Friday, April 29, 2005
A Dilemma
Evangelical Outpost has posed a real mind-knotter. Please read Joe's whole post to get a real feel for the problem, but the condensed version is, "If eating first trimester human embryoes, harvested either from unused in-vitro fertilizations or abortions, was shown to be a boon to human health, how would you advise the president?"
My initial response is that I am awful glad he has cast me in the role of advisor and not actual decision maker, although Joe casts it as the president is going to follow my advice. In a country with a secular government and mixed values, one has to "split the baby" somehow. My tendency is to say I would allow the practice from unused in-vitro fertilizations (they are going to die anyway), but not from abortions, and I would not allow any federal funding for the practice.
Proponents of the miracle cure would argue that such will drive the cost through the roof and therefore only the rich would be entitled. Opponents go on and on about women that would sell their eggs for in-vitro fertilizations, and the fact that it is still cannibalism. When both sides still have good arguments, I figure you have "split the baby" pretty well. Morally - I would agree with the opponents wholeheartedly, which means right after I advised the president, I would probably have to throw up and then, even though I am not catholic, go to confession.
I give this response to be fair to the question as posed. In "real life" I would probabaly resign the advisor role because I could not in good conscience advise the president in the manner I just described.
To me, the key is the way that Joe set this question up. I am on the "President's Council," that means my role is not to advocate, but to weigh all aspects of the question and advise. In a pre-Roe v Wade world, the cannibalism argument would hold full sway, but it is currently the law of the land that embryoes of this type do not rise to the level of personhood, and the council I was charged with would have to take that odious fact into account.
But then there is also longer term advice. While what I propose is probabaly the best solution now, what if Roe v Wade could be overturned? Then the cannibalism argument could be forcefully reasserted. So while immediacy demanded one answer, I would also advise the president on a longer term strategy to change the underlying current assumptions that I was forced to work with. The only question would be if to do so would result in some sort of civil war? I have to say that given the current political climate, if the situation Joe hypothesized actually arose, the civil war possiblity is not so far fetched. But now I think I am reaching beyond the realm of the problem as posed.
I'll be interested in what others have to say.
My initial response is that I am awful glad he has cast me in the role of advisor and not actual decision maker, although Joe casts it as the president is going to follow my advice. In a country with a secular government and mixed values, one has to "split the baby" somehow. My tendency is to say I would allow the practice from unused in-vitro fertilizations (they are going to die anyway), but not from abortions, and I would not allow any federal funding for the practice.
Proponents of the miracle cure would argue that such will drive the cost through the roof and therefore only the rich would be entitled. Opponents go on and on about women that would sell their eggs for in-vitro fertilizations, and the fact that it is still cannibalism. When both sides still have good arguments, I figure you have "split the baby" pretty well. Morally - I would agree with the opponents wholeheartedly, which means right after I advised the president, I would probably have to throw up and then, even though I am not catholic, go to confession.
I give this response to be fair to the question as posed. In "real life" I would probabaly resign the advisor role because I could not in good conscience advise the president in the manner I just described.
To me, the key is the way that Joe set this question up. I am on the "President's Council," that means my role is not to advocate, but to weigh all aspects of the question and advise. In a pre-Roe v Wade world, the cannibalism argument would hold full sway, but it is currently the law of the land that embryoes of this type do not rise to the level of personhood, and the council I was charged with would have to take that odious fact into account.
But then there is also longer term advice. While what I propose is probabaly the best solution now, what if Roe v Wade could be overturned? Then the cannibalism argument could be forcefully reasserted. So while immediacy demanded one answer, I would also advise the president on a longer term strategy to change the underlying current assumptions that I was forced to work with. The only question would be if to do so would result in some sort of civil war? I have to say that given the current political climate, if the situation Joe hypothesized actually arose, the civil war possiblity is not so far fetched. But now I think I am reaching beyond the realm of the problem as posed.
I'll be interested in what others have to say.
