The question of whether human eggs should be fertilized for the sole purpose of extinguishing the life and harvesting stem cells for research is closely tied to abortion in that such conduct fails to properly respect human life. The argument that creating and then destroying human embryos is ethical because it may save a life fails to recognize that the embryo itself is a life with all the potential of the very person researchers are hoping to save. The sacrifice of this single life, even to potentially save many, reeks of a utilitarianism argument that I frankly do not believe holds much water. Suppose we had two people with type A blood who desperately needed blood transfusions of about 3 pints each, and without such a transfusion each would die. The only available blood source is a young man who is type A. Knowing that he could provide 3 pints to each patient, but the loss of more than 4 pints would probably result in his death, I would guess most would not suggest that he be sacrificed to save the two others. In the case of human embryonic stem cell research, I must take the same position and argue that no amount of potential good justifies the creation and destruction of human life.
Notwithstanding the change in administrations, obstacles remain to the unfettered use of even existing stem cell lines harvested from human embryos. The so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment to the omnibus spending bill signed by president Obama on March 11, 2009, contains provisions that "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death," are prohibited from using federal dollars. One might question how such a provision could be let into a spending bill just three days after the president seemingly lifted such a ban. With respect to the recent stimulus bill there were a lot of critics that argued Congress was derelict in its passage because they did not have enough time to even read the over 1,000 pages before they voted for it. Maybe this is another case of the majority party not reading a bill before they vote for, or sign it. Nevertheless, liberals are now crying foul and moving to repeal the amendment (FoxNews).
Despite some remaining obstacles, and last ditch efforts by those opposed to the creation of human lives in order to destroy them in hopes of curing disease, such use will soon be commonplace on the taxpayer’s dollar. Even if this year’s omnibus bill is not amended, one can be sure that the democrats will not allow this mistake to slip through again. Just like abortion, the creation of human embryonic stem cells for research chips away at the long held human reverence for life and what makes us unique in creation. Scientists choose to use semantics and sophistry to convince others that the creation of human life is in reality only a creation of cells having neither human potential nor characteristics any different than sloughed off skin cells.
Fox News. Obamas Approval of Stem Cell Research Needs Congressional Action. 14 March 2009. Fox News. 15 March 2009
James, Frank. Obama OKs Embryonic Stem Cell Research. 9 March 2009. LA Times. 15 March 2009. <
Posts
Thank you, Arsen, for this well thought out presentation. I think this goes to the root question of "What is so special about humans that entitles them to human rights?" If it is the ability to speak for one’s self, then that eliminates embryos—but also people in comas, infants who can’t talk yet, and people under anesthesia. If it is the ability to live outside the womb, the progress of medical science over the years has made survival outside the womb possible for infants at increasingly earlier stages of prematurity. I would also pose the consideration that if the embryo, at fertilization, has a soul, then the extinguishing of the embryo is the same as extinguishing the life of anyone who has a soul. It seems to me that the scientists are “playing God” in this case. If an embryo is not human life, by the way, what type of life is it?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, an important point raised here is that stem cell research has continued, just without federal dollars. An important question here, then, is can it not be considered a violation of human rights to constrain someone to give money which he/she has earned to do something which violates his/her conscience?
Lastly, I have heard of the possibility of adults now being able to “bank” their own stem cells for later use in case of cancer or other future disease. I see this as preferable to and more affirming of human freedom and rights than the destruction of embryonic human life. However, I question if a discussion of ethics is the best context for introducing the sale of a product.
Although I agree with the questions about the right of an embryo I fundamentally disagree with you Arsen. "Proponents of embryonic stem cell research represent such research as (1) sure to lead to cures for everything from Parkinson’s to paralyses, (2) dependent upon access to embryonic stem cells, and (3) only possible with federal funding." First of all nobody guaranteed cures, I have not heard any scientist say anything but the possibility of cure. Second it is a scientific development that has no harm in being tapped. If we can spend billions of dollars developing a fighter plane, we sure can afford to spend some on health related issues.
ReplyDeleteI would be surprised to find a congress member or his aides who read 100O pages of any bill or have the time do so.
Its easy to label 'liberals' this and that, I call upon the conservatives whose child has cancer and see if they denounce stem cell research when there is a remote possibility of it helping their child.