Eight months ago, Missouri seemed well on its way to becoming a national leader in stem cell research.
Voters amended the state’s constitution to protect stem cell research ”” even the controversial form using cells from human embryos. Actor Michael J. Fox appeared in TV ads, visibly shaking from Parkinson’s disease as he sought votes for stem cell supporter Claire McCaskill in her bid for the U.S. Senate.
Now the spotlight is all but gone after a research institute and lawmakers withdrew financial support.
“Things are obviously not moving forward,” said state Sen. Chuck Graham, a Democrat who backed the amendment in November. “Right now, you can’t tell the amendment passed. People are running in the opposite direction. It’s incredibly frustrating.”
Possibly because non-embryonic stem cell projects are showing a lot of promise? Why throw good money into something that is a second-string effort at best?
Possibly because it’s promoters lied to the electorate about the bill?
Let’s back up. Is the involuntary sacrifice of one human to save another a good thing? Let us answer this initial question and move on from there. An embryo isn’t human? Well let’s deal with the first question and then with the second.
‘Show me.’
# 3. Br. Michael,
I am an orthodox Christian and have been reading the Bible for 60 years. Have I missed something? The Bible always attaches “breathing” with “life”. Can a person be alive and not have “the breath of life?” I do not see frozen embryos about to be thrown away by a clinic as viable people. They certainly do not have the breath of life. They are a God-given material that could someday benefit my breathing relatives who have Parkinson’s and certain other diseases.
God names the babies who are in the womb. I have never found the passage where He names the embryos in the vial. A woman makes thousands of eggs in a lifetime. Why did God provide for this? Certainly not so she could have that many children. There must be some other reason. I have never read about God doing things without reason.
We had two lovely children provided by God. One died at 29, and if stem cell research had been 50 years more advanced, he might still be with us, raising his daughter, instead of us doing that job. Are you suggesting we stop the reasearch to help future generations, and just throw away the unused eggs and embryos? Please, can we have some compassion for those who are breathing? — Stan
CanaAnglican, embryos in the womb are not actually oxygenating through their lungs. They receive their viability through their cord. And in the case of a human being on a machine, in respiratory difficulty, he or she is not using lungs to bring in air.
I am puzzled by your comments! Why would a fertilized egg [egg plus sperm] be any different as a human being in a vial then in a womb? Embryos are human beings, whether “breathing” or not, whether in a vial or womb, whether “frozen” or not.
That is the issue — if embryos are NOT human beings, then abortion is a great, efficient idea. If they are human beings, then however you kill them, and wherever they are, it is still a murderous act.
When you speak about throwing away “unused eggs” it does not appear that you are distinguishing between the bare egg and an embryo. An embryo is a fertilized-by-sperm egg. That is the difference. Unused eggs which are not fertilized are useless for stem-cell research.
Of course, other than morally speaking, all of the above is pretty moot anyway, since embryonic stem cell research is a pointless of waste of time and money — much-proven by the fact that private research firms aren’t investing in it [which they would do if they could possibly squeeze a profit from it]. Far more fruitful is the non-embryonic stem cell research which they ARE investing in.
Stan,
Aside from the issues concerning embryonic life, which Sarah briefly mentioned and I believe are quite weighty– perhaps moreso than this forum can give adequate heed to– I would like to speak to the perceptions of possible medical advances from embryonic stem cell research. First, there have, to date, been no breakthroughs from the research which has been going on for years. Secondly, it is a false notion to believe that the destruction of an embryo is necessary for these types of cells to be researched. Just months ago Wake Forest Univ. researchers announced a breakthrough in the production of lines of stem cells that do not destroy embryos.
So why the continued insistence, even in light of the recent announcement from WFU? The reasons are unfortunately rather sinister, in my opinion. First, there are millions of dollars at stake. Researchers would love to have a new influx of government money, as would other medical lobbies. Whenever there is an industry that is poised to make money, you can rest assured they will lobby for it, and they will spin the facts as is most advantageous to their cause. Second, there is political capital at stake. Whenever polls show public opinion trending one direction and that can be exploited, you can count on politicians taking advantage of it. As to the facts at hand: Are there possibilities from embryonic stem cell research? Of course. But there are possibilities that any number of research fields can produce breakthroughs. Human cloning and eugenics come to mind. The real question ought to be: Has there been any promise shown that advances can be expected? The answer to that question is no. Does embryonic stem cell research hold the miracle cure for diseases? There is quite simply no credible evidence to that effect. It is shameful, I think, that politicians and lobbies are exploiting public opinion for selfish ends regardless of the ethical questions at stake. (It is even more shameful that Christian engagement on this matter has been so uninformed and ineffective– but that’s a much larger matter, and this is merely emblematic of it).
Something else to consider, at least concerning stem cells and research dollars, is what has produced success thus far. Not embryonic stem cells, but adult stem cells. My wife is alive today because of adult stem cells. And I am eternally grateful for the research and medical advances that made that possible. If we are putting research dollars anywhere, it would make the most sense to fund those research projects that are showing success and truly saving and bettering lives. Perhaps there isn’t enough money or political capital at stake to make that happen, but that is where the Church can make a difference in politics. Ours is not a political perspective fueled by financial or political gain, rather the common good in accordance with the law of God.
CanaAnglican :During open heart surgery a patient is placed on an artifical blood oxgenator, no lungs involved. He is dead by your definition.
Sarah, I am opposed to abortion. What I suggested to Br.Michael, in essence, is that an embryo produced in vitro is different from one produced in the womb. From a theological point it is not a “named person.” By the way, in the early stages in the womb the embryo is oxygenated across the cell walls, there is no cord.
Jerod, it seems to me far too early to rule out great blessings from embryonic stem cells. My guess is when President Bush’s term is over, we will see more developments.
Dave B., I think you are right. For all intents the person you describe is “maintained” and is not living independently. Perhaps not clinically dead, yet nevertheless dead to the possibility of resuscitation without the intervention of the doctors.
— Stan
CanaAnglican, as I believe that it is God who names us, I believe that an embryo produced in vitro is no different in personhood than one produced in the womb.
I see no reason at all to believe them to be intrinsically different or less worthy than the other.
Sarah, Many thanks for your viewpoint. As we can both see, my viewpoint is a bit different. Perhaps I am trying to read scripture too literally on this point. I am a scientist and may see things too literally. I see a great difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. I see a great difference between “potential” embryos and “kinetic”, that is growing, embryos. Classically, a human embryo is defined as being in the womb and less than three months old (after that time, a “fetus”). Cells maintained in glass and that may be implanted have the potential to live as embryos, even though not all that are implanted do. Those cells maintained in glass that are not going to be implanted have never seen the womb, have no potential for future life or “personhood”, and probably should not be called embryos.
My point was that God names us in the womb, not elsewhere. If this is too literal, I am sorry. It is what I believe. Again, thank you for sharing your belief. I wish we had heard back from Br. Michael. Perhaps he rolled his eyes at the simple and stumbling faith of a scientist and moved on. Please do not give up on us. Too many of us have moved out of the church already. — Stan
CanaAnglican,
I have trouble seeing that God is impressed with the fact that a wall of muscle (uterus) seperating a fertilized egg from it’s surroundings, is radically different from a glass tube in terms of personhood.
Obviously, if God had said something specific enough to preclude your rather strict interpretation of scripture, it would have been quite confusing to say the least to the ancient mind. I can see it now: [i]I was conceived or fertilized in a petri dish in sin.[/i] Or perhaps: [i]You knit me together in my mother’s womb or petri dish.[/i].
In other words, there is no way that God could have said, to an ancient audience, what He would have to have said to rule out your interpretation. I think you are binding Scripture too much to its exact historical context, and failing to allow for a reasonable extrapolation of its meaning.
Besides, by your standard if we could figure out how to grow up a fertilized egg outside of the womb, no matter how developed it got, killing it would be OK for spare parts? What about an artificial uterus???
I think life begins at the union of the egg and sperm, and that all such fertilized eggs should be given a chance at life ie implanted. For me it’s the same principle that if you birth a child, you are obligated to feed and water it.