Weighing in on the Stem Cell Debate

Yesterday I heard on the news that Sen. Bill Frist has changed his position on federal funding of embryotic stem cell research and has now decided that the government should help pay for using embryos that are scheduled to be discarded for such research. The fact that Senator Frist is also Doctor Frist and self-described as “pro-life” is supposed to add weight to his support. I have just seen a headline on “My Yahoo,” saying that some supporter of such research now believes that they have “veto proof” support in the Congress.

I am neither a doctor nor a senator nor even an expert on bio-ethics, but it seems to me that the larger issues in this debate are being ignored. I do not intend to resolve the probably unresolvable question of when human life begins. If we take a literalistic reading of Genesis, “man became a living soul,” when “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” So the “plain reading” would indicate that human life begins once a baby is outside the womb and the first breath is taken. Just try telling that to an expectant father who, hand on his wife’s tummy, feels the baby within her kick or hiccup. Or try telling that to the mother who has just given birth to a still born child. Tell her not to grieve because her baby wasn’t human. I don’t think so. Why would we develop surgeries to operate on a child in utero if we were not dealing with exactly that, a child? I think that we can all agree that human life begins at some point before the baby takes a breath on its on.

What about at conception? The prevailing view among most Catholics and Evangelicals is that human life begins at conception. That may well be. I do know, however, that many fertilized eggs are never implanted in the womb and are lost in the normal child-bearing process. Are each of these lost fertilized eggs an immortal soul who will spend eternity in heaven. Maybe, but it seems to me to be a stretch. So I’m not going to try to argue tenaciously that human life begins at the moment of fertilization. But I am, however, left with a dilemma. If not then, when? At that point, everything that is needed for those two cells to grow into a recognizable human is present – except time, nourishment, and a safe and nurturing environment. (Come to think of it, those are what a baby needs when it is born into the world.) So maybe a fertilized egg is not a human being, maybe it is. But if it’s not, then anyone is hard pressed to find another such defining moment.

The tremendous problem here is that we have thousands of these fertilized eggs in storage, “on ice” as it were, largely unused products of in vitro fertilization attempts. Their existence poses a huge ethical dilemma that has been ignored as in vitro fertilization has become commonplace and practiced on a widespread basis, including among Christians. I am aware that there are ethically sensitive doctors out there who attempt to reduce embryo loss to no greater than it would be under “normal” fertilization processes. That’s a difficult role to be in, but may be acceptable. I’m not going to stand in judgment over any couple who decides to undergo these procedures. I imagine, however, that such doctors are in the minority and that such an approach greatly increases the expense involved. If all doctors took this approach, I doubt we would have such an overstock of fertilized embryos. If in vitro processes are to continue, and I think there’s no stopping them now, then we need to have stronger guidelines to reduce the number of unused fertilized eggs.

But wait! Now we have found a use for those little babies-in-waiting. We can extract their stem cells and do research and maybe one day find a cure for all of the diseases that plague humanity. And surely then we’ll all be able to live blissfully in this earthly paradise that we’ve created. (Don’t count on it.) But the fact that all these fertilized eggs are useful to us means that we can keep producing them, and destroying them, because of some hope that we won’t have to suffer from Alzheimer’s if we do.

Now we have found these fertilized eggs useful if we let them develop for a few hours or a few days and then extract their stem cells. How long will it be before we find another use if we let them develop for a few weeks, or a few months? Where will we draw the line? Or why not, as many are even now suggesting, just clone them? Not for reproduction, but “therapeutically,” mind you. My question is, “Who is going to do therapy on the life that’s been snuffed out before it could begin?”

Ultimately, embryonic stem cell research, though done in the name of enhancing human life and alleviating suffering, devalues human life because it fails to value it at its earliest stage. If we do not value life at its earliest stage, then what about it’s later stages? What about when each of us is no longer deemed useful? What if Alzheimer’s is not cured? Will we be kept around, or will we be discarded as easily as those frozen fertilized eggs?

While President Bush has tried to take the high ground on this issue, he opened the door by allowing research on “existing lines,” which turn out to be far fewer than originally thought. But by allowing even this limited research, he was creating an appetite for the usefulness of these embryos. No one should be surprised that more are being demanded, and will soon be given.