ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Religion & Law Blogs -> Mirror of Justice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Religion & Law

: Mirror of Justice

Restricting Research on Embryos but not Restricting IVF ? Inconsistency in the Pro-life Camp?

ADVERTISEMENTS
Over at Vox Nova, Mornings Minion comments on an exchange between Michael Kinsley and Ross Douthat on embryo destructive research. MM says (incorrectly I think) that Douthat doesn?t really answer Kinsley?s charge that opponents of embryo destructive research are being inconsistent when they are ?content to leave the IVF clinic more or less alone, even if they might personally disagree with the act.? I believe, as MM suggests, that some of the reluctance to impose restrictions on IVF can be accounted for by middle class support for the procedure as a legitimate form of assisted reproduction. But this is only part of the story. The absence of efforts to restrict IVF also represents (1) a calculation that such measures would be politically unfeasible such that any attempt to enact them would harm efforts to restrict embryo destructive research and (2) any restrictions, if enacted, would likely be subject to a successful constitutional challenge under the legal regime created by Roe and its progeny. Thus, while this reluctance to legally limit IVF is not, as MM points out, wholly consistent, it may well reflect a sober recognition of the futility of such measures. In any case, it embodies a prudential judgment, and those who exercise prudence are always subject to the charge of inconsistency, especially when the wisdom of their judgment is still in doubt. Perhaps as a middle course to outright prohibition of IVF (which would surely face overwhelming opposition in the current context), those of us who oppose embryo destructive research should propose limits on the number of embryos that can be produced in the course of a couple's treatment for infertility and (more ambitiously) that a maximum of two or three embryos be produced during a given treatment and that all of them be implanted. In the wake of the outcry over the ?Octomom,? there may well be widespread public support for such efforts ? efforts that, nevertheless, would still be subject to constitutional challenge. Surely this would not constitute a complete response to the problems presented by the creation of nascent human life outside the womb, but it would be a first step in helping to build a culture of life.

Full post as published by Mirror of Justice on March 19, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0131 secs (new cache)