AllTheseThings: Accepting our limits (part 1?)

I’ve had several things on my mind recently, all of them blog-able. Then I realised they were all connected by a single theme and considered writing one mega-blog. However, I am reluctant to post anything (or in fact read anything) which requires “scrolling down” so I’ll start with part 1 and see how things go…..

Issue number 1 is embryonic stem cell research. I know-a heavy subject right off the bat. This issue has been bombarding me for months now, in the form of a colleague who is determined to convince me that there should be no federal restrictions on the use of stem cells and I should support this research wholeheartedly. He makes many, many good points. Embryonic stem cells have tremendous potential to treat incurable diseases, due to their unique capacity to form all kinds of other cells which can then be used to replace cells damaged by, for example, Alzheimers or spinal cord injury. They may in the future be used to regenerate organs for transplantation without the need for a donor. They are even thought to hold the key to understanding cancer, since both cancer cells and stem cells continue to grow when most normal cells have stopped. However, what my enthusiastic colleague hasn’t realised is, no matter how much potential there is in these cells, if life begins at conception then generating embryos for research involves creating and destroying life. And if we believe, from a biblical perspective, that this is wrong then there’s no amount of potential medical benefits that can tip the balance in favour of this practice. In fact, thinking of the issue as a “balance” is part of the problem. One side cannot outweigh the other on a scale because they are not on the same scale. But, wow, what an unpopular opinion. How can those of us who are wary of stem cell research watch Christopher Reeve or Michael J. Fox on TV, (or in fact anyone we know who has suffered from debilitating illness), and deny them the chance to be physically healed? Isn’t that cruel? How can we call ourselves Christians?

What Christians know is that God responds to human suffering and they are called to do the same. So if we call for restrictions or even a complete ban on embryonic stem cell research, it isn’t from a lack of compassion. I hope it’s from a desire to see life from God’s perspective and to value all life the same way He does (i.e. with the utmost value). We also know and understand that we as humans have limitations and that is what makes us human (not gods). We cannot prolong life on earth indefinitely, nor do we want to. I’m not saying medical research is a waste of time-far from it. Relieving suffering is what we should always be focused on. However, there will never be a world where every disease can be cured or even prevented. If there was, can you imagine how little compassion would be demonstrated?

Recognising and living with limitations is not very popular in our world, and is unheard of in the scientific community. If we have the ability and the money and the resources to do something, why on earth would we stop? That would require super-human amounts of self-control. And therein lies the problem. My personal fear for the future of embryonic stem cell research is that it’s being driven, not by a desire to relieve suffering (which it may do), but by a desire to see what we as human beings can do in the area of medical science, with all the personal glory that goes along with it.

Philomena

allthesephilomena@yahoo.com

Comments

Philomena,
Thanks for this great post.
It seems that much of what you are saying is based on the assumption that "life begins at conception." Biologically I get that. But even before conception there is life...that is sperm and egg are "living."
Where I need help is figuring out when life becomes human? Or if that is even the best question to be asking? I've been told the Jewish understanding of human life is that it begins when we are "ensouled" and that happens at first breath, as the hebrew for breath and spirit are the same (God "breathing" life, see Gen.).
Anyway, I agree with your assumption that everything changes when we are dealing with a human life. I'm just not sure how to think about that or begin to figure it out, so up until I have given the benefit of the doubt to life...that is life begins at conception.
Can you shed some light on this issue for me?
Thanks,
Didymus

Posted by: Didymus | June 17, 2006 at 06:10 AM

Didymus-
Great points, and I don't have a clear answer for you but some more things to consider. I agree that "life" and "human life" should be distinguished. From a scientific point of view, sperm and egg are certainly alive since they are mostly self-sustaining and can divide to make copies of themselves (biological criteria). However, they each have only half the number of chromosomes necessary to make an embryo, so sperm and egg need to fuse together (i.e. combine their chromosomes) to have the potential to become human. From a spiritual point of view I think one of the defining characteristics of human life is a relationship with God. I always have in mind the verse in Psalm 139 that says God knew us in the womb. I just came across more scriptures along those same lines (Jer 1:5, Isaiah 44:2). So by that definition I would say we are human before "first breath".

Posted by: Philomena | June 19, 2006 at 10:46 AM

In vitro fertilization also involves creating and destroying embryos. The stem cells for research will most likely come from embryos left-over from IVF, otherwise destined for disposal. I wonder why there isn't so much ethical concern about IVF?

Posted by: Philomena | June 19, 2006 at 10:50 AM

Thanks Philomena! Good stuff to think about.

Posted by: Didymus | June 22, 2006 at 01:05 PM