A Middle Ground?
This essay asks if perhaps there is a middle ground on the stem cell research debate. The proposition is that perhaps the solution to the debate on the moral appropriateness of this research could be delayed (not solved) by continuing a ban on embryonic stem cell research that requires the creation & destruction of new embryos, and instead have research utilize only those embryos already created, or that are created in fertility clinics and will never be used.
This isn't an acceptable middle ground. On this issue, I don't believe that anything like a middle ground actually exists. But I can't blame this person for trying, because they don't appear to understand what the ground is that we're dealing with here.
There seems to be the assumption that the objection to stem cell research voiced by conservative Christians is specific to the stem cell research issue. And frankly, I can see why there is confusion on this issue, because with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, Christians by and large have not clearly defined the issue at stake in their objections. It is not an objection to science. It is not an objection to research. It is not an objection to medicine. Rather it is - or ought to be - an issue of the definition and sanctity of life.
Christians have fostered confusion about what the real issue is because we have not - overall - been very consistent in the issues we take up. We're big on protesting abortion. And embryonic stem cell research is also an area we're pretty vocal about. However we're not vocal in other key areas that are very consistent with what we say in our arguments about abortion and embryonic stem cell research. The biggest area that comes to mind where we're inconsistent is fertility treatment.
Fertility treatments - and there are various options - invariably require the creation of multiple embryos. Out of these embryos, doctors (and more and more parents) will select the embryo that seems the most viable (likely to survive the procedure), and nowadays, may also select an embryo based on particular characteristics that are appealing to the parent. Blue eyes or brown, for instance. The other embryos are typically frozen, though patients can request that they be disposed of. If they are disposed of, they are treated as medical waste and disposed of accordingly. Freezing them may sound like they're being preserved, but the process of freezing and then thawing the embryos again is by no means completely safe, and embryos can and are damaged and even destroyed in the process.
The problem is that many Christians treat fertility treatments that generate multiple embryos as perfectly fine. The same sorts of embryos that Christians are lining up to march for rights and life for, are being destroyed in an artificial attempt to provide a biological child for a couple with fertility challenges. The net result is the same - embryos are being destroyed. And if they're worth protecting from embryonic stem cell research and abortion, then why are we so tolerant of their destruction through fertility treatments?
Confusion arises from the goals, perhaps. Fertility treatments aim to assist in the creation of a life, and that sounds good. But embryonic stem cell research holds out the promise of potential cures to a wide range of afflictions, diseases, and other medical issues which could improve the lives and even save the lives of a lot of people. Yet many conservative Christians are still willing to say no deal on the issue. Abortion is pretty much a no-brainer, since it doesn't create a life, it just destroys one.
But do the ends justify the means? Theologically, we need to say no. Destroying lives to create lives or to heal other lives still destroys lives.
So the issue isn't simply embryonic stem cell research, and therefore the middle ground being offered in the article is not an acceptable solution. The net result is still that lives will be lost. Biblical Christians aren't utilitarians - although many are, though popular culture almost exclusively is.
Until we clearly and consistently identify the issue as one of life, and attempt to be consistent in our demands about how human life should be treated, whether it has one cell or four cells or four million cells or four trillion cells, people on both sides of the issue won't understand how impossible a middle ground is. Life is either life or it isn't. It's either a human being with one cell or it's not a human being but magically turns into a human being somewhere down the line when it's more convenient for us or we can't reasonably deny it any longer. There really can't be a middle ground on the issue of life. Embryos that already exist should be used for implantation if at all possible. They could be adopted and stored indefinitely to preserve them (since thawing them might destroy them). What a testimony such a storehouse of frozen life would be to our deluded insistence that human life is something we can treat as we wish, destroying and creating it simply for our own amusement, or on the off chance of some sort of benefit to those already lucky enough to have enough cells to be considered human beings.
Life is life. There is no middle ground.
Yet another indignity of infertility is having to make these moral decisions regarding the non-implanted embryos.
I know a couple that has two "natural" children and triplets from IVF. They have more children "on ice" and plan to use them all, despite the fact that they get by on the skin of their teeth as it is. Yes, this is their choice, but what a burden to bear.
My point? I got pregnant twice without having to deal with all these ethical questions and struggles. I'm grateful for that fact.
Infertility is awful; the entire IVF process adds to said awfulness.
Reply to this
Hi Nancy!
The discussion is laden with all sort of land mines. IVF has become an accepted option in our society. Few religious groups take a firm stand on the issue because of how explosive it is. Who wants to be the one to tell a couple that God apparently doesn't intend for them to conceive together, and that they should pursue adoption instead? Not many pastors *I* know of. And so the issue gets ignored and left to the discretion of individual couples, rather than being seen as part of a larger issue.
Our culture and society treat both pregnancy and termination of pregnancy as rights. Our prerogatives are seen as the only binding force (temporarily at that) on not only what we can do but what we *should* do.
As a person of faith, I see in the Bible a God who repeated demonstrates that *He* is the arbiter of life. He plans. He creates. He surprises the barren woman with a child. He determines - not us. Yes, someone can argue that it's easy for me to say that as a father of three who hasn't had to face infertility issues with my wife. Or for you and Paul with your two boys. It undoubtedly *is* easier for us to make this argument. But it doesn't invalidate the argument either.
Unless Christians can regain their Biblically informed perspective, we will continue to miss the larger battle over what constitutes a human life, and continue to get bogged down in the arguments on different specific attacks against human life. We need to rally behind the singular issue of life, and make that the driving difference in how we approach abortion, IVF, and any form of research that necessitates the destruction of a helpless human life for some loosely defined 'greater good'.
Reply to this
Need to think a bit about this...
Reply to this