final thoughts

(P) Even though it's still a week and a half until the election, short of something amazing happening, it looks pretty clear to me that the tactics of supporters and opponents of the Missouri Stem Cell Initiative are pretty much set. It left me wondering, then, about a pretty simple question. When I was driving home this afternoon, I saw a bumper sticker on a big SUV in front of me that said, "They're lying. It's cloning. Vote no."

And that's exactly what I had been thinking about. Why the lying? I find many parts of the email from Professor Harbour, for example, to be deceptive, but aside from the part about violating free speech, it's a fallacy largely either of omissions or red herrings, not lying. But some of the other things, like that bumper sticker, or ads from Vitae, Life Communications, or the Missouri Roundtable, are flat out lies. When they do surveys of public opinion about human cloning, what people are against is the ability to make a human being in the mass-produced, sci-fi kind of way. Amendment 2 explicitly criminalizes human cloning, and it provides very specific definitions that are clearly what people mean when they express concerns about cloning. When people talk about big checks for poor women and college students, they're just lying. The amendment explicitly criminalizes that.

Now, there are all sorts of reasons why people lie, some more nefarious than others. But what I can't quite satisfy myself on is an explanation of why lie about this issue. The opposition position is essentially a moral one. Is it wrong to fertilize an egg with a sperm outside of a human body? Or at least, is it wrong if that blastocyst is not implanted in a woman's womb? If the death of an embryo really is the death of a human being, then perhaps we do need restrictive legislation in Jefferson City.

But lies greatly undermine one's credibility when making a moral claim. Also, in an area like this that does have some more complex scientific issues behind it, lies are very confusing. One of my gravest concerns is that the whole concept of morality being important in beginning of life issues is being eroded by the extremism and manipulation in the public message presented by groups that oppose embryonic stem cell research. Sure, there are concerns about harm to women and commercialization of the technology and so forth, but those are so far removed from this particular initiative that the most appropriate response appears to be laughter. We have been doing this for decades. Embryos have been destroyed for years. If this really is wrong, we're essentially committing acts of genocide in fertility clinics.

Yet instead of talking about that basic, central question, the opposition has gone off on several tangential discussions, none of which are unique to the Missouri amendment (or embryonic stem cell research more generally). The only thing I can think of is that this has brought to public attention in Missouri the conflict with science that religious right leaders have engaged in all over the country, generally below the radar. There have been attempts in Jefferson City to pass restrictive legislation, and that uncertainty is part of why researchers have left Missouri already; after all, that's the prime point of the amendment. It doesn't provide tax dollars or anything; it prevents lawmakers from outlawing the research or withholding grants simply because it involves embryonic stem cell research. Who can forget the ridicule that Kansas got with the school board decision about creationism? It's almost like people who oppose this are embarrassed to admit publicly that they think killing embryos is wrong. Why would it be ok to do in vitro fertilization and discard a dozen embryos, but not be ok to perform research on embryos, many of which would be discarded anyway?

But rather than asking these questions, we are left with lies. Why? To me, that seems an admission that given an informed, democratic outcome, opponents of Amendment 2 know they lose. Most people, yes, even here in Missouruh, think it's ridiculous to prevent research that might help improve the lives of people or prevent couples that want to have children from trying everything possible to have children, so long as there are reasonable restrictions like those laid out in the amendment.

If you really thought we are making a mistake, do you really think lies will convince us of the moral superiority of your position?

Addendum: One last thought I had. This is a moral issue, and there's no act of government that can make something immoral acceptable. So I wonder if there would be a way to get everybody on record who opposes the amendment (or at least key figures like representative Bartle and Senator Talent) promising not to use or recommend for others to use any treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research. Even if SCNT and embryonic stem cell research were banned at the federal level, US scientists (and the venture capital that follows them) would find somewhere to practice research (in fact, it's my understanding that Missouri institutions like Stowers are currently paying researchers to work in other countries). Not for the sake of saying I told you so, or for denying care in the future; I wouldn't actually want to hold anyone to it. But rather as a way of demonstrating now the real level of committment people have to the professed beliefs.