Man Bites Blog

William Saletan is debating Robert George and Christopher Tolefson on the question of whether it is permissible to use embryos for research.  I think Geroge and Tolefson have the better of the argument, which is kind of like saying my dad can beat up your little brother.  Saletan is a journalist, not a scientist or ethicist, so it’s not surprising he would struggle here, as he notes:

I’ve seen George pick apart fuzzy-thinking adversaries at meetings of the bioethics council. It’s like watching a cat with mice. Today, unfortunately, I’ll be the mouse.

The flow of the argument is that George and Tolefson have presented a narrative establishing conception as the start of life, and Saletan raises objections to that narrative — the presence of the mother’s RNA in the embryo, that the placenta is produced from the embryo which is not part of the adult being, and that twinning occurs after conception.

I found the twinning argument easiest to follow:

But in the case of twinning, they walk right into this alleged mistake. “The original embryo A lives until twinning occurs,” they propose, “and at that point, either A continues to exist and a new embryo comes to be by ‘budding’ from the original one, or (less likely, given recent findings) A ceases to be and two new embryos, B and C, come to be.” In other words, if I’m a budded twin, once upon a time there was an embryo that was something distinct from the living human organism that is now me, but that got transformed into the organism that is me at some point after the embryo came into existence. To escape this conclusion, George and Tollefsen have to accept either of two alternatives: that my twin and I are, through continuous identity, the same person; or that the original embryo was not, as they had posited, a “determinate individual.”

I think Saletan scores a point with this objection.  The problem is that many observers will conclude from this that he has won the game.

Remember, we’re talking about whether it is permissible to, on a wholesale basis, use embryos for research.  If we do it and it turns out we were wrong, we will have actively killed millions of other human beings.  If we’re going to take that risk, I’d like it to be on a firmer basis than the fact that the opposition’s narrative of embryonic development is a bit tidier than reality.

If we were talking about allowing abortion, I could see how arguments like this can win the day.  Restricting abortion is a significant limit to women’s liberty, and should not be undertaken unless we’re sure that what we’re protecting is a real human life. 

But for goverment funding of embryonic research, the bar needs to be a little higher, since not doing it doesn’t limit anybody’s liberty, and we are all implicated in the act. 

As Ramesh Ponnuru writes:

First: While many people find the notion of an intermediate moral status for the embryo attractive, the decision we are trying to make is basically binary: Either killing those embryos for our purposes is permissible or it is not. If it is permissible, then in no important respect does the embryo have a moral status above that of a mere thing. To put it another way, its supposedly higher status does it no good.

Second: Those closing lines make it sound as though Saletan wants us to proceed with embryo-destructive research, but with fear and trembling. But as Saletan himself points out at the start of the review, we are talking about routinized mass production and destruction of embryos. Assuming that we begin this enterprise with whatever amount of hand-wringing Saletan considers desirable, how likely is it that the hand-wringing will continue?

Saletan is correct that embryology messy.  But it doesn’t flow from that that our moral decisions about embryos need to also be messy.

It is hard to imagine what Saletan’s “fear and trembling” policy would look like.  Allow research but don’t fund it?  Allow research for fatal diseases like ALS, but not for, say, restoring limbs for amputees?

The way this debate has gone has made me extremely skepticial that, especially in the face of success, we will accept any limits on this research once it is given the go-ahead.   “How can you say no to hope?”  It’s hard enough to do that on the basis that embryos are humans.  Are we really going to try to do that on the basis that embryos are quasi-human, so it’s OK to use them to try to cure some diseases, just not yours?

In an all-too-common “error,” Christopher Hitchens conflates adult and embryonic stem cell research, saying that the stem-cell research that has produced cures for Hodkins disease “will now be halted or delayed to please the faithful.”

I put “error” in scare quotes because I think it is extemely unlikely that more than six years into this debate, Hitchens is unaware that it was adult stem cell research that produced the Hodgkins cure, and that that research is uncontroversial and nobody’s trying to stop it. (Though some on the pro-embryonic side reasearch side claim that “adult stem cells are mass murderers.”)

So, can we say that Hitchens is abusing science?

on the e-mail I quote below:

It opens with this:

The problem with the pro-life movement isn’t merely that it is prohibitionist, but that its fundamental position cannot be formulated in any fashion that is coherent to someone, except that they first accept some bit of magic that turns a few cells into the moral equivalent of a person.

I submit that it is the pro-choice, rather than the pro-life position that reqiures the acceptance of “some bit of magic that turns a few cells into the moral equivalent of a person.”

Think about it:

Pro-life:  You are a person from the moment of conception.

Pro-choice:  You became a person sometime between conception and now.

According the pro-choice position, there is some magical moment after conception where what was once a “mere cluster of cells” that need not be protected and indeed may be used and destroyed for our own purposes becomes a person  worthy of protection.

When exactly is that magical moment?  It depends on what is being advocated.  The e-mailer acknowledges that most pro-choice people would accept restrictions on late-term abortion.  Why?  What’s different?  Is it just because there a cute ultrasound pictures of late-term fetuses and not embryos?

Rather than grapple with that question, the e-mailer resorts to the intellectual shortcut of the burning building hypothetical.

This my second annoyance — the pro-choice movement will lean on crutches like this, and then adopt the pose as the scientific rational side while the pro-life movement is emotional and religious.

Andrew Sullivan approvingly posts and e-mail calling the pro-life movement absurd because:

The pro-life position requires acceptance of a notion that is both religious in origin and odious to common sense, that even the earliest zygote should be treated as a person. The philosophical gedanken often used to exhibit the absurdity of this position is whether, caught in a burning fertility clinic, and able to save only one, you would choose to rescue a child? Or a tray holding thousands of viable embryos, ready for implantation into would-be mothers?

I don’t think this proves what the writer or Sullivan think it does.  There are two major problems with using this hypothetical as a basis for public policy:

1. Our reasons for judgement in these situations might be influenced by factors that are not altogether good.  Fatherly instinct might lead me to save my daughter from a burning school before others.  Racism might lead me to save only white children.  Sexism might lead me to save boys.
   Using this hypothetical as a substitute for grappling with the difficult moral questions may paper over moral errors in that judgement.  Are we so sure that our instinct to save the four year old rather than the embryos is sound, and not motivated by similar sentiments as those that might lead me to save people of my own race first?
2. A lower priority in the burning building does not imply that it is OK to actively kill those lower on the priority for the benefit of those higher.

 The e-mailer continues… 

The pro-choice position is not just about arguing the consequence of that difference should include more reproductive freedom than the pro-life movement desires. It also is about preserving sanity in how these issues are argued.

It seems to me that this e-mail is more of an attempt to preserve sanity by avoiding difficult questions, and labeling those with inconvenient answers absurd.

Can someone please remind me which side of the embryonic research debate is about cloying emotionalism and which side is about hard scientific facts again?

Because I read articles like this, which claimes that adult stem cells are “mass murderers” because some treatments are rejected, and I start to think that it is the pro-embryonic research side that bases its case on wild emotional claims rather than science.

But that can’t be, because the former chancellor of my university, Sheryl Crow, Michael J. Fox, and others were all over my TV last year telling me differently.

Amendment 2 Approved

I was somewhat giddy(see 8:12 comment) at the thought this would fail, but it appears to have passed.

So, the pro-ESCR crowd managed to buy their amendment. I hope they’re happy with themselves. I found this especially rich:

Donn Rubin, of the Coalition for Lifesaving Cures, said, “We’ve known for a long time that a large majority of Missourians support stem cell research. Unfortunately, the issue was clouded to a great extent in the last few weeks … I think that’s why the margin of victory was as narrow as it was.”

Ah, yes, pity the poort Amendment 2 advocates, with their 30 to 1 money advantage and array of star power, who nevertheless had the issue clouded. Perhaps if they had built their case honestly, instead of hyped promises, they wouldn’t have been open to such “clouding.” I mean really, how can a campaign that ran ads in pretty much every commercial break for the last month dare to complaing about their issue being “clouded?”

Oh, well..

McCaskill defeats Talent

I think Jim Talent is a decent guy who got caught up in the anti-GOP current, and lost because of it. And I am not expecting anything special from McCaskill in the Senate.

This may seem like sour grapes, but it looked to me over the past week that Talent’s heart wasn’t in it. I think he was tired of trying to bridge the tension between running for himself and running from the party’s unpopularity. When I saw him give his concession speech last night, he seemed relieved, glad he doesn’t have to play this game anymore.

He’s still a young man, hopefully he’ll do some more good things.

Dems take House

No skin off my nose. I think Washington needs a shake-up.

The big issue this would seem to have an impact on is immigration, which I’m not too firmly on one side or the other.

I saw Dan Murtha interviewed on NBC last night, and if he takes on a leadership position, I think his reputation is going to suffer. He looked to me like he has one gear — angry. He couldn’t take “yes” for an answer.

Yes, Dan, your anger about the Iraq war is understandable. But you just won the election, and now you have to govern. And blind rage isn’t going to do it.

If he becomes House majority leader, I expect he’ll become a punch line for a lot of Letterman and Stewart jokes.

Dems appear to take Senate

This is a bit more troublesome for me, because of the judiciary. Bush has already demonstrated that judicial nominations is one area where he’ll give a little bit. If there is another vacancy on the Supreme Court, I don’t know that Bush has either the capital or the will to back a conservative nominee against a Democratic Senate.

This will be especially true if, as expected, Christian conservatives emerge as the scapegoats for the rout. Especially with Santorum going down. (Even though he went down to a socially conservative Democrat, and his defeat probably has more to do with his stubborn defense of the Iraq policy than his social positions). I mean, do we even need to read Andrew Sullivan today to know that he’s saying that today’s election results should serve as a wakeup call to the GOP that to remain relevant they need to break the chains with the “Christianists?” Let me check… Here it is! I suspect more will follow.

It’ll be an easy bone for Bush to throw to nominate a “moderate,” and distance himself from the now discredited Christian Right.

Miscellany

• MO Cigarrette tax defeates — Somewhat surprising to me. It’s interesting to me that we’ll gamble on embryonic research, which may or may not cure diseases, but we won’t take serious measures to curtail smoking, which has more certain health benefits.

  Probably demonstrates that any initiative that has the word “tax” in it faces an uphill battles.

• Minimum wage increase approved by wide margin — It will be interesting to see how regions with higher minumum wages fare compared to those who have the federal one.
• Tom Brokaw’s “perspective” — I suspect a high correlation between Tom Brokaw’s “perspective” on what “America was saying” and Tom Brokaw’s personal beliefs.
• The New Divide Kaus says the red-blue divide may go away, and that may be true. I don’t think either party can count on taking whole sections of the map anymore, especially the GOP in the central plains. In order to have power, the GOP will need to find a way to appeal to what were “blue states.” They can’t just write them off and count on winning the South and West. That’s a good thing.

  But I think the red-blue state divide may be replaced by a lower scale urban-rural divide. Every state may be up for grabs (or at least open to Democrats), but regions remain solidly in one camp or another, especially with gerrymandering.

  This was driven home watching the results in Missouri come in last night. Amendment 2 was and McCaskill were trailing by 5-6 points most of the night. Then the results from the St. Louis and Kansas City cam in, and McCaskill and Amendment 2 surged ahead.

The backers of Amendment 2 are fond of saying that all Amendment 2 does (its 2000 words notwithstanding) is ensure that Missourains will have the same access to cures that other Americans have.

To do this, it removes from the Missouri legislature the power to restrict embryonic research. It essentially permanently punts these ethical questions to the federal government — you know, the folks who brought us the Iraq War and the Katrina disaster relief.

Isn’t this an odd thing for a state to do? To amend the constitution to explicitly strip itself of power?

Are the proponents of Amendment 2 so distrustful of the democratic process?

Speaking of amendments numbered 2, imagine if instead of stripping the state legislature of its power to regulate research, the amendment stripped the state government of its power to restrict firearms. If it essentially said, if a weapon is legal under federal law, it must be legal in Missouri, and there’s not a darn thing the state legislature could do about it. (To make the parallel complete, imagine that it included a ban of “assault weapons,” then defined assault weapons to only include, say, bazookas, and then the proponents went on and on about how the measure explicitly bans assault weapons.)

It seems to me that this will lead to even more political polarization. If amendments like this pass, then as an opposer of embryonic research, my only recourse is to attempt to influence the federal government. So if it’s midterm election time, and I’m not thrilled with the Republicans, and my choice is between a Republican incumbent who opposes funding embryonic research and a Democrat who supports it. It seems that I have one more reason to not consider voting for the Democrat. Essentially, proponent of the Amendment want to limit debate of this issue to two high-stakes venues — the debate over this amendment, and federal restrictions. Is it surprising that in this environment, people tend to dig in their heels on their own side?

OPPOSED TO SCIENCE?
One of the charges those opposing embryonic research often face is that they are opposed to “science.” An example comes form Scott Adams’s blog today:

Statistically speaking, any hacker who is skilled enough to rig the elections will also be smart enough to select politicians that believe in . . . oh, let’s say for example, science. Compare that to the current method where big money interests buy political ads that confuse snake-dancing simpletons until they vote for the guy who scares them the least. Then during the period between the election and the impending Rapture, that traditionally elected President will get busy protecting the lives of stem cells while finding creative ways to blow the living crap out of anything that has the audacity to grow up and turn brownish.

Now, I realize Scott Adams is a humorist, but similar assertions are a regular part of our discourse.

Since almost all of the opposition to embryonic research comes from religious groups, most prominently the Roman Catholic Church, which has made some serious missteps in its relationship with science, the debate can be framed as religious luddism vs. scientific progress, with an obvious conclusion.

But there’s a significant difference in the motivations for opposing Galileo in the Middle Ages and opposing embryonic research today. Galileo was opposed because those in power saw his conclusions as dangerous — a heliocentric solar system was a direct challenge to the Creation narrative, and thus to the authority of the Church. The same goes for evolution.

In fact, some who challenge the Church’s position on embryonic research point back to Aquinas and other Church scholars putting personhood at “quickening,” which is several weeks into pregnancy. But the Church’s position has developed since then based on what science has taught us about the early stages of development.

The driving force behind opposition to embryonic research is not fear of its conclusions, but opposition to the methods involved. The Church was wrong to suppress Galileo. However, if Galileo’s research involved launching condemned criminals into space,the Church would be correct to oppose this method.

This isn’t another round of the same religion vs. science fight. The sides may have the same general names, but we’re playing a different game.

SAME OLD, SAME OLD
Shouldn’t a newspaper run stories that are actually news?

One more note — I’m wondering if it would be a good tactic for people who want all human beings protected to threaten to leave states that do not, or to move to states that do so. We hear a lot about how we have to accept things like stem cell research or same sex marriage because it sends a message about what a with-it state we are and attracts smart people. (I find this argument deeply insulting), but let’s put that aside for now.

What would happen if those of us opposed to Amendment 2 committed to leaaving the state if it passed? Who would Missourians rather have — the hotshot researchers, or the decent people who live here.

Now, I don’t know if such a strategy is plausible, since there is probably a high correlation between wanting a society that protects all members and putting down roots. But it’s something to think about.

WHY NOT?
Archibishop Burke highlights an important contradiction in this week’s column:

Mr. Danforth and other proponents of Amendment 2 believe that human life begins with the implantation of the embryo in the womb of a woman, denying the identity of human life to the embryo before implantation. But what is the human embryo before implantation, if not a human being? Implantation adds nothing to the identity of the being, it only provides the natural place for the next stages of its development. The standard textbooks of embryology define the beginning of human life at fertilization or artificial generation by cloning.

Following the logic of Mr. Danforth, I suppose, Amendment 2, which claims to prohibit human cloning, actually prohibits the implantation of the embryo produced by somatic cell nuclear transfer or cloning in the womb of woman. Why? The obvious answer is: Because it is a human life which, once implanted in the womb, will simply continue its growth, in accord with the full identity which it already has.

I’ll draw this out a bit. The pro-choice, pro-research position rests on these premises:

• The embryo is not a human life until it is implanted in a uterus.
• A woman has absolute dominon over her body, including the right to end a pregnancy.

Given those premises, why would implanting an embryo created via somatic cell nuclear transfer into a woman’s uterus be at all morally problematic, indeed so very problematic that it’s the one thing proponents say they explicitly ban.

This seems a strange place to draw the line. And indeed, it is an extremely bright line. If they have there way, everything on one side of the line would be constitutionally protected, so precious that it cannot be touched by the democratic process; on the other side everyhing is banned.

The only reason I can see for drawing the line there is political expediency — the proponents know that people have a negative reaction to the word “cloning,” so they have tailored te amendment so they can plausibly say they share this rejection of cloning.

OH. MY. GOD.
I attended Washington University during William Danforth’s last year as Chancellor, and I admired what he did in making Wash U. and elite university, so going attacking him feels a bit like I’m attacking my own grandfather.

Nevertheless…

The ad that ran tonight featuring Dr. Danforth saying something like, “we enjoy watching the Cardinals play baseball, but when it comes to important medical issues, I hope Missourians will listen to experts.”

Arrrgh!!

First of all, which medical school did Sheryl Crow attend, again? How about Michael J. Fox? Or even your brother, former Senator John Danforth. Oh, that’s right, they’re not medical experts, are they? They’re celebrities Amendment 2 supporters brought in and put in front of the cameras in the hopes that we’d be so star-struck that we’d go along with whatever they tell us. But those opposed run an ad with the Cardinals #3 starting pitcher, and now we shouldn’t listen to anybody but experts? Right. I anxiously await Missouri cures pulling all the ads from endorsers who do not possess medical degrees, and removing the names of “Civic, Business, Government & Faith Organizations,” “African American Leaders,” and, for heaven’s sake “Faith Leaders,” because, as Dr. Danforth said, Missourians should only listen to medical experts. Anyone else’s opinion is irrelevant.

Secondly, think about the attitude Dr. Danforth is inviting us to have. Chill out, Missourians, don’t think about what those silly baseball players have to say, don’t think at all. The experts say it’s good; that ought to be good enough for us.

I seem to remember being invited to have this attitude about four years ago, and now our country is mired in a civil war half the world away.

UPDATE: I should mention that the context is an ad featuring Cardinals pitcher Jeff Suppan, among others, opposing Amendment 2.

While I’m here, I have to rant a bit about the lack of savviness on display here. On the other side, we have an ad by a well-liked actor best known for his roles in sitcoms and comedy movies. One theme of the debate is that it’s a choice between scientific advancement and religious fundamentalism.

So, how do we begin our response? We start with an actor best (perhaps only) known for portraying Jesus in a film that many had derided as anti-Semitic (for now, it doesn’t matter whether it was in fact anti-Semitic, what matters is the perception) directed by someone who recently was shown making an anti-Semitic tirade. In case any viewers didn’t make the connection, this actor then mutters something in Aramaic, so it’s ultra-clear that opposition to Amendment 2 is fueled by Mel-Gibson style religion.

The appeal to those who have not already committed to voting against Amendment 2 is not at all clear to me, but the turn-off is.

BETTER DEAD THAN RED
The post below highlights what I think is a running subtext in the Amendment 2 debate.

In the last few elections cycles, Missouri has turned from a “swing” state to a “red” state. We’re home to Branson, the entertainment capital of the RedState world. We’ve elected a thirthysomething year old Republican governor from Springfield who is the son of the House Majority Whip. Out most prominent Democratic politician, Dick Gephardt, retired. We went for Bush twice. We overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We elected a Democratic governor and senator back in 2000, but that probably had more to do with a halo effect from Mel Carnahan’s untimely death than anything else.

A lot of people aren’t happy about this, including some who supported one or more of the developments listed above. Instead of being a battleground in presidential races, we’re a reliable source of electoral votes for the Republican candidates. Sure, we might have liked Bush better than Kerry, and we weren’t excited about re-defining marriage, but that doesn’t mean we wanted to become East (What’s the Matter With) Kansas.

This anxiety is espcecially prevalent in the metropolitan areas around St. Louis and Kansas City. There’s a sense that outstate politicians are leading us down a path to irrelevance. Hence, “Jefferson City politicians” which cues this distrust of outstate politicians.

This is probably best personified by Amendment 2’s most prominent supporter, former Senator Jack Danforth. In addition to promoting Amendment 2, Mr. Danforth has written a lot about how religious people have gone too far, and need to rein themselves back. He supports this amendment while maintaining his stance as “pro-life.” He reflects the mood of the state — we’ve lurched too far in the socially conservative direction; let’s back up.

Enter Amemdnment 2. Here, Missourians have an opportunity to amend their Constitution to protect controversial research from those representatives from tiny towns who get their voting orders from the church pastors. Nobody could say we’re in lock-step with the Religious Right then, could they? We’ll have shown our openness to technology, and proven we’re not some sort of red-state backwater, indistinguishable from any number of other rectangular states. We’d matter, damnit!

This is part of why celebrity appeals are such a feature. The message seems to be — This is an opportunity for Missouri to prove to us cool Hollywood people that you’re not a bunch of slack-jawed cold-hearted religious fanatics, but technologically savvy compassionate cosomopoltian people we’d like to associate with.

And while I’m here, thank you, Rush, for turning an interesting conversation about what type of ads and manipulations are in bonunds into a conversation about what a jerk you (an by extension, all those who oppose embryonic research) are. Really, it’s a big help. It’s not like we’re in the middle of a race in which the other side is claiming a monopoly on compassionm and are eager to demonstrate how only a cold-hearted ignoramus could oppose them. Thanks a heap.

I bring this up, but don’t know how to effectively counter it, But I think it’s something it’s important to be aware of. It’s bigger than this particular issue, bigger than whether or not the amendment itself is deceptive, bigger than whether it prohibits or protects “cloning,” depending on who’s defining the terms. For many Missourians, this is a referendum for their own independence from the socially conservative red state pigeonhole they find themselves in, and it’s not going to be easy to get them to vote “no.”

WHO DECIDES?
One of the themes of the Amendment 2 proponents is that medical decisions should be made by families and their doctors, not by politicians in Jefferson City.

This is an appealing argument, echoing the effective Who Decides? pro-choice argument. And it sounds good and makes intuitive sense.

But think about how this type of argument would be applied in other contexts:

• Soldiers on the ground should decide what methods of warfare are acceptable, not Washington politicians.
• Cops in the streets shoud decide what methods of search are reasonable, not self-important people in black robes in stuffy chambers based on what some guys in powdered wigs wrote over 200 years ago.

This isn’t how we do things. We are proud of the men and women in the armed forces, but we still believe in civilian control of the military. There is some benefit to a bit of emotional distance in determining the best guidelines; those guidelines should not set exclusively by those committed to achieving goals that the guideline would interfere with. They should have a say, but not the final say.

To strain an analogy, it’s best that these decisions be made by chickens rather than pigs.

How To Confront
There’s a good discussion going on at Mirror of Justice about how to effectively give witness the Church’s teaching on the fundamental dignity of human life.

This is especially topical for me here in Missouri, as I have been struggling on how to most effectively oppose Amendment 2, which will enshrine in our constitution that nobody can get in the way of using embryos for research. (And by the way, where are all those people who were weeping over the purity of the Constitution when it was proposed that it define marriage as it has always been defined… And while I’m ranting parenthetically, the thing is being promoted as ensuring Missourians have “access to cures.” Is there any chance a law preventing Missourians’ access to cures would pass? But there were actual court rulings establishing same sex marriage, but we kept hearing about how “unnecessary” these amendments were).

Amendment 2 has been promoted by a series of treacly ads about the potential benefits of the research that don’t even attempt to address why this research is controversial. The ads would be no less true if they were promoting the most brutally unethical type of research imaginable, such as forcibly seizing newborn babies, killing them and harvesting their organs. Just tell people it’s about cures and they’ll go along.

The main opposition to this has been to say that the Amendment is deceptive, and that “it’s cloning !!!” My concern is that if this tactic works in this election, it won’t work going forward.

I suppose the word cloning tests well, because people think of reproductive cloning, which gives them the creeps. But this is therapeutic cloning, which the Church considers even more problematic since the cloned embryo is necessarily destroyed. So the Church’s positions are nearly opposite those of the public. We might be able to get past this by conflating both using the word “cloning,” but I suspect only once, and it feels dirty (similar to how those on the other side conflate adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which nobody opposes, with embryonic stem cell research under the term “stem cell research.”)

Maybe the best place to oppose this is on my knees.

DRAWING LINES ON RESEARCH
Despite some advice to the contrary, I think it might be useful to draw some lines in discussing ethical research.

There are points of agreement in the research debate.

Most people agree that it would be unethical to kill an innocent child or adult or research purposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

Also, most would agree that it would be unethical to destroy en embryo even in the moment of conception if the benefit is non-existant or trivial (say, to make Coca-Cola taste sweeter).

So, in the graph below, I plotted these point on a graph, and drew a line between them separating destructive research that is definitely unethical based on the above two premises from research that is not ruled out by these premises alone.

But wait, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where we would be willing to perfrom on adolescents, and not adults. In fact, most people wouldn’t be willing to perfrom this research on infants, so let’s move the sticks…

Ok, so now our range of area of debate is bounded by conception and birth on the development access, and no benefit and save the world on the benefit access.

My position, and that of the Catholic Church, is that there is no more lines to draw. Or rather, there is a vertical line on the y-axis — it is unethical to destroy any human life for research puroposes, regardless of the potential benefit.

In my opinion, this is the most coherent position that has been articulated. In short, I have not seen a convincing argument for why that line (or whatever shape) should be anything other than a vertical line on the Y-axis.