When will politicians learn that spin inevitably backfires? The Cabinet, led rather forcefully by Mary Harney, has decided to vote in favour of funding embryonic stem-cell research. This is a matter causing immense disquiet in several EU countries and, rather closer to home, among Fianna Fáil backbenchers, writes Breda O'Brien.
The vote in the EU Council of Ministers has been delayed until December 3rd, so in the meantime the Government is spinning frantically. The funding has already been agreed, they earnestly assure us, now it is just about guidelines.
They neglect to mention that, without agreement on guidelines, funding will not go ahead. They also neglect to mention that the Irish vote is crucial, and that they could, in alliance with other countries such as Germany and Portugal, prevent the funding being allocated.
Unfortunately, no one told Pat Cox about the spin, so he let the cat out of the bag, then hastily corrected himself.
Spin No 2 is even more disingenuous. They claim that, if funding does not go ahead,the area will be completely unregulated. In reality, all that will happen is that the laws of each member-state will continue to apply.
More importantly, if the funding fails, some research teams will divert their efforts to where funding is available, that is, for research on adult stem cells, where there are no ethical problems.
But perhaps you should not listen to my point of view since, according to some commentators, only black-and-white thinkers who are absolutists oppose this research. Some, like Proinsías De Rossa, go further. He says: "It is not appropriate, however, for some religious leaders to seek to impose their particular theology on all of humankind." To seek to "block this research option for others who don't share their theological position is intolerant of other sincerely held and equally valid views."
Funny how two innocuous little sentences can contain so many hidden premises. First, the assumption that human beings deserve protection of their human rights from conception is a theological, not a scientific, belief, and second, that opposing embryonic stem cell research involves imposition and intolerance.
On the other hand, supporting this research using the tax money of those who oppose it is apparently tolerant and does not involve any imposition of values. It is unfair to single out Proinsías De Rossa, just because he has a well-maintained website where such quotes are easy to access. There are many other influential people in Irish society who apparently believe that a moral vision supported by a religious source is automatically suspect and should be confined to the arena of personal belief.
There is a great difference between a theological belief and a moral vision that is underpinned by a religious viewpoint.
A belief in the resurrection of Christ or the oneness of Allah is a theological belief. A belief that killing is wrong, or that workers deserve a just wage, or that all available means must be exhausted before war can be undertaken are all beliefs about what is right and wrong, and must pass muster on grounds of reason, and not just faith.
Of course, faith itself should not contradict reason, either, but there is a vast difference between seeking to enshrine a distinctive understanding of religion and seeking to persuade others of a moral vision.
The belief that human beings deserve rights simply by virtue of being human is one shared by believers and non-believers alike. The difference arises not between believers and non-believers, but between those who disagree as to when human life begins, and when it is worthy of protection.
The argument about personhood is a red herring. Is the embryo human? If so, what is it about him or her which allows us to manipulate and kill him or her for our benefit? The fact that we are older?
Presumably all those, like the chairman of the Irish Times Trust, Prof David McConnell, who refer to the embryo as a blob of cells, were once themselves blobs of cells,and indeed still are conglomerations of cells? Presumably had someone decided to harvest stem cells from them when they were blobs of cells, thereby killing them, the world might have been deprived of human beings with a unique contribution to make? Even though they might not have passed a personhood test at the time?
There is no credible scientific moment when one becomes human other than conception. Indeed Peter Singer, who chills my blood even to read him, is more honest when he says that newborn babies signally fail to manifest signs of personhood. He says that most of their brain activity is at the level of the most primitive part of the brain, so that there is no logical reason to extend the protection of human rights to them until they are capable of self-care, speech and so on.
This is considered an outrageous position, and most who would advocate embryonic stem-cell research would not endorse his position for a moment. But why not? Logically, he is absolutely right.
Newborn human babies do not meet the criteria for personhood, which usually include some degree of consciousness of self. We are revolted at his suggestion that, until they do, it should be up to their parents whether to allow them to continue to live or not.
However, we are not revolted at the suggestion that 8½ months earlier, when they are not cute and cuddly but are pretty indistinguishable from rabbit or salamander embryos, they should be fodder for research. It does not appear to matter that no salamander embryo has yet become a distinguished professor of genetics, which might indicate that there is a qualitative difference that reaches beyond appearance.
It is, of course, true that moral beliefs which happen to have religious underpinning have no automatic right to acceptance in public debate. It is, however, grotesquely intolerant to suggest that they are unworthy of consideration because of their origin.