The Double Standard of Opposing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

But [embryonic stem cell] research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells. They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away. – Indianapolis Star, “Obama to reverse limits on stem cell research funds,” March 7, 2009, p. A6

Christians and other pro-life advocates have opposed stem cell research on the grounds that embryos have to be destroyed in order to cull the stem cells, as this article makes clear. What I hadn't realized is where these stem cells come from – fertility clinics. If we are honest with ourselves, we should see that we are applying a double standard: either we should accept embryonic stem cell research or we should oppose the forms of fertility treatment that produce these embryos.

Some fertility treatments entail fertilizing ova, yielding embryos outside the would-be mother’s body. Some of these embryos are then implanted in the mother’s womb, some are frozen and some are discarded. What is the difference between destroying these embryos to cull stem cells and destroying them just because they aren't needed anymore? Ethically, it would seem that destroying leftover embryos for a purpose – to harvest stem cells – is better than destroying them because they are no longer needed or wanted.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing for culling stem cells from embryos. What I’m arguing is that destroying embryos for any reason is wrong in God’s eyes. In other words, Christians should oppose this kind of fertility treatment as well as harvesting stem cells from embryos. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Christians don’t seem to want to go that far. Why? Because infertility is painful, and how can we refuse this option to Christian couples who are unable to conceive otherwise?

We get to the argument of my previous post: compromise in these painful situations is quite compelling. In this case, however, the reasoning for taking advantage of this fertility treatment is not a question of responsibility as it would be in the case of a man unable to provide for his family by refusing life-restoring stem cell therapy. This is simply a case of wanting what we want at any cost, even if it means the destruction of one’s own embryos to get it. That sounds pretty crass.

Yes, the pain Hanna felt (1 Samuel 1) is with couples today. It seems callous of me or anyone else to suggest they forego this fertility treatment in order to experience having children like most people do. But isn’t it just as callous to do so at the expense of perhaps a dozen would be children that we bring into being for the express purpose of having only one of them actually be born without regard for the rest of them. We want what we want when we want it and will do whatever is necessary to achieve our wants regardless of the cost to these children.

The question comes down to this: are these embryos life or not? If they are, we should reject stem cell harvesting and fertility treatments that destroy embryos regardless of what that means we will have to do without. If they are not life, then Christians and pro-lifers should not oppose embryonic stem cell research. To do so would be to live by a double standard.

There are even more basic questions here: Are we willing to live within God’s righteous limitations regardless of what that costs us? What are those limits? Does He offer alternative provisions for these problems which we are not willing to seek and wait for, let alone recognize because they are too hard to come by or not what we want? More on these questions later...

The Ethical Dilemma of Fetal Stem Cell Therapy - Compelled to Compromise

“Mice with spinal cord injuries regained much of their ability to walk normally after getting injections of stem cells taken from the brains of human fetuses … The work strengthens recent evidence that various kinds of stem cells – including some from human embryos and others from fetuses – have the capacity to nurse injured nerve cells back to health and in some cases even become replacement neurons themselves. … [The stem cells] are the progeny of human cells retrieved from the brains of 16- and 18-week aborted fetuses.” – The Indianapolis Star, September 20, 2005, p. A3.

This article said that several companies were hoping to test this therapy in humans since it has been so successful in lab mice. What happens if the stem cells from aborted fetuses or even embryos are proven to restore function to humans with various kinds of nerve damage, whether from diseases such as Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, or spinal cord injuries? Should Christians be willing to receive this therapy? Most Christians I know oppose this research.

Let me pose the following scenario: a Christian man has an injury which paralyzes him. He is no longer able to provide for his family as a result. Let’s say this therapy has been proven effective in humans and has been approved by the FDA. Should this man receive stem cells harvested from an aborted fetus? Refusing this treatment is no longer a hypothetical situation for this man and his family. Even his friends are likely to encourage him to receive the treatment. Suddenly, it is no longer so easy for us to refuse him access to this treatment purely on ethical grounds, nor for him to refuse it. In fact, it seems rather irresponsible to refuse this treatment. Principles can easily fall by the wayside when the stakes are so high.

I was quite surprised, when I posed this scenario to some dear Christian friends, to hear them say they saw no problem with such treatment. They posed the following counter-scenario, one which actually happened in our city not long before our conversation. Some kids egged a man’s truck as he drove by. Angered, he went back to confront them. One of the kids pulled out a gun, shot and killed him. His organs were harvested for use by people on various organ donor lists. His organs saved or greatly improved the quality of life of a number of individuals. My friends said there is absolutely no difference between the scenario I posed and this one, except that abortion is legal and murder is not. If anything, the latter scenario should be less acceptable to us than the former.

These friends are definitely pro-life. They do not in any way support abortion. Yet, they raise a good point, and their reasoning has enabled them to not even think twice about accepting stem cell therapy, should the need arise. What is the ethical difference? The fetus is not aborted for the purpose of harvesting stem cells any more than the man was murdered for the purpose of harvesting organs. As much as we hate murder and abortion, why should that stop us from taking advantage of these therapies?

Let me put another twist on it: if this therapy using fetal stem cells works, will it make the battle to reverse Roe v. Wade all the more difficult? Will it possibly weaken the will of those who oppose abortions – even Christians – making us more willing to look the other way? Most likely it will. If nothing else, this thinking should make us willing to do the irresponsible thing – be willing to refuse to be restored to wholeness by the death of a fetus.

I think you can imagine that if this therapy proves out, it will only take a generation or two before Christians concede that this therapy is acceptable. In fact, I think that all it will take is one member of our church to be in a position to benefit from this therapy and most all of the church will lay aside any qualms. To do otherwise would seem to be extremely callous. For this family to do without this therapy also might entail the whole local Body of Christ coming together to help the family go without, which is something almost unheard of in churches, at least for the long haul. But even if we could help provide for the family, asking that man, or especially a child, to forego a normal life still seems heartless. There is almost no way the church will be able to hold to its principles in the face of such a choice.

This begs the following question: what else has there been to which the church has objected on such ethical grounds or grounds of faith which we now consider acceptable without blushing or questioning or even being aware that there was ever any concern at all? I won’t go into it here, but there have been many objections of Christians through history – rightly or wrongly – which have been forgotten. Qualms have been allayed, and we have gone the way of the world without even being aware there ever was a concern at all. This king of reasoning and success has been far too compelling for Christianity to hold out against it.

Let me close with a portion of a script from an episode of Star Trek Voyager called “Phage” which originally aired February 6, 1995, prior to the stem cell debate coming to a head. A member of an alien race has harvested the lungs of one of Voyager’s crew members to replace his own. The crew member is on artificial life support, when Voyager finally captures the alien and the person to whom he gave the harvested lungs. It is interesting to note that the writers of this episode seem to indicate that there must be limits on therapies, that one must be willing to die rather than to cross certain ethical bounds. It’s rather refreshing to see someone in popular culture suggest such ethical limits.

JANEWAY: You’re on the Starship Voyager. I’m Captain Kathryn Janeway of the United Federation of Planets.

DERETH: I am Dereth … of the Vidiian Sodality.

JANEWAY: You attacked one of our crew members and you lured us into this asteroid. Why?

DERETH: We are gathering replacement organs and suitable biomatter. It is the only way we have to fight the phage.

JANEWAY: A virus? Some kind of disease?

MOTURA: Yes. It attacked our people over two millennia ago. It consumes our bodies, destroys our genetic codes and cellular structures.

JANEWAY: So you harvest the bodies of other beings to replace your own tissues as they’re consumed by this … phage?

MOTURA: Our immunotechnology cannot keep up. The phage adapts. It resists all attempts to destroy it. Our society has been ravaged. Thousands die each day. There is no other way for us to survive.

JANEWAY: I have a great … sympathy for what your race has endured. But I cannot allow you to keep the organs you removed from one of our crew members. We need them back immediately.

DERETH: I’m afraid that isn’t possible. I have already biochemically altered the air-breathing organs and grafted them into Motura’s body. They are a part of him now.

MOTURA: He is my honatta. His task is to find the organs I need for survival. We … we try to extract them from the dead …

DERETH: But sometimes, when the need is immediate, more aggressive actions are required.

JANEWAY: So now I am left with the same choice you made – whether to commit murder to save a life, or to allow my own crewman to die while you breathe air through his lungs.

MOTURA: It must be impossible for you to understand how any civilized people could come to … this. Before the phage began, we were known as educators and explorers – a people whose greatest achievements were artistic. I, myself, am a sculptor of note on my world. All I can say is that when your entire existence is at stake …

DERETH: You don’t have to explain yourself , Motura.

MOTURA: If the consequence of this act is a death sentence, so be it. At least it will put an end to my suffering.

JANEWAY: I can’t begin to understand what your people have gone through. They may have found a way to ignore the moral implications of what you’re doing, but I have no such luxury. I don’t have the freedom to kill you to save another. My culture finds that to be a reprehensible and entirely unacceptable act. If we were closer to home, I would lock you up and turn you over to my authorities for trial, but I don’t even have that ability here, and I am not prepared to carry you forever in our brig. So I see no other alternative … but to let you go.