Christian critics of fertility clinics have started adopting embryos that otherwise would be destroyed. (Wasn't something somewhat similar predicted in the science-fiction novel Solomon's Knife?)
Embryonic Compromise
Comments to "Embryonic Compromise":
PintofStout | June 7, 2005, 10:14am | #
The new Pet Rock! Get your very own embryo today!Conservative Christians spawning even more prolifigately than normal. Frigging wonderful.
Vache Folle | June 7, 2005, 10:30am | #
If you can get a tax exemption for the little fellows, this might be a good idea. It would be wrong to thaw them or implant them in a womb, though, because this would unduly endanger their lives. If they are not frozen, you will need to work up a nutrition and filtering system for when they become senescent. Quality of life considerations would dictate a form of mobile bucket. They would be like Odo on Deep Space 9 except for the shape-shifting abilities. If you can get a tax exemption for the little fellows,this might be a good idea.
What would be next, adopting ones own sperm? Would one get tax breaks for that too?
What would be next, adopting ones own sperm? Would one get tax breaks for that too?
Mr. Nice Guy | June 7, 2005, 10:46am | #
Hey, I wonder if you can order the embryos through the mail like Sea-Monkies. Watch them cavort!Hm, you can order sperm through the mail, so why not embryos? Good idea, Nice Guy!
David | June 7, 2005, 10:53am | #
some of whom wore T-shirts that said "former embryo," or "this embryo was not discarded."You have to hand it to these people, even when they do what the feel is right that can't resist the moral finger wagging. They should read up on the Pharisees in that book they like so much.
Misanthrope | June 7, 2005, 10:54am | #
B.D.: MMMMmmmm, caviar!Is there anybody on Earth who CAN'T honestly wear a T-shirt that says "former embryo?"
drf | June 7, 2005, 10:58am | #
hey misanthropic anthropoid:sick. sick sick sick.
sick.
pass the toast corners. and the iron horse.
David | June 7, 2005, 11:07am | #
...moral finger waggingFirst, just because you have the right to do something does not make it morally right to do it. Rights does not equal right, in other words; libertarianism does not equate to amorality. (Although I recall Ayn Rand argued that it did.)
It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to argue for abortion rights while arguing that it is a terrible choice to make, or to have to make. And if one is going to make that argument, it seems to me that one would do better to put one's actions where one's words are -- as these conservative Christians are doing -- than to throw up one's hands or make snarky comments. Isn't that how a libertarian should want someone to solve what they see as a social problem? through private charity and individual action?
Don't, in short, criticize people or make fun of them for doing something that they believe will make the world a better place and which, at worst, does no one any harm. And please let's stop seeing every such action as some sort of totalitarian Trojan horse. It's tiresome enough when liberals do it.
Just think, as soon as we perfect the artificial womb, Christian sects can adopt all of the unwanted fetuses, bring them to term, and raise them in massive indoctrination creches.
Jesse Walker | June 7, 2005, 11:19am | #
I'm basically with David on this one. That said, I think Madog's joke about the indoctrination creches is pretty funny.PintofStout | June 7, 2005, 11:22am | #
We do no harm in criticizing or poking fun, either.Why am I imagining a Good Humor truck with tanks of liquid nitrogen in the back and a speaker playing "Rock-a-bye-baby" driving around suburban neighborhoods offering embryo implantation?
David | June 7, 2005, 11:42am | #
Don't, in short, criticize people or make fun of them for doing something that they believe will make the world a better place and which, at worst, does no one any harm.I didn't criticize the action, although I don't necessarily agree with it. I just find the t-shirts to be unnecessary and undignified. I guess that I feel the gesture is more noble without a cheap slap at the opposition.
M. Simon | June 7, 2005, 11:47am | #
What we have here is a bunch of folks who can't tell the chicken from the egg.Or people who are counting their chickens before they're hatched.
Yogi | June 7, 2005, 11:47am | #
David-I'm confused. Is this okay for people to have this right to discard or perform experiments on embryos because the embryo is not equal to a human life, or is it equal human life and murder? I don't know the answer, but those positions seem mutually exclusive to me. I'd like to hear what the arguments against this line of thinking are as I'm sorting out my own views on this.
It's a matter of time until we see churches supplied with animatronic Mary figures, equipped with full incubatronic technology to bring frozen embryos to a full-term birth (synchronized, no doubt, to happen on Christmas morning).
Not David | June 7, 2005, 12:26pm | #
I didn't notice, obviously, that I was responding to someone who had already absconded with my name. I shall henceforth be "Not David," even though I remain David. Whoever it is that signs himself "A is A" can have fun with that. Also, I declare a moratorium on anyone else naming their children David, and I shall write my Congressman immediately asking that it be legally enforced.What were we talking about?
Re Yogi, I don't think an embryo is necessarily one or the other, either a human life with full rights or a piece of property. A child doesn't have the full rights of an adult (to life, yes, but not to liberty), so for even the staunchest libertarian there's already effectively a sliding scale that recognizes stages of human development. I'm inclined to say that its potential merits an embryo or fetus certain special status, but it's a gray area, biologically and philosophically. Sometimes "I don't know" is the best answer, and in cases like this I tend to be very distrustful of people who are certain they do know.
I may have read too much into the original comment (and, really, all of the comments to that point) -- but it all reminded me of several acquaintances of mine who are as tediously self-righteous in their amorality as the most conservative Baptists are in their morality. It comes out as a constant baseline derision against anyone who takes any sort of moral stance at all, which is corrosive -- it makes it impossible to have any sort of discussion at all about the effects of one's actions on other people.
Lars | June 7, 2005, 12:35pm | #
So... when do the embryo funerals start?I mean, heck, that one woman lost, what, 13 of them at one shot?
I can see a commercial opportunity for miniature caskets and lavish funerary processions. What color of flowers is appropriate when you can't quite make out the gender of the deceased yet?
And do these folks monitor their cycles closely enough to know whether a late period is actually an early miscarriage? (This is also known as a "spontaneous abortion" -- and most women who've been pregnant have probably had one, likely without even knowing it...)
Jesse Walker | June 7, 2005, 1:00pm | #
I should add that the David I was more-or-less agreeing with is the one who now calls himself Not David.Laughing at the moral crusades of fringe nutters is now off limits? I guess it's time to shut this website down.
smacky | June 7, 2005, 1:02pm | #
It's a matter of time until we see churches supplied with animatronic Mary figures, equipped with full incubatronic technology to bring frozen embryos to a full-term birth (synchronized, no doubt, to happen on Christmas morning).That will be the day I start going to Church on Christmas again.
What color of flowers is appropriate when you can't quite make out the gender of the deceased yet?
Yellow or green - duh! Haven't you been to a baby shower where the gender is undetermined before? (White is ok, too, especially since that color is associated with death (and/or undetermined baby genders, at American baby showers) in a number of cultures).
mediageek | June 7, 2005, 1:26pm | #
It's a matter of time until we see churches supplied with animatronic Mary figures, equipped with full incubatronic technology to bring frozen embryos to a full-term birth (synchronized, no doubt, to happen on Christmas morning).That should be in a movie, or at the very least some sort of short story.
Addendum: (Re: unknown gender colors): Ecru (a neutral shade of pale tan) is acceptable, too.
Vache Folle | June 7, 2005, 1:41pm | #
Just like with shaken baby syndrome, we need billboards that inform NEVER THAW THE EMBRYO! Thawing is dangerous, and implantation is just crazy dangerous.If you create an embryo outside of the old fashioned way, just let it develop in the culture you provide it and DO NOT FREEZE IT. Freezing is risky. After 50 or so multiplications, it will stop multiplying, but you can keep it alive with appropriate technology for who knows how long.
wellfellow | June 7, 2005, 1:51pm | #
"It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to argue for abortion rights while arguing that it is a terrible choice to make"Why is it a terrible choice if it isn't anything more than removing a wart?
smacky | June 7, 2005, 2:02pm | #
Did you say Embryonic Rockabilly Polka-Dotted Fighter Pilots?linguist | June 7, 2005, 2:58pm | #
I still agree with David (now Not David). And thanks for putting this so succinctly. I have the same frustration with my friends, but can't get them to understand why their stances piss me off. You are spot-on:"as tediously self-righteous in their amorality as the most conservative Baptists are in their morality. It comes out as a constant baseline derision against anyone who takes any sort of moral stance at all, which is corrosive -- it makes it impossible to have any sort of discussion at all about the effects of one's actions on other people."
Cynical observer | June 7, 2005, 6:10pm | #
Whaddya mean - can't determine the gender? Do a damn karyotype, will ya? It's for the chiiiiiildren! On second thought... how do you do that in case of a spontaneous abortion. There has to be a law....Cynical observer | June 7, 2005, 6:12pm | #
On SECOND second thought... what flowers they use at hermaphrodite baby funerals?Stevo Darkly | June 7, 2005, 6:45pm | #
I can't read the full article (don't have access to bugmenot.com either) but I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. It's folks putting their money where their mouth is over a principle they believe in.Nothing wrong with people ridiculing an action they find ridiculous, either. Just beware of looking like more of an unhinged or ignorant yahoo than your target.
(That last was a general, not a targeted, caveat; more appropriate to other threads than this one.)
crimethink | June 7, 2005, 7:35pm | #
It is perfectly reasonable, for example, to argue for abortion rights while arguing that it is a terrible choice to makeOn most issues I'd agree with that, but the question is, why do you believe that abortion is a terrible choice to make?
The only reason I can think of is, because abortion destroys an innocent human being. But if you believe that, it's not reasonable to then argue for abortion rights.
Even if you don't believe aborting a fetus/embryo/etc is murder, it is still not a pleasant procedure. That may be part of why, regardless of your moral stance, you might still not be jumping up and down, begging to have an abortion.
Stevo Darkly | June 7, 2005, 10:06pm | #
It depends on what you mean by "not a pleasant procedure."A root canal is not a pleasant procedure. (Especially when, as in my case, the dentist can't get you numb and ends up injecting the anesthesia into the pulp of your tooth by sticking the needle through the hole he drilled through your tooth.) But I've never heard a root canal described as a "terrible, tragic choice." I've never even heard of a limb amputation referred to as such.
Ron Bailey | June 7, 2005, 10:18pm | #
I warned y'all about this 3 years ago. See URL: http://www.reason.com/rb/rb032702.shtmlweasel politician (aka crimethink) | June 7, 2005, 10:44pm | #
"I'm personally against root canals, but for the patient's right to choose."David | June 7, 2005, 10:51pm | #
Just to clarify my position, I have no problem with childless couples adopting an embryo in the hope of pregnancy. I have no problem with those who view the destruction of an embryo as equivalent to ending a life adopting the embryo to save that life.It just feels a little bit off to me to use the babies as political poster children.
gaius marius | June 8, 2005, 11:00am | #
it all reminded me of several acquaintances of mine who are as tediously self-righteous in their amorality as the most conservative Baptists are in their morality. It comes out as a constant baseline derision against anyone who takes any sort of moral stance at all, which is corrosive -- it makes it impossible to have any sort of discussion at all about the effects of one's actions on other people.amen, mr david/not david. which is why i must disagree with
libertarianism does not equate to amorality. (Although I recall Ayn Rand argued that it did.)
rand was consistent on this point. the libertarian conception of freedom is inherently antisocial -- it sees each individual to have the prerogative to determine his/her level of engagement with others. that is not a society -- any more than a taxing authority is an authority whose taxpayers can choose how much they contribute, any more than a law enforcement authority is an authority whose citizens decide which laws to obey.
society is necessarily corecive, and ardent libertarians suffer from an ideological blindness as to how that coercion in fact protects their pragmaitc limited freedoms with institutions while denying the freiheit which would ensure the destruction of both institution and real freedoms.
morality is an inherently social concept -- a group/institutional designation of right and wrong. when you reject society, you reject morality -- and so libertarians feel free to accept any personal morality they choose, not understanding how pragmatic social morality and the institutions that protect it are necessarily destroyed by the insistence on choice, ultimately regardless of the choices are. to be libertarian, then, is necessarily to be amoral.
crimethink | June 8, 2005, 11:57am | #
gaius,You're confusing the effects of choices with the choices themselves. Even if, as you assert, individual morality erodes without engagement with a moral society, that does not imply that those who wish to choose whether to engage with society are amoral. It simply means that they are well-intentioned fools.
Of course, I'd disagree with your assertion anyway; without the independence of individual morality, the morality of society as a whole could never evolve.
gaius marius | June 8, 2005, 1:36pm | #
You're confusing the effects of choices with the choices themselves.no i'm not, mr crimethink. i'm saying that the very fact that we consider ourselves to be the final determinant of not only what we do but what we *should* do undermines society.
if we had a room of 100 people who chose consciously to obey the law, we would not have a lawful society -- because each person self-identifies with the society and reserves implicitly the right to dissociate on his own judgement.
that is not the society that an institution -- such as the church or the state -- advocates. the state says, "you are an american, by collective tradition and age-old law, regardless of what you think you are." and the extent to which you believe that is the extent to which you are a social being.
kant's principle that morality is only morality when the individual wills to behave on moral principles is exactly the opposite of this -- and why kant is seen as the father of german idealism and its selfish, introverted (and now widely dominant) worldview. kant revolutionarily declared social obedience to be less than morality, and that only me free to act otherwise could be truly moral in thought and action. this basic emancipation from social strictures in search of "true" morality was the beginning of the end of the west -- although kant certainly didn't realize it at the time.
gaius marius | June 8, 2005, 1:42pm | #
without the independence of individual morality, the morality of society as a whole could never evolve.please expound upon that thought, mr crimethink, if you get a minute. :)
crimethink | June 8, 2005, 2:24pm | #
gaius,I think I see where you're going; you're positing that an individual's morality is not determined by the choices he makes, but by his identification with society. One who obeys the law because of his individual interest, is less moral than one who obeys because he identifies with the group -- despite the fact that their choices and actions are the same.
Which strikes me as utter poppycock, with all due respect.
please expound upon that thought, mr crimethink, if you get a minute. :)
How does a society's moral viewpoint change, if not by the slow, steady accumulation of individuals who disagree with the accepted morality?
If individuals always subverted their own moral judgements to those of their society, Christianity would never have spread among the Gentiles; women would yet retain their status as barely higher than children and slaves; and few if any people on earth would ever have glimpsed liberty. I'm not sure whether you view the last two conditions as regrettable, but I suspect you would dislike the first.
gaius marius | June 8, 2005, 4:59pm | #
less moral than one who obeys because he identifies with the groupbecause the society is what ensures not only his safety and his freedom, but that of those around him. yes, mr crimethink, i think such people are more moral because they put personal indulgence aside, even if it sometimes leaves them open to be taken advantage of, for the good of others.
isn't this exactly the corporate contract a father makes with his society -- subserviate yourself to all that may come, deny yourself the live you might have lived for yourself, for the benefit of your children?
no wonder the birth rate in the west has plummeted.
slow, steady accumulation
there is a difference here between the slow changes that occur with institutional processes among a reticent, skeptical ruling class -- and the mantras that spread to all corners of the society today, which know no moderation or skepticism.
clearly, the creative class have always played the role of the antagonist, challenging the system to move. but society, in making their lives difficult and rejecting most of their notions, ensures that the changes which are adopted have surmounted an institutional bias against them, be it by luck or quality or both.
when the society exists of nothing but emancipated artists -- when there is no institution to resist and reject new ideas -- when instead what is new and young is celebrated and idolized instead of criticized and dismissed -- destructive ideas get adopted with alarming regularity.