I appreciated the "cultureXreligion in flux" analysis of Epiphenomenon, as well as Devolder & Harris' rhetorical passion (ire?). Reading through these papers, however, I quickly realized how so many religious people could resent the attitudes of scientists and bioethicists, specifically in reference to the stem cell debate. While I agree with most of the points these two articles forward, both articles somewhat misrepresent one of the main arguments against allowing scientific research that utilizes human embryos: namely, that it is wrong to destroy a human blastocyst. Green seems to twist this argument to mean that it is likewise morally wrong to NOT rescue every embryo possible, regardless of the reason for "arrest":
"[I]t has long been known that there is an extremely high rate of embryo loss associated with conception and pregnancy... at least half of all fertilised human ova arrest somewhere in early development... [T]his amounts to the catastrophic loss of perhaps a hundred million "human" lives worldwide each year. Yet no one in the global health establishment of a US administration has ever proposed devoting significant research funding to address this problem" (840).
Condoning the dissection and destruction of human embryos in laboratories is one thing; allowing the natural mechanisms of intrauterine embryonic implantation and arrest to take their course is quite another. It only weakens Green's position to confuse the two. Devolder & Harris take a similar straw-manning stance:
"IVF could... be combined with the possibility to grow embryos to term in artificial wombs, which, when perfected will offer a safer environment for the embryo than a woman's womb... Would "pro-lifers" support these technologies? It looks as though there would indeed be a strong moral obligation to abandon sexual procreation and use only embryo-sparing ART (assisted reproduction technologies)" (163).
Unsurprisingly, it wasn't hard to notice a palpable contempt for the religious 'right to life' perspective in these papers, particularly in one passage of Ambiguity, where Devolder & Harris skewer conservative's use of the 'pro-life' moniker:
"We say inappropriately termed "pro-life" because those who regard themselves as "pro-life" so often support positions that can only be thought of as anti-life and that moreover are profligate of human life and safety" (163).
Apart from the fallacious logic of the first two passages, I found both articles solidly well-reasoned. The stab at the ridiculousness of the title "pro-life" only made me smile.
I see your point in challenging the too-easy call to save all embryos. However, to be fair to Green (at least in some small measure) he is remarking on the lack of RESEARCH into "natural" embryo loss so as to highlight what he takes to be a conservative blind spot. Conservatives would likely make something like your point with even greater emphasis on the naturalness of conventional embryo loss versus the intentionally wrought loss due to experimentation. I also suspect a bit of tongue-in-cheek in D&H's suggestion we might want to abandon the usual modes of reproduction in favor of ART.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it did feel somewhat cheap to just focus on these (debatable) cracks in the arguments, I have to admit to feeling kind of overwhelmed with the possible choices for last week's reflection. Generally, I've tried to tie a few disparate themes from the readings into a cute metaphor bow, but that strategy just wasn't happening this time. I'm starting to suspect that I spend altogether too much time on each reflection- 6 to 8 hours, typically - and that this is going to get me into trouble as we hurtle toward finals week. It seems that I'm going to have to adjust my writing approach so as to allow myself the maximum time to research and write the paper. Speaking of which: For my project, I'd like to investigate the promises made in the area of rheumatoid arthritis treatments. My main concern is that this may be too narrow a topic. What do you think? Should I expand the scope to include autoimmune disorders in general?
ReplyDeleteI know you're really busy playing mama bird to us fledglings. Let me know about the project when you have a moment. And, of course, if you have any ideas or advice on how to better crank out the reflections without compromising quality, I'm all ears. Thanks.