Per press reports, today's issue of Nature announces the development of a new technique for human embryonic stem-cell extraction that does not destroy the human embryo.
Will this mean an end to the debate about stem cell research? Probably not, but it might mean some movement.
It is reported that there are questions and complications with the technique, not surprising as the article about it hasn't even been officially published until today. And some ethicists of the pro-life position will be concerned even if a single extracted stem cell could itself potentially develop into a human embryo.
Also, the White House has made a preliminary statement that it would prefer that stem cell research not use human embryos at all.
However, the main objection to embryonic stem-cell research is that it destroys actual human embryos. And this technique may make it possible for researchers to do their research without that outcome.
So we expect that if the technique pans out, the Bush White House will reverse its objection to federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, perhaps with some additional caveats or lesser restrictions.
But here's the observation you won't see many other places: it's unlikely that anyone would have bothered to devise this embryo-saving technique if Bush hadn't stood firm on the funding issue. There would be no demand for such a technique if the supply of embryonic stem cells weren't limited by the restriction on federal funding.
Pro-life advocates generally refer to the coarsening of societal morals that legalized abortion and euthanasia create. We can easily imagine the coarser outcome had Bush not stood firm on this issue. And we prefer the less coarse course.
8 comments:
Is there not something to be said for these frozen embryos already being in a state of less than human life, or suspended life? The problem I find with the logic is that those who rally against any form of embryonic stem cell research fail to raise any objection to the original practice which brought such an abundance of stem cells in the first place. It would seem, to be logically congruent, that one would need to oppose the original practice as well. Maybe I just miss that in many of their opposition positions.
Ditto Dustin. And as far as I can tell, the only reason for the practice of creating too many embryos to begin with is money. Nothing about the procedure itself (of creating embryos for in vitro fertilization) requires more than one embryo to be created at a time. The procedure is costly, though, so the practice has been to create five (or six, etc.) for the price of one.
I'm trying to stay away from posting comments these days, but sometimes I can't help myself. You guys are totally right about the core issue, IMHO.
Politically, a restriction on multiple-embryo production for in vitro birth might be a bridge too far. The argument against destroying embryos to get stem cells when the frozen embryos are going to be destroyed anyway is tactical: to prevent creating an incentive to create even more embryos that would be destroyed. The restriction on federal funding was a politically possible move, but entirely ineffective to address the larger issue.
To draw an analogy, it's like the Nazis refusing to do medical experiments on the Jews that they're exterminating. Thanks a lot, criminals against humanity!
As to the case for judging frozen embryos as not quite "human," I remain uncertain (largely because I'm not entirely certain what it means to be human) and so choose to err on the side of caution. Reagan's favorite analogy on this question (you find someone lying in the snow and are unsure if he is alive or dead, so you assume he's alive) still compels me.
Well, in one sense, of course they're human. What else could they be--reptilian? The real question--and I suspect this is what you have in mind--is whether a frozen embryo constitutes a member of the moral community. Philosophers (and other ethicists) make a distinction here. "Human," they say, is a biological category, one that clearly applies to frozen embryos in virtue of their DNA. "Person," on the other hand, is a moral category. By definition, all persons are members of the moral community. What's not agreed upon is whether all humans--and, in particular, all frozen embryos--are persons.
Note, however, that even if they're not, the controversy doesn't immediately end. For many would argue that they are nevertheless potential persons, and that in itself is enough to protect their right to life.
Personally, I'm inclined toward this view. I'm also inclined toward the Reagan/SWNID desire to err on the side of caution.
Does Scripture resolve the issue? I'm not sure. All attemptseg
that I'm aware of to show that it does seem to be somewhat forced.
I'm confident enough (gasp!) of my exegetical acumen to say that Scripture doesn't address this specific question clearly enough to settle it for those who regard Scripture as authoritative.
GASP! Perhaps SWNID should take BBD 1&2 so he can learn the biblical truth about this important issue. (I can see the headlines now, "Dean Disputes Theology Department On Abortion). Classic.
Bibliography
Cottrell, Jack. "Tough Questions—Biblical Answers." Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Co., 1985.
1. "Those" is not an exclusive term. Knowing SWNID, it means "those of us." Even if it didn't, who cares?
2. I actually support SWNID's conclusion (perhaps I should make myself clear). I'm actually making fun of the theology department, not St. SWNID.
3. While I trust in my own exigetical findings, I trust SWNID's ability as well.
4. "Authoritative" and "conservative" are rarely useful terms in order to establish barriers or definitions of belief systems. They always beg the question, "What do you mean by conservative?" It seems to me that the more I learn the less meaningful these terms become.
5. It is rude (and inappropriate/untenable) to start the moral equivalency game between SWNID and everyone's favorite Johnsonite.
6. SWNID does not need me to defend him and certainly is secure enough to be unbothered by such things. However, what good is there in being a young academian if not to be sarcastic, combative and defensive?
Bryan D: In the interest of fair play, I'm afraid I'm going to have to defend Fiona on this one. (Talk about GASP!) I thought her response was a playful attempt to ruffle SWNID's feathers a little. I don't think she meant it seriously. Nor do I think she's going to have much success at ruffling his feathers. (He's too secure--or should I say stubborn?--to let that happen.) But I do have to admit I was amused by the thought of SWNID sitting there at his computer--fingers itching, brow perspiring--but unable to respond to her trumped-up charges because of his self-imposed moratorium on posting comments.
By the way, thanks for reminding me of "The Biblical View" on the question of stem-cell research. I haven't thought about that for quite awhile. But I should. Who knows? "The Biblical View" could be the Biblical view.
Oh, and before I forget, you do well to learn from SWNID if your goal is to become a young, sarcastic, and combative academician. He's the prototype--except for the young part, that is.
Post a Comment