Obama ready to sign order to repeal ban on federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells

Do we therefore have one life pitted against another here?

By pegchemberli

March 9, 2009 at 2:43PM

President Obama is reported to be ready on Monday to sign an executive order to repeal George W. Bush's ban on federal funding for scientific research using embryonic stem cells. We know that there is a very good possibility that research on such stem cells could produce breakthroughs in the treatment of some our most damaging diseases: heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's. Research tells us that the embryonic stem cells are more likely to offer these breakthroughs than are adult stem cells or placenta cells.

On the other hand, these cells are harvested from human embryos, destroying the embryo. And the question comes again, "When does life begin?" If we say life begins at conception we probably need to push ourselves. There was life before conception; the sperm cell and the ovum were living cells. This is an important reminder to us about the literal circle of life. That is, life does not spring forth from no life; human life comes from human life.

On the other hand, if we talk about conception as the point at which a new completeness - unique among all others - is present, that is a qualitative jump from the life of a sperm cell or an egg. And many of us find ourselves standing in complete awe of such regularly reoccurring miracles of this new uniqueness.

On the other hand, the life of the one threatened by the destructive effects of a disease that could be cured by this research is also a miraculous thing. Do we therefore have one life pitted against another here? Is there a qualitatively different presence of life in a born and breathing, thinking, feeling human than in an embryo? We know that nature regularly disregards the fertilized embryo. It is generally accepted that fewer than half the fertilized human eggs naturally find their way to implantation in the uterus. And even after implantation, a full quarter of pregnancies end in the first trimester. What does this tell us about nature's value of the embryo, or as I would ask as a person of faith, what are God's intentions for each embryo and what does it mean that such a high percentage of them naturally do not come to the point of birth?

In the old version of an important Christian creed we used to say, "He came to judge the quick and the dead." The quick a word taken from the time of quickening: embryos which have become fetuses which have made the journey into the second trimester and there begin to move in ways that are perceptible to the mother. Is there some ancient wisdom about a qualitative leap that happens in the second trimester? The rate of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) goes way down. The emotional attachment of the mother goes way up.

My first pregnancy ended at six weeks after conception, I was devastated at the loss. I saw the embryo, about the size of a quarter; it was not yet my child but there was something there that would never be again. I conceived my daughter six months later and I give thanks for this wonderful life, a uniqueness that we would never have known had the first pregnancy continued. Was the first one discardable? Would I have chosen that knowing what I do now about the wonderful daughter I have? Some would say that I didn't know then and couldn't know then, so shouldn't have chosen and that may be the point, I didn't choose. It happened for reasons I don't know or perhaps even for no reason at all.

On the other hand, the stem cells we are speaking of here don't come from the second trimester or even the first; in fact, these embryos have never been implanted in the uterus. These are in-vitro (in the glass) fertilizations. When an embryo fails to implant naturally we don't consider this a loss of life, do we? Is there something that we can take from nature's process that tells us how to value the unimplanted embryo, as life that is qualitatively less than the life of a born, breathing, thinking, feeling human?

On the other hand, are we talking about intentionally fertilizing eggs in order to harvest parts of them and discard the rest?

On the other hand, how many fertilized eggs currently exist as a result of in-vitro fertilization that will never be implanted? Perhaps we should be having the discussion about the moral dilemma of the choice to have that in-vitro fertilization done knowing one will not use most of the fertilizes eggs. But now that those embryos exist why should we not allow them to be used?

I have never fit well in either camp on this political issue. The questions are just too large for me to see an absolute answer. Every question brings on another, an equivocating "on the other hand" perspective. And given that equivocating, I'd probably come down on the side of religious liberty though my own choice will be more restricted.

Two things I will say unequivocally if the president rescinds this ban: 1) ethical guidelines need to be established and the larger community needs to be engaged in that conversation, and 2) these embryos cannot become commodities for the selling and the buying. Beware America, your tendency toward commodification.

about the writer

about the writer

pegchemberli