does begin. Ex-uetero viability might be a good starting point, except that premature babies are surviving from fewer and fewer gestational days. Independent movement might be a good starting point, except that imaging equipment demostrates that fetuses are moving earlier and earlier.
So where does that leave us?
Minding our own business would be a good place to start. Regulations should be created by those involved in the processes and approved by those charged with policing the processes. Political or religious agendas should have no place in this discussion. Such subjective views do not assist our society in coming to terms with the fact that our technology has long ago outstripped our ethical development. We had best be playing catch-up, and rapidly, lest we find ourselves immolating our entire civilization.
It's pretty obvious why the pro-life side draws the acceptable/unacceptable line between IVF and stem cell funding, catholic teachings notwithstanding. IVF is such an ingrained part of the contemporary American middle class experience that attacking it directly is political suicide. Imagine the problems Republicans would have if they began demonizing IVF patients as they have abortion providers, stem cell researchers, or anyone that doesn't subscribe to their narrow, unpopular agenda. They would be radioactive in most suburban communities outside of the bible belt, even more than they are already. Fortunately for their bleak future electoral prospects, Republicans understand this. But, it doesn't make it any less hypocritical.
I never understood this fetish about the supposed humanity of some week-old primitive biochemistry once sperm cell hooks up with egg. . Yes, it's alive and it's certainly humna. But that's trivially true.
As something of a Christian, I always thought that the whole point why we of the three great Abrahamic religions regard human life as sacred and different from all other life forms is that we humans have immortal souls given to us by God.
And that until an embryo/fetus gets its soul, it ain't anything special. Jews, I understand, believe we get our souls at birth. Christians, for many centuries, believed that quickening, at 26 weeks, was evidence that the fetus had gotten its soul. (I have no idea what Muslims believe.)
So theologically speaking, unless to believe that at the moment of conception we acquire our souls, embryos are really no big deal. Some we kill, many more die a natural death. And one or two survive for nine months and emerge into the world.
Yeah, I'm oversimplifying. But many different types of mature cells in my body are more developed than a new embryo and no one makes a fuss about their dying.
I understand that the abortion debate is messy. Fetal viability really clouds the arguments.
Until recently unneeded fertilized eggs were routinely washed down the drain without anyone giving them a second thought. But now that they have research uses, the rightwing thinks they're real humans who merit a full burial? Huh?
finderj:
The fact that some people controvert a position does not in itself make that position intrinsically controversial. People argued for both sides about slavery, racism and genocide too, but that did not make them complex and difficult issues. -
Peter Kreeft, PH.D.
finderj
You are a liar. And do not know what you are talking about.
Moral issues are always terribly complex for someone without principles.
On stem cells, just one issue where the self-righteous Bush did so much damage for so long, the pro-life crowd are really pro-death. Let them exercise their moral pride by refusing any treatment derived from stem cell research - but don't usurp other peope's right to choose differently.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.