There has been a fairly lengthy discussion here dealing with President Bush's
first veto. In that discussion, the large majority seemed to be of the opinion that, at the very least, the President is not only a huge hypocrite, but also flat out wrong.
There are, of course, dissenting opinions. How could there not be with such a potentially moral issue? This diary is not about arguing with the religious beliefs of others, or attempting to defend stem cell research in the frame of logic or practicality. Rather, I intend to explore the Republican playbook and apply one of their winning strategies to the debate.
More below the fold.
The problem with debating stem cell research is that there isn't a lot of room to change peoples' minds. If someone believes that a human is defined as the successful union of sperm and egg, there's very little you can do to convince that person that stem cell research is morally acceptable. Whether or not the embryos are just going to get thrown away, the argument is still "experimentation on humans", which is very clearly wrong. Slippery slope arguments and semantics aside, a scientist or doctor is not in a position to counteract the advice of one's pastor, priest, or pope. So having this debate on its own ground seems a little pointless to me.
Rather than talk about the disease curing vs baby killing aspect, let's instead explore what we could do with a little frame shift (pun intended, for you scientists out there).
thereisnospoon wrote a great diary that reviews what's known as the "Overton Window". Briefly, the tactic of the window is to stretch the debate out to the far corners of possibility, generally only to the extreme side of your own position. The diary contains examples, and should be read in its entirety by everyone interested in politics, but let me just briefly quote one passage regarding the possible frame of public education, ranking possible policies from most extreme "right" to most extreme "left"
--No government involvement in education.
--All schools private with government regulation.
--Voucher system with public schools.
--Tuition tax credit with public schools.
--Homeschooling legal.
--Private schools restricted.
--Homeschooling illegal.
--Private schools illegal.
--Children taken from parents and raised as janissaries.
So if you want the voucher system, you start trying to include "no government involvement in education" in the debate. The mere presence of this extreme position in the debate makes all other choices seem reasonable, and thus more likely to become policy.
As a scientist, stem cell research seems perfectly reasonable to me. It does to a majority of our legislative bodies, to the American public, and the international scientific community at large. There are similar majorities (though not all overlapping) who oppose the war in Iraq, tax breaks to the rich, unfunded No Child Left Behind, etc, yet those are policy, whereas stem cells are not.
The primary reason is President Bush, because he just vetoed the legislation that would have advanced the research. That is his presidential prerogative, and there's nothing we can do about it. However, had more members of Congress voted for this legislation, the veto could have been made only a symbolic gesture, rather than denial of legislation, with a 2/3 majority override.
It is probably too late to really affect matters now - especially with this "do nothing" Congress, they're not going to re-propose this legislation anytime soon. But what if - what if we could get out talking points before the decision comes up on a vote for veto override? What if we applied the Overton Window to the issue of health care? What if we could shift the frame of the debate just enough to get out 2/3 majority and send the President a subtle "up yours" for vetoing this legislation?
I hope this engenders discussion. I doubt it will make a difference, since the time frame to work with is likely too small to get any sort of movement going. But let me start it off with a few suggestions - medical and scientific proposals that are both possible and plausible, yet utterly ridiculous in the frame of normal human discourse. But if they were included in the debate, stem cell research would start to seem like a pretty good compromise, wouldn't it?
(Disclaimer - I do not endorse ANY of these "modest proposals". They are intended only as an exercise of the Overton Window, not as an advocation for policy).
1) Mandatory organ donation. Most of your internal organs just get removed or dessicated anyway when you die, and the mortician fills up the carcass with sawdust and formaldehyde. So, when you die, all your organs become public property. Your organ donor card has two options - whole body or total internal.
2) All medical waste is to be made available for scientists and doctors to study. This includes surgically removed organs, unused blood samples, and yes, even discarded fetuses. It's just going to get burned in an incinerator anyway, may as well get some knowledge out of it.
3) Mandatory genotyping for all Americans at birth. Your genetic code gets put in a giant database (Bush will LOVE this!) so it can be screened for potential risk factors and disease states. The medical community will let you know whether it's safe to smoke, eat red meat, or lay out in the sun for over 20 minutes.
In my view, these are pretty extreme positions, violating privacy rights and, in some cases, standards for human decency. If Congress were forced to talk about these possibilities, voluntary donation of embryos to life saving research would seem pretty moral by comparison.
Other extreme suggestions are encouraged, but keep them plausible. "Creating Frankenstein's monster for use as super soldiers" is not plausible.