It's been a busy week. Lost a disk drive on the 'ole computer, and foolishly
thought I could use enough smarts to recover it. My piece of hard-earned advice: when
hardware goes bad or even just getting flaky, backup what you can and
replace it. Everything else is throwing good money after bad, or in my case, irreplaceable
time after replaceable hardware.
We had a rash of Op-Ed's on the subject of Life, Cloning, and Abortion this past week
posted in PC (that's Pro-Choice) venues like the Washington Post and Slate.
And each one of them raises tough questions that aren't in the playbook. None of the pat
answers worked, which in the grand scope of life, is a good thing. It shows that we
are moving out of the slapstick comedy of NARAL into real world gritty problems. Time to roll
up the sleeves and take these issues down to the mat.
On Embryonic Cloning
Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post) is struggling with the subject of embryonic
research cloning. Let's define some terms again.
Embryos are manipulated in the lab when a mother is given
fertility drugs to achieve the maturity of multiple eggs.
The mustardseed-sized eggs are collected from the fallopian tube in
a surgical procedure, where in vitro, meaning in glassware, they are combined
with the father's sperm to produce the requisite full complement of genetic material
needed for a baby. At this point we have an embryo, which for us is completely human,
being genetically identical to an adult.
Normally this procedure is done for infertile couples at state-of-the-art Infertility Clinics,
but this is not what concerns Krauthammer.
If instead of using a father's sperm, the experimentalist
first removes the egg's genes by microsurgically extracting the nucleus, and then
inserts a full set of genes taken from some normal (somatic) cell in the mother, he can
"fool" the egg into thinking it was just fertilized, and it starts to form an
embryo. This is called "embryonic cloning".
Let's be clear here. This is not the asexual reproduction implied by the word cloning.
This is sexual reproduction perverted by microsurgery. The reason one has to use an egg
cell is that normal somatic cells do not have the cellular machinery in place to make an
embryo. The more we learn about the cell, the more we realize just how intricate it is, with
incredible checks and balances to keep the process of life continuing. Cells are not
some bag of chemicals surrounding a nuclear blueprint, but they have memory and purpose
hidden into every nook and cranny of their structure. That's why humans cannot be asexually
duplicated like yeast; that's why it takes a special purpose sex cell, the egg,
to start an embryo; that's why all the "cloned" animals out there die young and diseased,
even after they get past the 99.4% embryonic mortality statistic; that's why
the concept of DNA as an all-sufficient definition of life is now viewed as dated, naive
reductionist logic. In short, it is
sheer scientific hubris to think that glassware can duplicate the intricate process
that occurs in fertilization.
Of course, if one uses a somatic cell from a stranger for the gene transfer, then the
resulting embryo isn't either a clone or a normal child,
but some weird admixture of maternal mitochondrial
DNA and "paternal" nuclear DNA far from the natural 50/50 mix.
And we won't even ask what is made if the somatic cell
isn't human
(Jeremy Rifkin, The Guardian). Putting aside the ethics of such a Frankenstein
procedure, Krauthammer is struggling with
the question of what to do with these chimeras. This is a bit like asking how we should
treat Thalidomide babies without discussing the morality of giving the drug
in the first place. But we're here to offer a fellow soldier some advice if we can.
When you clone a (somatic, i.e. adult) human cell, you turn it first into an
embryonic cell with which you can do two things:
(a) let it grow (in theory, with implantation in a uterus) to become a cloned baby, or
(b) take it apart very early to derive stem cells (research cloning).
Everyone opposes (a) because everyone agrees that cloning children is a monstrous
idea that deserves to be banned. But congressional Democrats (with the support of
some equally confused Republicans) support (b), research cloning. But that means
you've just created a human embryo for the exclusive purpose of experimentation
and dissection....
I had proposed creation as the bright line to separate what is permissible from
what is impermissible in embryonic research.
The principle I suggested (and elaborated in "Crossing Lines: A Secular Argument
Against Research Cloning," the New Republic, April 29, 2002) was this:
No creating human embryos for experimentation. That means no to all cloning.
And that means yes to using existing embryos such as the thousands of frozen and/or
discarded embryos left over from work by in vitro fertilization clinics -- embryos
that were created for the purpose of becoming children but which, for one reason or
other, were not used.
We find nothing but agreement in Krauthammer's first two and a half paragraphs, but that
last sentence was a shocker. Evidently in his mind, the microsurgery is unethical
(or is it the attitude of the microsurgeon?), but nothing else. So the 100% human
embryos left over from a fertilization clinic are perfectly fine to experiment on,
dissect, homogenize, inject into senile brains, but just don't make any inhuman
Frankenstein embryos, at least, not on purpose. But if, by some lucky chance, the
fertilization clinic has some "interesting" embryos, why those would be fair game.
Why are we not impressed? Because the measure of success for Krauthammer hinges
on an invisible attitude. "Yes, Mr. President, we have thousands of embryo
clones we are experimenting on in this lab, but not one of them was intentional, we
accidentally made them."
Krauthammer has made several critical assumptions
common to many Congressmen, that led him to this faulty solution. We'll start with
the less important assumptions and work toward the more basic.
First, Krauthammer
thinks that one can legislate attitudes. As in "No creating human embryos for [the
purpose of] experimentation.", and in the next sentence "yes to using
existing embryos...that were created for the purpose of becoming children..."
One purpose is bad, the other good. But who can see the intentions of the heart? We
have an entire justice system designed to punish "pre-meditated murder" and most
of the time that's hard to prove with a casket full of evidence. How much more
difficult to prove intent with a microscopic dot of an embryo? And supposing some scientist
is found guilty for wrong intent, what does one do with the mess of embryos then? The
road to hell is paved with good intentions, we need more potholes, or better
roadblocks.
Second, Krauthammer seems to think that rules can capture the essence of ethics. No murder.
No adultery. No creating embryos. For the record, I love black-and-white rules as much
as the next guy. But who says ethics is all black-and-white? There is more than the
letter of the law, there is also the spirit. Now perhaps the spirit of the law is a bit
player in radar-gun speeding fines, but it can't be ignored in the truly important
life-and-death issues we're wrestling with here. The problem can be illustrated best by
casting the problem of ethics as if it were a business. A recent article by
Arnold Kling, TCS points
out that just as centrally planned economics results in "gaming the system", so also
would centrally planned health care. Our contention is that Krauthammer does not take
into account this letter-of-the-law gaming. Even if he eliminated the
"bad attitude" clause, and advocated "No creating embryos.",
there would be (that's a 100% certainty in the subjective tense) attempts to redefine
"creating" and "embryos", even a Clintonesque transformation of the word "No". Why am I so sure?
Because embryo experimentation in violation of cloning taboos happened
5000, 3000, 60
and 30 years ago, it's happening now, and it won't cease at any time in the future no
matter what the Ethics Commission decides.
So how can we prevent this nightmare "War of the Clones"? We must not only address the
letter but the spirit of the law. We need to not only have a list of do's and don'ts, but
we need a overarching principle that establishes and makes those rules inviolate, ungameable,
logically consistent and self-referential. Changing one rule should throw a wrench into
the whole system, changing a definition should make the whole system unintelligible. Is such an
ethical system even possible?
At Declaration Alliance, we believe that this is precisely what Jefferson meant, when
in his first draft of the Declaration he wrote
"We hold these truths to be sacred..."
A truth that cannot be abrogated, changed, redefined or ignored. For sacrament is
self-referential. Sacrament is not negotiable. Sacrament is bigger
than an embryo, it is bigger than a research lab, it is bigger than Parliament.
And sacrament is so misunderstood today. What Krauthammer should have proposed, is
"Life is Sacred".
Anything else is sacrilege.
On Councils
Of all the groups who understand sacrament, the Vatican
should be the chief. William
Saletan, Slate reports on both the Bush bioethics panel, which includes the
above mentioned Krauthammer, and a bioethics meeting at the Vatican. Saletan contrasts
the ambiguity of Jewish ethicists with the caveats of the Catholic priests. He
chronicles several appeals to the Vatican for continuing embryonic research
without violating the ban:
defining an embryo "dead" for purposes of harvesting its cells, or creating non-human
"artifacts" by suppression of certain genes. After giving the pros and cons, he
quotes Dr. Cohen on the differences between the two faiths.
"Christians have a lot more theological confidence than Jews," he says.
"The Jews will raise 36 questions about something. The Catholics will raise
the deepest questions and then presume to offer a rational account of things."
He laughs. "It's not a confidence I share." He admires Catholics for their faith in
reason—"the faith required to live with the consequences of their conclusions,"
even when intuition screams the other way. "You have to have a ridiculous faith in
reason to let your child die rather than use an embryo to save them,"
he says, staring at the table.
We note that there hasn't been one (that's numero uno) unique therapeutic application
of embryonic cloning in human beings that couldn't be done better, say, with umbilical cord
stem cells. What is Congress and Cohen's real problem?
Faith in a ridiculous reason.
On Abortion
The winds of change are blowing stronger every day, Hillary
now
sounds suspiciously Pro-Life, states are passing more and more
legislation limiting abortion,
and the Democratic party is toying with
pro-life candidates. William Saletan, a MSM journalist, has even subtitled
his book "Bearing Right: How conservatives won the abortion war."
Should we be happy, neutral or upset?
Good deeds done with an evil heart inspire pity more than exultation. It must really
hurt to swallow such bitter medicine. We do not believe there has been any
change of heart in the Democratic party, just some realism about the electorate. In fact,
adopting a Pro-Life-leaning position is completely inconsistent with almost every other plank in
the platform, either setting a precedent with States that the party of big Federal government
is loathe to offer, or worse, acknowledging the existence of an altruistic right.
Nevertheless, whether from
base motives or pure, it is progress to see the rhetoric changing. The real shocker
is the claim that Democrats are more pure than the politically
conniving Karl Rove, who is not above campaigning for Pro-Abort Republicans against Pro-Life
challengers. (The Pennsylvania Senate primary last year.)
Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Yes, I found Rove to be inexplicable in PA.
Yes, the Washington Post does detect some pragmatic taint in Republican purity. But was
it traitorous? The Post article ends by saying that by this dirty-trick, Republicans are now in
position to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court. It is another gale of
change when the Republican party is considered more pragmatic than the
ideological Democrats. But is this the way to view the story? The
Australian opines that main stream media (MSM) is so monolithic
that it hardly ever sees the forest for the trees, it never interprets
the present correctly. Hence the "quagmire" in Iraq dried up on election day, the "cycle
of violence" lost a wheel at Arafat's death, and "Japan, Inc." is now officially junk.
So what is wrong with the Post analysis?
Simply put, politics, whether Republican or Democratic has always been pragmatic. If
Republicans are better at it now than in the past, chalk it up to intelligence, experience,
planning or luck, but whatever you do, don't imply it is depravity. Otherwise we should all
move to France. So in their backhanded way, the Post is admiring something its
editors won't allow it to say, Republicans are smarter.
And second, what is this
implied Democratic ideology that is being such a hindrance? Pro-abortion. As many
commentators
have noted, the Democratic party has defined itself as the Pro-Abortion party. The one (and only)
common requirement to run in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary was apparently standing on a stage
with NARAL and reciting support for "keeping abortion legal". Finally, after much denial,
the MSM is reporting what we all knew was in the 2004 election post-mortem, Americans
are sick of abortion, the Democrat creed.
No, Declaration Alliance will not now announce victory and disband. We must press to reverse
Roe v. Wade. We must rein in our berserking judiciary. We must insure that this
thin margin grows to be a substantial bulwark of legal protection for our children. For
our grandchildren. The modernist ice age still grips our country, but a thaw appears to be
on the way. Let us not lose strength to finish the course!
On Education
Bill Gates is inspiring some response, though not necessarily in agreement with DA.
The NY Times
agrees that high schools are in trouble, and correctly points out that the past
century is littered with education reforms, but thinks the answer is...more of the same!
That is, Bill's bugaboo, Vo-Tech, is presented as the solution, whereas Bill's answer,
more relevance, is cast into the dustbin of failed reforms. But wait, we have more cold
pizza coming. The inability for small schools to hire highly specialized teachers is given
as a reason for failing schools. Never mind that one-room schoolhouses seemed to do a pretty
good job 100 years ago, or that parochial schools do well today with little specialization, or
even that the Board of Education has greatly discouraged specialization by requiring
professionals to get a "Teaching License" first. What this
means is, of course, schools need to get bigger so we can get sufficiently specialized.
And the justification for graduating illiterate students? It's the fault of the middle schools
which are sending substandard product. Of course! All we need is bigger assembly lines but quality
control is someone else's responsibility.
Just who made these recommendations?
A former associate commissioner of education for Massachusetts. Why are we not surprised.