Red Dot in a Red State's Blog

Ethical debates are difficult things, especially when science and medicine are involved. The concepts can be confusing as the language may not be known by all sides. This, perhaps, allows one side to take advantage of the situation and redefine terms for ‘the street’. Emotions play a large part as well, and can cloud judgment. No time is this more apparent than when human life and lives is involved. When millions of human lives are at stake, all of us should take part. President Obama’s recent decision regarding human embryonic stem cell research is such a debate. But before I get into that debate, I need to frame it using another ethical issue with similar dynamics. This will help in clarifying the issues.

Child pornography is absolutely wrong. There is no doubt in almost everyone’s mind that it is wrong. It destroys the lives of children, and harms society. It cannot be allowed. However, there is a small segment of the population that has no moral problem with it. Most of us would gladly vote to lock up those people, before they have a chance to harm a child, but that is not the way our legal system works. Child pornography is a subcategory of something that is allowed – pornography. Again, while a majority in this country have a moral argument against it, it is allowed and even protected between adults. As you can see, one is not the other, even though they are related.

Now imagine, for a moment, that the lines had been blurred over a couple of years of heated debate. The side who saw no distinction between child pornography and adult pornography has continually and loudly equated the two. The media, reporting on the debate, no longer used ‘child’ or ‘adult’ when speaking about pornography. Eventually, in the public’s mind, the debate is just over pornography. To make matters more confusing, an attachment can be made to the First Amendment – the right to free speech. After years of this, a larger section of the population believes that anyone against (child) pornography must be against free speech.

Allow me to extend my imperfect literary device a bit further. Imagine now that one of those people, confused by the debate, is now allowed to decide for the rest of us. In his mind, the lines have been blurred to the point where the debate seems ridiculous. He has not studied the debate, just heard about it on the news once or twice. The decision he makes favors the small section of the population, yet now forces the entire population to fund, and so support in a way, child pornography.

The large section would be rioting. But instead…silence.

Now, returning to the issue at hand. Adult stem cell research is a wonderfully promising field of study. These stem cells are harvested from a variety of locations throughout the body, and therefor come in myriad of types. Some, such as Olfactory or Testicular stem cells, have the ability to become any cell in the body. Both public and private dollars are pouring into this line of research and making progress in finding cures to some of the worst diseases afflicting mankind.

Embryonic stem cell research is a wholly different animal. To harvest these cells, a human embryo must be first created, through fertilization of an egg, allowed to grow to a certain point, then destroyed. A recent development possibly allows for the removal of stem cells in a non destructive way, however that is largely irrelevant to the actual debate. And until one of the embryos used for harvesting is allowed to mature, be born, and become an adult, we will never know if there are any effects. But again, that is not relevant.

Either a human embryo is a human being or it is not.

If it is a human being, then anything you can’t do to an adult or child should be prohibited. We cannot, for example, harvest organs out of a healthy five year old, killing the child in the process, to save another child who is sick. The idea is absurd and sickening on its face. Numbers do not matter, doing it to one child, or millions of children has no moral difference. Growing children in a lab does not provide absolution either. Having parents sell or donate eggs, and sperm cells, and grant permission for experimentation also does not change the moral argument, but instead merely increases the numbers of those culpable.

If a human embryo is not a human being, then there is no argument. If there is doubt, then the obvious conclusion is to wait for scientific confirmation. However, a vast majority of the population firmly believes that life begins at conception. This is not solely a Christian issue. Muslims, Hindus, as well as most religions, have equivalent beliefs. Even atheistic vegans, by there refusal to eat chicken eggs, believe that life begins at conception. To frame this as solely a Christian vs. Science debate is monumentally dishonest.

The possible good that can come from harvesting embryonic stem cells is also irrelevant. While that has been allowed to become the center of the debate, destroying one life to save another is wrong. Destroying one life in the hopes of one day saving another just amplifies the moral discordance. It cannot be allowed.

Unfortunately, embryonic stem cell research is allowed. Private funds can be used and laboratories can grow and destroy human embryos at will. However there is no need to do this. Because there is no need, and due to the presence of moral implications, private funding is not pouring in to this branch of research. As I mentioned earlier, many adult stem cells have the same ability as embryonic stem cells to differentiate into many different types. Harvesting olfactory stem cells is simple and does not harm the patient. Stem cells from umbilical cords or placental material likewise has no moral issue. Nothing has to be destroyed in the process.

This is why President Bush banned public funding being used for embryonic stem cell research. Spending taxpayer dollars, in effect would cause every American to support a line of research with which they strongly disagree. Moral arguments aside, using public funds is also wasteful since there is absolutely no need. No developments have been produced by private funding, public funding will not improve the situation.

President Obama, by lifting the ban on using public funds, has shown he either is ignorant of the moral arguments, or that he does not care. Through his comments, I believe it is the former. To him, there is no distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells. He is most likely unaware of the developments using adult cells, and the progress being made there. He probably does not understand that almost all private funding has abandoned using embryonic cells in search of the greener pastures of adult cells. In his ignorance, however, he is causing all Americans to support, through our hard earned money, the destruction of human lives.

We should all be rioting. Shame on us all for not doing so.