I have to admit that I have not totally settled about whether embryonic stem cell research using frozen embryos which would be discarded by fertility clinics should be allowed or not. My problem with this is that I am Pro-Life and it seems like this is a no-win Pro-Life issue.
On one hand, we have embryos consisting of a few cells which might become human beings if implanted in a woman, although there is no guarantee that they would. But you have at the very least potential human beings here who would be destroyed. On the other hand, though, treatments for life-threatening diseases probably could be developed using lines of stem cells produced from embryos which would likely be destroyed anyway.
In other words, whatever way you turn on this issue, lives are at stake. Is it pro-life to deny research that might produce life saving treatments for living human beings to save potential lives. Or do we destroy potential lives in order to develop potential treatments which may or may not work?
Sloganeering won't bring us close to resolving this type of ethical dilemma. We have to decide which lives are more important frozen embryos likely to be destroyed or kept frozen indefinitely or children and adults with diseases which might be cured by treatments which would certainly deny those embryos any chance at life.
Frankly, I don't have a good answer for this. But I suspect that as we continue into the future more such dilemmas will emerge and simply saying you are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" won't bring you any closer to making a rational assessment of the ethical consequences.
I must say, I'm disturbed by the idea that either way you go on this issue, you are denying someone the right to life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Terri,
I think the real dilemma is that human beings try to be in control. Through science they've learned to create life in a test tube, end life pre-birth, freeze fertilized eggs, harvest body parts, and continue heart and lungs working through artificial life support.
Debates over biotechnology and human genetics focus on stem cells but exaggerate embryonic stem cell potential (making embryos a commodity) while many ignore the potential use of adult stem cells.
The real issue is what lies beyond this existence. We were created eternal beings, but live within these earthly bodies for a time. Beyond this we continue to exist. Where we spend that neverending part of life is another issue. Moral lines blur in the media bombardment, but if we look beyond this life to the next, decisions become a little clearer--not easier.
Our tendancy to want to hold on to this life; that's natural. When we look at the reality beyond life on earth how we feel about facing death will change based on what awaits us.
Science and technology offer hope, but when does it cross the line? Are we trying to create artifical eternal life for some at the cost of another's life? Or do we have the real thing?
Yet, one could claim that all medicine is an attempt to "play God" or at least help him out a bit by manipulating the natural processes he created. Remember, no "test tube baby" is created in violation of the laws of nature. Those laws are manipulated but never broken since they cannot be.
When we take heroic measures to save the life of a premature baby, doctors are lauded as heroes.
The problem is I think we have confused acts of nature with the will of God. We live in a fallen world. Death is not part the original plan. So, we are impelled to fight it. However, when do we stop. And alternately, the drive to have a child is very strong. Indeed, the ancients would be shamed if they had no children. Today, we can do more than they could do then with their herb concoctions, but the idea is still the same.
We just don't think about the fallout. For every child brought into this world who would not have been born otherwise through IVF several others are created but not born.
Now, I tend to believe along with the ancients in a "quickening" at which point the embryo actually becomes a living human being and it's not when sperm hits egg. If that were the case, then for every child born naturally there would be others who died when they did not attach. I don't think God would create souls just to kill them.
But still, if I am wrong, I would prefer not to take the chances.
But it does speak to the age old balance of looking to something after this life while not ignoring the obligation to make this life as healthy and happy as possible.
Post a Comment