In Which I Agree With Yuval Levin

There's not much to argue about embryos being human life. An embryo has the fracture of the intellect/emotional capability of an ape and abortion for apes has never been considered controversial. That is what Obama meant when he talked about the scientific decisions. This is not a question of belief, just like creationism is not something you can believe or not believe. The assumption is as wrong as far as science can prove something to be wrong. That's it. If you argue that an embryo can develop into a human being, I have to argue that many water molecules actually transform into human beings and basically we all have once been particles in a supernova.

It has always bothered me that a lot of people are exercised about the possibility of using human embryos for scientific research, but there seems to be little controversy (if any) about creating those embryos in the first place, for the purpose of helping people with reproductive issues. When someone agrees to fertilize multiple embryos, they know going in that there is a high likelihood that some of those viable embryos will ultimately be destroyed. Yet I don't hear 'pro-lifers' making a big stink about this. Either it's wrong to destroy these viable embryos --- in which case, stem cell research is off the table, along with certain fertility treatments --- or it's not. Some consistency on this issue would be nice.

"If you think an embryo is a human life..." This has always struck me as the wrong question, or maybe an incorrectly phrased question. What is it that differentiates "human life" from other kinds of life, in terms of 'importance' for these kinds of discussions? It is that a human has what we short-handedly refer to as a '"soul". So, to me the question becomes 'At what point in its development does the embryo (or blastocyst) become imbued (if that would be the right word) with a soul?" If the embryo has a 'soul', then using it for research is problematic at best. But if it doesn't? Then what the heck is the problem!? The easy answer you will get from people is the soul shows up 'at the moment of conception'; sperm meets egg, and soul appears. Simple as that. But there are big-time problems with that answer. Problem number 1: what about identical twins? One sperm, one egg, two humans, (presumably) two souls. So, a 2nd soul shows up 'at the moment of separation'; one little 'exception' to the simple rule. Only.... Problem number 2: sometimes fully separated 'indentical twin' blastocysts merge back together. No, I'm not talking about conjoined twins (though they are another problem - one soul or two?), I'm talking about one egg, one sperm, fully split, then joined back together, forming one perfectly normal human. So our simple rule is 'the soul shows up when sperm meets egg...except in the case of identical twins, when a 2nd soul shows up when they fully split....except if they re-merge, in which case the 2nd soul...ummm...never deployed in the first place....or something'. Except... Problem number 3: sometimes non-identical blastocysts also merge. That is, two eggs, two sperm (presumably two souls), but resulting in only one human being. (Look up the term 'chimera'). So the ever less simple simple rule is....uhhh....beats the heck out of me. The answer to the question "When does the soul appear?" is "We don't have the slightly fucking idea." Except that 'human' looking brain activity doesn't start to appear until sometime around the end of the 2nd trimester, so assuming the 'soul' shows up around then is easily as valid as 'at conception'. If you assume that, then embryonic stem cell research should be no problem whatsoever.

Robert Earle nails the issue for me. What he (not surprisingly) leaves out is a riff on all those fertilized eggs (according to those in the field close to a majority if not a majority) that are aborted through natural process due to "glitches" along the way. What about their "soul" ? Greg brings up the issue. Anyone that claims an easy answer that covers all possible situations (I'm looking at you pseudo pro-lifers ala Pope Whomever etc) is blowin smoke. I do think there are scientific ways to decide this question but it would involve experiments that are not acceptable to a responsible culture & I don't have a problem with that situation. "...it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM

sullijan >"...According to pretty much every poll, the majority of Catholics support stem-cell research." That may be true in the U.S. of A. but Mr Pope & his other followers aren`t in that mind set. The Roman Catholic Church is a major road block to progress in a lot of policy areas including this one. Of course there are other actors behind the self labeled "pro-life" movement that are at least as corrupt. "...it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM

Yes, there are ethical and political ramifications to stem cell research that Obama passed on. They will need to be made, but I think he has taken the right approach in passing this on to expert panels. These panels are filled with ethicists. The decisions come from group concensus (with dissent no doubt) and may pass under the national spotlight (to be fought in more targeted arena). This is similar to his approach to the StimBill and even his budget: The responsibility resides with the people and their elected representatives. We saw how Obama reacted to impasses in the previous situations. His performance should improve, becoming proactive and preemtive, as the individual actors and their constituencies speak and act. This is strategy that forces buy-in and revelation. Why do I think of the other Hoover, J. Edgar? Oh, yeah Emmanuel. Beyond the politics, this approach will eventually filter down to us voters and we will be asked to contribute, be responsible, indeed sacrifice. It's a slow roll, but I feel the shore swell in the ionized air. Return to politics as the commonweal perceives the difference between our needs and those proposed by our compromised representatives.

What makes a subject have 'human rights'. Is the main question. In my opinion it is the ability to think, or at least to feel on a level that is at least a little bit similar to that of grown humans. If we were all honest with ourselves we'd admit that it is the science -- not any theistic belief system -- that strongly suggests fertilization is the most straightforward bright line between "personhood" and whatever comes before. We focus on other issues -- cognitive ability, say, or viability outside the uterus -- because such benchmarks are convenient. They allow us to proceed wither we will. But the science tells us a genetically individual human being -- albeit a microscopic one -- is present once fertilization is complete. In fact you began after your father's lucky swimmer mated with your mama's egg.

I dispute the notion that people who would disallow embryonic stem cell research should be allowed to vote. Is that a "legitimate dispute"?

I don' see where you get the idea that this is a purely "scientific" decision. the quotes below are from Obama's remarks at the signing of the executive order(s). You may say that this is merely lip service, but the moral dimensions are certainly acknowledged. And a moral, not scientific, line is drawn at cloning. "But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly." "It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view." "But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided." ... "I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."

If we were all honest with ourselves we'd admit that it is the science -- not any theistic belief system -- that strongly suggests fertilization is the most straightforward bright line between "personhood" and whatever comes before. We focus on other issues -- cognitive ability, say, or viability outside the uterus -- because such benchmarks are convenient. They allow us to proceed wither we will. But the science tells us a genetically individual human being -- albeit a microscopic one -- is present once fertilization is complete. In fact you began after your father's lucky swimmer mated with your mama's egg. In fact I disagree, most honestly. The 'most forward bright line' is somewhere inside the woman who gives birth to the child - in my most honest opinion. The question of WHAT is worth of being protected can only be answered by WHAT something is, not where it comes from or where it is or what just happened. Therefore you need to to define (at least vaguely) what properties an embryo should have to be worth of protection and the only ones I can think of are emotional and intellectual capabilities. But no matter whether you agree or disagree on this, your definition must not consider where it comes from, where it is or what just happened. The only valid question is: WHAT is it, WHAT properties does it have?