Christian Worldview Concepts

The Promise and Peril of the Embryo

The Goals of Stem Cell Research

The aim of stem cell research is admirable. We would all like to see an end to disease. However, we should bear in mind that simultaneous with efforts to move forward with embryonic stem cell research are the activities of scientists around the world who endeavor to clone humans, to clone human body parts and to fuse human and animals parts, all under the auspices of "helping" sick and dying people. Who could be against helping suffering human beings?

These wonderful and compassionate-sounding motives move us in powerful ways as a nation because we are a people given to helping the unfortunate and the needy. However, compassion for the sick cannot be the only guide in justifying our actions. Despite impeccable motives such as these, flaws in moral thinking begin when we insist that the term "person" or "human being" be clearly defined before proceeding with the venture. The usual response from those who are the strongest advocates for stem cell research is that people are trying to inject the politics of abortion into the debate, a move that is deemed irrelevant. Even Senators such as Utah's Orrin Hatch and Tennessee's William Frist, both regarded as staunchly pro-life, have succumbed to this criticism and have boarded the stem cell freight train that is trying to steamroll its way through Congress.

I do not dispute the humanitarian intentions expressed by many researchers. I do not question the intentions of celebrities who lend their names and credibility to political efforts aimed at convincing legislators to appropriate public funding for the cause. I just have a lingering and irrepressible skepticism about the foundation upon which the moral case is being built for present and proposed stem cell practices, and I am even more disturbed over the lengths to which some are willing to go in order to silence the voices of anyone who opposes them.

During testimony before a Senate committee about her research into the uses of adult stem cells, defenders of embryonic stem cell research sought to discredit researcher Jean Peduzzi-Nelson. Senator Frank Lautenberg asked, "Are you a member of a pro-life committee?" Did the good senator ask if the supporters of embryonic stem cell research were members of a pro-choice committee? If he did, the Congressional Record does not reflect this.

If the abortion debate is truly irrelevant to the stem cell issue, why seek to identify the pro-life or pro-choice leanings of researchers? Furthermore, if the goal is to secure for the future the benefits of good science, who cares if the scientist supports or opposes abortion? Is it only those scientists who oppose abortion who cannot separate their moral and political views from their research? Is junk science the exclusive province of scientists who favor protecting unborn human beings?