Anuket's Crusade

This blog has a reader, Anuket of Anuket's Crusade with whom I have been having a lively discussion started off by the Clone the Truth campaign.  He (I apologize if Anuket is a female) contends that if Clone the Truth was really about truth, I would be obliged to police half-truths and exaggerations on the pro-life side as well.  I have explained that Clone the Truth is not about policing sides, but about making sure that the media, which is supposed to be neutral, gets the scientific facts correct. 

Anuket sent me the following letter that he has submitted to the Clone the Truth campaign.  I put it here for two reasons: 1. His letter is in response to an opinion column and as far as I can see the opinion column in question has no factual errors, so it is not entirely appropriate for Clone the Truth, and 2. because I feel he makes a great point that deserves its own entry.  Here is his letter:

not sure how to get this into your "clone the truth" list... but here is my contribution. i wrote this letter to the editor of the columbia daily tribune in response to the letter you will find at this link:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2006/Jan/20060128Comm004.asp

here is my response, which was originally longer, but they wrote and told me they wanted to print it and they have a limit of 250 words, so i had to edit it:


As is often the case when people speak out against embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) on the basis that it results in the destruction of a life, Mr. Bartholomew neglected to mention that the embryos in question come from IVF clinics.

This omission gives the false impression that these embryos were hijacked from a future of baby food and spit-up by supporters of ESCR. In reality, they were donated by the people who produced and bear responsibility for them.

People undergo IVF aware that they will probably produce more embryos than needed. They have three options when carrying out their responsibility to those embryos: donate them to another couple; donate them to research; or have the clinic destroy them. 

Does Mr. Bartholomew think that responsibility for deciding the fates of their embryos should rest with people other than those who produced them?

Moreover, those who oppose ESCR on the basis that it is wrong to destroy an embryo inevitably couch that destruction in the context of research. However, simply destroying an embryo destroys it, too, so if ESCR is forbidden, simple destruction must also be. This would force couples to donate to another couple, which could, in turn, subject them to forced parenthood, which has never been upheld in court.

However, if it is wrong to destroy an embryo, period, IVF itself would have to be banned, because even outside of the decisions couples make, 10-25% of embryos are lost just in the freezing,

Does Mr. Bartholomew support banning IVF?

Anuket, I don't know about Mr. Bartholomew, but I certaining do.  The Catholic Church has always been clear that IVF is unethical in part because of the moral conundrums surrounding what is to be done with all of the "left-over" embryos.  You are correct that support for IVF means a de facto support for research on embryos.  I like the following quote from Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, Ph.D., Director of Education of the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

"Many couples today are no longer troubled or beset by the moral dilemmas inherent in the technique [IVF].  They generally fail to see how they are acting against the meaning and order of their own marriage by allowing a third party, the laboratory technician, to impreganate the wife, albeit artificially, in the place of her husband.... These same couples may also not see the profound unacceptability of producing numerous extra embryos which are routinely consigned to a fate of suspended animation in the deep freeze, not to mention the worse fate which may await them at the hands of eager embryonic stem cell researchers."