Jamie

Weinstein

Read Jamie's bio and previous columns

March 24, 2009

Why Pro-Life Activists Should Be Able to Support Stem-Cell Research

In 2001, when President George W. Bush laid out his position on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research in a nationally televised broadcast from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, I wrote a letter to my local paper, The Palm Beach Post, praising the president’s decision. It read, in part:

“President George W. Bush should have satisfied all sides of the debate with his decision on Stem Cell research and impressed the American public with his sincerity. His plan for limited research came after months of apparent soul searching where he probed all sides of the debate and his own moral conscience. I not only agree 100 percent with his plan, a plan that both advances potentially life-saving research using embryonic cells and declares that the United States values life in all stages including the life of the unborn, but I find it refreshing to see a president truly struggle over all the moral and ethical implications of a decision.”

I still believe that the former president searched his soul for what he thought was the right policy and came to a suitable compromise on the issue. But I have long since changed my own view on embryonic stem cell research. In the wake of President Barack Obama’s decision to expand the federal government’s role in funding stem cell research, it is worthwhile considering the matter in a morally serious way.

I do not intend to wade into what the government’s role should actually be with regard to funding stem cell research, but rather to focus on the moral question the topic engenders, regardless of whether the research is funded by the government or by private individuals.

Pro-life activists have generally expressed strong reservations against embryonic stem cell research in any manifestation. It is to this important constituency that I wish to direct this article and make the case that such research is something that they should be able to support.

There is no question that this issue is a difficult one for pro-life Americans. For those who believe that life begins at conception, there is an understandable reluctance to allow stem cells to be used for scientific testing. This reluctance exists in spite of the possibility that such testing may allow us to find cures for previously incurable diseases. 

Now, everyone wants to see deadly diseases eliminated. But we are faced with a tricky moral quandary, one that should be recognized by all sides of the debate. Can we take what many believe to be a human life (even in the earliest of forms) and use it as a guinea pig for scientific testing? 

To answer the question, we must first understand the situation in which we find ourselves. An estimated 400,000 embryonic stem cells exist in laboratories around the country as a result of surplus embryonic stem cells created for in-vitro fertilization procedures. This number far exceeds the potential incubators for these embryos, and therefore the overwhelming majority of them will be discarded. 

Even so, it is still understandable how one with deep moral pro-life convictions would be reticent about experimenting on what they see as human life. But play along with me in a thought experiment.

Imagine that someone is on an airplane that crashes in the middle of the ocean. They are the only survivor and ultimately end up on a deserted island. The plane that crashed was a UPS or Fed Ex jet loaded with packages that were on their way to being delivered – kind of like the movie Castaway.

Now, on this deserted island are just the castaway and the many packages that washed ashore. The chances that the castaway will be found is very slim – at least anytime in the near future. Similarly, the packages that have come ashore are quite unlikely, to say the least, of ever being delivered to their final destinations.

Technically, opening the packages and using whatever is inside them for survival would be stealing. But who among us would condemn the castaway for opening the packages and using the items in them for his or her own survival? After all, the chances that the items would ever be delivered to their final destination are about as good as the chances that Bob Saget will ever win an Oscar. In other words, virtually non-existent. 

Now there are embryonic stem cells in labs across the country as likely as to be used as the stranded packages in my story are to be delivered. This being the case, it would seem that if one would concede it was acceptable for the castaway to “steal” the packages in my tale, they too would have to concede that it was morally acceptable to use the embryonic stem cells for research if they had virtually no chance of ever reaching their final destination, especially if they have the potential to help save lives. I want to highlight my emphasis on “potential,” as stem cell research is anything but a sure thing.

Nonetheless, if the moral question centers around discarding life, as it does, then those protesting embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds should redirect their efforts to protesting the process of in vitro fertilization.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is column # JW062. Request permission to publish here.