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...