WhatsAPundit

Here's an actual sentence from the latter:

Would Rudy oppose embryo-destructive research?

"Embryo-destructive research" That's the phrase that got me.

Okay, buckaroo, you can be "socially conservative" without singing the Every Sperm is Sacred song.

Let me relate a real-world story for Ms. Lopez:

The only way my wife and I had a chance to become biological parents was through in vitro fertilization. It's expensive, invasive, and doesn't have a great success rate, but when it's what you've got it's what you do. So, Liz went through the shots and the prodding (back in the stirrups, yeehaw) and I went through a testicular biopsy (the local anaesthetic didn't work, yeehaw) and on the big day they harvested twenty (yes, twenty) eggs from Liz.

The fertilization was successful for fifteen of the eggs, meaning we got fifteen embryos for potential implantation.

By implantation day six of the embryos were still alive. We opted to have the best three implanted, because the signs and portents indicated the probability for success of each individual to be in the 40-60% range, and by implanting three we were giving ourselves and excellent chance of success for at least one baby.

They tried to freeze the three remaining against future need, but apparently the freezing process destroyed them. (Not uncommon; human embryos are incredibly fragile).

For a while Liz was carrying triplets. At the last ultrasound conducted by the fertility clinic, there were three beating hearts in the womb. Three weeks later at the first ultrasound at the high-risk Obstetrics clinic we found out one of the three hadn't made it; again, not uncommon.

(Ironically, before that ultrasound they made us watch a video outlining how dangerous even triplets could be to each other and to the mom; the obvious agenda was to influence parent to elect for "selective reduction". Being bears of some little brain, we'd already done the research, decided to carry the triplets if we could, and then we find out no decision had to be made. Phooey. But that's a different post.)

So, Mr. "Anti-Embryo-destructive research", my wife and I blew through 13 embryos to get to where we are now, eighteen weeks along with two apparently healthy babies doing calesthenics in my wife's belly. 12 bought it while in the test tube; one checked out (abandoning this cycle on the Karmic Wheel, holding out for something in a cetacian is my theory) in utero.

Does this "embryo destruction" make us or the doctors bad people? I don't think so.

What happened to the "unused" embryos and eggs? Beats me. Do I care? A fair bit, actually, but I'll get into that in a moment. Mostly I just thank God we've gotten as far along as we have, and pray that Liz delivers two healthy babies this summer, and until now I haven't thought much about the "lost" eggs and embryos. Does this make me a bad person? I have a sneaking suspicion that by Mr. AEDR's standards, the answer would be "yes".

Well, screw Mr. AEDR. We were incredibly saddened when we found out the third fetus didn't make it, and we will be crushed if we lose either or both of the babies remaining, but that illustrates a critical point which (I think) should be obvious to anybody who isn't a moralizing, grandstanding pedant:

A baby isn't the same as a fetus isn't the same as an embryo.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Now, I think a reasonable person (or a reasonable polity) could say something like "no abortions should happen after the XX week (where XX represents a societally-accepted number [that could be zero if the culture of pedantic pricks could be bothered to argue a case instead of literally preaching at the masses]) and where all tests for potentially tragic fetal conditions have been conducted." And yes, there's weasel words in that thar statement, but a reasonable person realizes that a whole lot of potentialities exist in every pregnancy, and a good person realizes that compassion and humility in the face of an often cruel world are not bad things.

30 years ago in vitro fertilization in humans was experimental (the first in vitro baby was born in 1978) and a lot of serious discussion occurred over whether such a godless procedure should be done at all. Today it's becoming more and more common; it turns out the children produced aren't, as a rule, satanic brain eaters after all. And I think even the lip-pursers out there won't begrudge us our twins (knock on wood), even though a bunch of embryos they started out with won't get the chance to be baptized.

So my question becomes, should the tissue from those unlucky embryos that failed to thrive be wasted? If we'd had a higher percentage of successful embryos, should those unselected candidates have been flushed? To my way of thinking, the most moral option would be to apply that lost potential to research, so that possibly some good could come from the loss. And as the number of IVF attempts increases, the number of these "spare" eggs and embryos is going to grow.

I'm actually pretty incensed that Ms. Lopez would give a platform to a person who pretty explicitly would insist that those precious entities be wasted, just because he can't wrap his mind around the "baby <> fetus <> embryo <> egg" concept. And if buying that bit of idiocy is what it takes to be a good "conservative" then Ms. Lopez can forget about me supporting anyone who actually passes that litmus test.

I usually scoff when I hear/read Lefties ranting about Right-wing theocracy, but this is one of those "Things that make you go 'hmmmmm'" moments.

Postscript: Mark Steyn, whom I flagged as an NRO contributor I particularly like, posted an entry that included this doozy of a statement while I was writing:

It’s entirely reasonable to have been pro-choice and to come to realize, as your reader says, that the abortion crowd just wouldn’t stop – that from a "woman’s right to choose" to partial-birth infanticide to state-funded embryo farming – isn’t a slippery slope but a dive off the cliff. To see the "individual right" of abortion as something not in the broader society’s interest is also a plausible and compelling shift, given the demographic death spiral in Russia and other parts of Europe. [Emphasis added]

The state ain't gonna have to fund a damned thing, at least for basic research. IVF procedures are going to produce more and more surplus embryos. My guess is the "waste the embryos" crowd is most concerned that stem cell research will actually find some honest-to-god miracle cures. Well, reality to Steyn, Lopez, et. al.; excess embryos will be produced in higher and higher numbers until the asteroid hits or until [insert theocracy here] takes over. Chances are, even if miracle cures are found, fertility clinics will be able to supply all the "material" necessary to concoct said cures.

I suggest you focus on finding a way to deal with it. (Unless you really want to saddle us with unelectable Republicans for the foreseeable future....)