So here we go again. The great stem cell debate, or Son of Abortion Part XXIV. Have we learnt nothing from our endless, painful returns to this debate in its many guises?
First there was the issue in all its unadulterated simplicity. Abortion - right or wrong? To kill or not to kill. Black and white. Then we had a debate about the threat to the life of the mother, viz ectopic pregnancies. A bit of ethical grey.
Then there was the psychological threat to the mother and the X case. Distinctly more grey, at least for the majority of the public, many of whom, led by Brendan McGahon, a deeply conservative Fine Gael TD, admitted to themselves there were circumstances in which they would be prepared to take a pregnant teenage daughter to Liverpool.
But, for the "pro-life" absolutists, insisting that a human being, with the rights of a fully developed person, is created in the instant of conception, there could still be no equivocation - no exceptions for child victims of incest, for nuns raped in war, etc . The public took a more nuanced view - travel to Britain for an abortion was explicitly guaranteed by popular vote.
Then there was the strange ethic of the "principle of second effect", an acknowledgment that the death of a foetus could well be the known consequence of an ethically justifiable medical procedure, but a denial that as such it could be described as deliberate killing.
Last week in this page the Catholic Bishops' spokesman on bioethics, Father Kevin Doran, gave the argument a new twist. Unwilling, it appeared, to label as akin to murder the standard procedures of IVF clinics, specifically the production and then disposal of significantly more embryos than are needed by IVF procedures, he claimed that "the moral evil is associated not with the fact that embryos die, but with the fact that somebody decides to kill them".
The point is, however, that the embryos are produced in the knowledge that many will die. There is no fundamental moral difference between producing an embryo for IVF that will be allowed to die and producing one for IVF which, if not required, will be used for life-affirming research on diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
The Catholic Church does not approve of IVF, despite acknowledging that the procedure does bring huge joy to many childless couples. Fair enough. But, significantly, in the face of strong public support for IVF, it appears to have sought to dress up its argument against embryonic stem cell research as being of a fundamentally different kind, and has not sought to reopen a debate on the legality or morality of fertility treatments.
In the debate in the Seanad last week, moreover, Mary Harney pointed out that the vote at the EU Council of Ministers on Friday is about setting ethical guidelines for embryo research only in countries which allow it, and she quoted at some length from a nuanced statement from the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium to demonstrate at least some alternative view within Catholic ranks.
The statement emphasises both respect for the human embryo "which from the very beginning of its existence is more than just biological material" and that "given the suffering on the part of so many incurable people today, research is also an ethical duty". Any use of the human embryo must take place within a strict, transparent, and binding ethical framework, the statement continues, but it allows that ". . . When the parents have fulfilled their plan (course of IVF), rather than authorising the simple destruction of their embryos the parents could, in a spirit of ethical solidarity, donate their embryos for the removal of stem cells to be used in research or to care for other individuals."
It was left to the Independents in the Seanad to make an explicit case for strictly controlled embryonic research. Dr Mary Henry delivered an outstandingly clear exposition of the issues involved while her colleague David Norris denounced the idea that opponents of research had a monopoly on ethical concern. "The House should note the Protestant proverb 'waste not, want not'," he argued. "It is blasphemous to turn against this opportunity to better human life by discharging embryos down the drain to keep our consciences clear. It is horrendous to hear that we are, on the other hand, happy to use the results of experiments already conducted. I assure the House that if any of those who spoke against this today were suffering from a painful disease and a cure or ameliorating procedure emerged from stem cell research, he or she would accept it."
Yesterday, Archbishop Desmond Connell again demanded, typically robustly, that the Government oppose the EU research. He said "it is not just about what happens to embryos: it is just as much about what becomes of a society which consents to the destruction of innocent human life. It is a contradiction to seek to save lives by funding death."
Yet, what does become of a society that clings to such black and white certainties? Another X case.