Beauty amongst the tyranny of the urgent

So, in this interesting article - a famous world-class violinist plays as an unknown street musician in a crowded DC metro station one weekday morning to test the reaction of passer-byers to beauty amongst time constraints, hectic schedules, ipods, blackberries, and a mind already gearing up for the demands of the day.

I have to admit my first reaction was to be a little critical - what was wrong with all these people - did they not realize this man could PLAY the violin...not just run the bow along the instrument and make some pleasant sounds, but really play? I know you were busy, you may have been stressed, running late, or had other things on your mind, but...can you really miss Bach? Then I stopped and thought - would I have noticed, taken time to stop? To my credit, I actually am nearly positive I would have noticed...but stopping, now that's another question. And why not? Well, how would I explain that to my boss? Well sir, I was late because there was this musician and he was playing incredibly beautiful music and I had to stop...no wait, doesn't sound like a good enough reason, well, I'm late for this meeting on euthanasia because Beauty called, Truth answered, and it was Good....no, now I just sound too metaphysical... well, I don't have your speech ready because I stopped to have my soul inspired and lifted up on the wings of music...no no, still not "practical" enough... To my shame, I think I would have stayed a mere moment and then hurried on because none of my "excuses" were good enough.

But why does beauty need an "excuse"? Is it a luxury? I want to say that it is not...and yet few in this world have time for it. With hunger, evil, selfishness, ignorance, and disease in the world to combat, who has time for beauty. But what if beauty were part of the answer to eliminating the evils...what if Goodness and Truth are, in fact, only two parts of the essence of the best things and God Himself and Beauty is the third? What if the ancient Greeks and the Ancient Christians were right?

In response to Sandel on Embryonic research

John Sandel's article can be found here:

My first two thoughts are on his criticisms. He says Bush (amongst others) is being inconsistent since he does not pursue a ban on all embryo-research. I think that criticism simply doesn't account for pragmatism. The President may very well have requested this if he thought the political reality was such that he could get it, perhaps his personal beliefs lead him to this exact conclusion. For example, embryo destructive research is seen by many as being one step down from abortion and abortion is even more morally abhorrent and obviously destructive of a human being - and yet we have no federal ban on abortion. Some things are simply not possible at this point even if logically they would be consistent with your morals.

The same may be said of IVF clinics - his second criticism - and the extra embryos they create. Many objectors to embryonic research also have problems with IVF clinics rather glibly making many more embryos than parents would want to implant, apparently giving very little thought to the moral realities of creating extra lives to just sit and wait in freezers. On the other hand, only a relatively small percentage of these embryos are actually "thrown out" - a Rand study in fact, showed that at best there would only be 11,000 of the 400,000 embryos touted as on the verge of being thrown out and currently counted as "extra" which would in probable fact be allowed for research. In addition, many countries that make use of IVF do limit the number of embryos that may be created and many have regulations requiring all created usable embryos to be implanted. The fact that American IVF clinics are almost entirely unregulated shows a large loophole - of course if we go about creating embryos like so many "clumps of cells" then their moral status will fall and we will consider however many are "in excess of the need" to be fair game for research.

Surely Mr. Sandel would recognize though, that it is a consistent and logical view to hold that in principle making use of assisted reproductive technology is morally acceptable, and yet making use of it to create "excess" life and then using that "extra" life in whatever laboratory experiment suits your fancy is not. Hence, shutting down all IVF clinics would not be the moral solution desired, rather enacting legislation such that embryos were not created in excess, were not left to endless waiting in freezers, and were not viewed as just "so many cells" to be destroyed, manipulated, etc at will.

This is not a new moral philosophy. We have long had laws that specify what is acceptable to do with a human even after their life is no longer in their bodies - cadavers are not open to any kind of research whatsoever nor can just anyone do what they like with a dead body. We still view that body as having importance, even moral significance. If even a dead body is granted some amount of protection than surely a live embryo should as well.
In addition, we have historically held that an embryo or fetus while not fully developed, and obviously not born, still is more morally significant than an animal or an inanimate object. By Mr. Sandel's objections, this distinction would seem ridiculous. I think even most proponents of embryo research would agree that the embryo is something more significant than a skin or hair cell or even cluster of tissue cells.

I appreciate Sandel's attempt to view embryo-destructive research from the opponents' perspective and yet setting up straw men for rebuttal is somewhat less than helpful. Embryo-destructive research will most likely continue to be a major point of contention so long as scientific ethics are limited to such questions as fraud and abuse of subordinates and neglects the greater philosophical questions of moral responsibility. Scientists might do well to add this maxim to their academic pursuits: Ask not only what you can do in science, ask also what you should do.

Egg Rebate Debate

Speaking of Eggs... in the UK some brilliant person came up with the idea that instead of trying to make the hard sell to a young women who would not otherwise be interested in selling parts of her body and reproductive ability to a lab, to instead prey on those who already are considering something like IVF. How will this work to the scientists advantage? Well, IVF is really expensive, so........what if the IVF providers gave a woman a discount if she would consent to undergo several fertility treatments and/or give up a fair share of her eggs to the researcher in exchange for her discount.

Sounds logical. Never mind that this puts her health increasingly more at risk and also lowers her chances of one of her eggs being properly fertilized, implanted, and left to grow into a baby. Never mind that this preys upon her emotional desire for a child and her economic disadvantage. Never mind that this still doesn't even touch the question of whether it is OK to buy a woman's eggs, to buy her reproductive ability, to buy a genetic part of her, to buy a piece that can be fairly easily turned into an entirely new human life.

Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at UPenn advises us this way - "It's not that markets or rebates for eggs out to be illegal, but we should not let proponents egg us on into thinking that it is ethical."

Of course....so just because something is unethical doesn't mean it should be illegal. I'm having a hard time coming up with a case where that would be true, though there may be a rare example of that, but I'm having an even harder time coming up with why that would be a good idea in this case. If we as a society think it is unethical, that it does exploit women, that it does prey on the poor, that it does put research over human dignity, then why NOT make it illegal?

Why not? Well, because a little exploitation just might be necessary if you are going to pursue human cloning. So, like it or not, the truth is, it's better to put our women at risk, ask them to sell their bodies, and exploit them then it is to stop cloning.

And there it is - so don't forget ladies, make sure to send in your rebate coupons from your next fertility treatment and your own IVF treatment will be just around the corner. Enjoy!

Eggs-for-Money Scandal

You may or may not be familiar with the need of the developing sciences of SCNT (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) = cloning and hESCR = human Embryonic Stem Cell Research for fresh human eggs. hESCR needs cloning to progress and cloning absolutely needs eggs or it's a non-existent science. Eggs come from women, and unfortunately, (or fortunately) human women are not chickens and the idea of just walking in and picking them up is a laugh. Even the idea that eggs might be as easy to collect as sperm is far from the mark. No, no, to collect a woman's eggs, the general process is to give her a heavy dose of drugs to cause hyper-stimulation, bring her into a doctors office and physically remove them from inside her body. Possible side effects are heavy bleeding, hemorrhaging, organ failure, infertility, and death.

Small price to pay for the good of moving science forward?

Now, because eggs are so needed, it would be cynically logical to assume that someone somewhere would probably be willing to pay a woman to go through this process and provide him/her with eggs. You may be surprised to learn that this is not only completely LEGAL, but it is not just someone somewhere, it's most universities, scientists, and institutes who want to engage in cloning research. Without so much as a whisper of discussion about whether this is ethically a good idea and whether it's good for women, there is already a booming market in women's eggs.

Young college women (preferably smart, beautiful, and very fertile) and poor minority women are the best candidates here in the States - both ripe for the sell because of their financial position. Internationally, it is about the same, though the preference is generally given to whole populations of poor women in countries like Romania or the Czech Republic. Another simple group to target is female research assistants - most infamously promoted by now-disgraced South Korean research, Dr. Hoo-Suk Hwang.

So, where are we now? Well, things are well underway no doubt, but even so, this eggs-for-money scandal is starting to gin up a little attention - a Feminist organization of pro-life and pro-choice women started a group called Hands Off our Ovaries - http://handsoffourovaries.com/ There have been numerous articles in the UK about the egg market recently...particularly on the practice of using poor women in other countries. Even in the US some controversy has started to arise about the blatant advertising in college newspapers that entice women to risk their health and lives for the sake of a fat check.

Singer on how we (do not) have dignity as humans

Peter Singer is always an interesting read. Just when you think "no one would actually say that!" well...he does. Today's op-ed in the New York Times (found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opinion/26singer.html) is a perfect example. Singer comments on the controversial case of Ashley, a severely mentally-disabled girl, whose parents had her body modified with surgery and hormones so that she could never grow any bigger and therefore live easier and simplify her care. Not only is this story worth pondering at length for its own ethical questions and merits, but, Singer's last two paragraphs are fascinating. They are as follows:

"Here’s where things get philosophically interesting. We are always ready to find dignity in human beings, including those whose mental age will never exceed that of an infant, but we don’t attribute dignity to dogs or cats, though they clearly operate at a more advanced mental level than human infants. Just making that comparison provokes outrage in some quarters. But why should dignity always go together with species membership, no matter what the characteristics of the individual may be?
"What matters in Ashley’s life is that she should not suffer, and that she should be able to enjoy whatever she is capable of enjoying. Beyond that, she is precious not so much for what she is, but because her parents and siblings love her and care about her. Lofty talk about human dignity should not stand in the way of children like her getting the treatment that is best both for them and their families."

Amazingly, he argues that human beings by virtue of being human have NO inherent value or dignity. You might rationally view a dolphin as having more value than a small child because they are more intelligent and a cheetah as having more dignity than a person in a wheelchair because of their swift, graceful, and agile bodies. This makes sense because value and dignity for Singer are based exclusively on mental and physical abilities. (Never mind for now that this is subjective and changeable.)

His next and final paragraph makes it clear that even this value is true only because we as a society have decided these are the things that merit value. Anyone or anything living outside of these characteristics - strong in mental and physical health - is not valuable in itself, but only if society or part of society choose to value it. Hence, in Ashley's case, since she is clearly outside the perimeter of the definition of something that inherently demands respect, care, and value, if her parents and siblings were to stop simply loving and caring for her, it would be rational to assume that she would flatly cease to have any value at all.

If I were less cynical I would find this shocking; as it is I simply find it incredibly sad.

This is a very interesting news story about abortion trampling the rights of women and hurting them. I'm not sure why this is such news, but it still seems like a shocker to read that 64% of women who have abortions report feeling pressured to have one. Or that women are constantly being forced to have an abortion by their parents, their boyfriend's parents, their boyfriend, their abuser, etc. Also, that homicide is the number one cause of death for pregnant women - not even pregnancy complications, but out right murder - grim state of affairs.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061130/OPINION01/611300307/1008

Abortion as violence to women and children

I don't know about you, but I never evaluated closely how abortions are done. Here is a description from one crisis pregnancy center on your options for abortions. If this isn't violence to women and to children, I don't know what is!

The following is a description of the various types of surgical and chemical abortion procedures performed in the United States.

RU-486 (Mifepristone)RU-486, or Mifepristone, is a chemical method of inducing abortion. It is taken only when a woman is pregnant, up to seven weeks after the beginning of her last menstrual period.
The drug works by blocking progesterone, a crucial hormone during pregnancy. Without progesterone, the uterine lining does not provide food, fluid and oxygen to the developing fetus.
This procedure requires three visits to the abortion provider. During the first visit a dosage of Mifepristone is taken. Then, two days later, a second drug is taken that stimulates the uterus to contract and expel the fetus. Finally, 12 more days later a follow-up examination is required to ensure the fetus has been expelled.
According to one manufacturer, bleeding and cramping are normal occurrences with this procedure. Side effects may include nausea, headache, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue and back pain. Additionally, one out of 100 women require surgical intervention to stop heavy bleeding. 1
Suction-AspirationIn this method, the cervical muscle ring is first paralyzed and stretched open. A hollow plastic tube with a knifelike edge is inserted into the uterus. Suction is used to remove the fetus, and the placenta is cut from the uterine wall.
Dilation and Curettage (D & C) This procedure is similar to suction-aspiration, though rather than a suction tube this method relies on a loop-shaped steel knife called a curette. The curette is inserted into the uterus and the fetus and placenta are scraped away. Bleeding can be very heavy with this method.
Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) This type of abortion is done after the third month of pregnancy.
First, the cervix is dilated. Then, Laminaria sticks (made of sterilized, compressed seaweed) are commonly inserted into the cervix. When inserted, the Laminaria sticks absorb moisture and expand, causing the cervix to enlarge. A pliers-like instrument is inserted through the cervix into the uterus and used to tear away parts of the fetus. Once outside the womb, the fetus may then be reassembled to ensure that all body parts have been removed.
ProstaglandinProstaglandin is a hormone that is used to induce labor in mid- and late-term pregnancies. To prevent a live birth, the fetus may be injected with drugs and killed prior to delivery.
Dilation and Extraction (D & X) This procedure, commonly referred to as ?partial-birth? abortion, is also used in mid- and late-term pregnancies (from 4 to 9 months).
First, ultrasound is used to identify how the fetus is facing in the womb. Then, forceps are inserted through the cervical canal into the uterus and used to pull the fetus feet first and face down (breech position). The body is then pulled out of the birth canal, except for the head which is too large to pass through the cervix. While the fetus is still alive, surgical scissors are inserted into the base of the skull and spread to enlarge the wound. A suction catheter is then inserted into the skull and the brain is removed. Finally, the skull collapses allowing the fetus to pass completely through the cervix.
NOTES: 1. What Every Provider Should Know, MEFEPREX / Danco Laboratories (http://mifeprex.com)

http://www.awomansconcern.org/boston/questions/abortion

Election Results on Pro-Life Issues

Hadley Arkes on NRO sums up the matter pretty well in yesterday's article - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODRlNmE1YzlkYmI3YWZjNjA1ZTk0N2FiMWI1MzZjMzg=

Looks like approximately 14 pro-life seats were lost in the House, the leadership in place in at least the House and possibly the Senate, is not pro-life, and it is expected that no serious pro-life legislation will be put on the floor during the 110th Congress.

The biggest upcoming fight will be the appropriation riders (provisions that specify how funds are spent and have to be renewed every year) that protect things like the moral status of embryos (Dickey-Wicker), the conscience of medical providers (Weldon-Hyde), and no funding to foreign aid providers who provide abortion (Mexico City Policy). This fight will begin in the next few days and weeks for FY07 appropriation bills and then be picked up again in the Spring for the FY08 bills.

Also, note that Prop 85 in CA (parental notification for minors seeking abortions) is on its way to failure. The abortion ban in South Dakota failed. Human cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell research were both made a constitutional right in the state of Missouri.

November 7, 2006 will not be remembered as a good day for those fighting to remove the ugly specter of abortion in our country.

Follow up on Evangelical public policy article

This is a second interesting article about Evangelicals in public policy. A defense that Evangelicals aren't crazy, don't want a theocracy, and aren't given enough credit for all the good things that have come about from their efforts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701228.html?referrer=email

Evangelical Public Policy - Setting a new tone

Here's a very, very interesting article by Michael Gerson (former speechwriter and policy advisor to the President) on the new face of Evangelicalism (specifically, though it includes the public face of our Catholic friends as well, more on that later...) as it interfaces with public policy. I think Mr. Gerson is right-on in a lot of what he says.

I'd love to hear what you all think - either by posting comments here or by emailing me (for those of you who know my email address!)

Newsweek article here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566389/site/newsweek/