My Stance on Embryonic Stem Cell Research

I had a kind friend write to me to point out what he felt were some deficiencies in my position on embryonic stem cells.  Because I entered into the last post without giving a thorough defense of my own position, I thought I would post this so that those who are interested might see what I think, and why I am against embryonic stem cell research as it done today.  Because this is a response to an email sent to me you may have to read between the lines a little to see what my friend was stating, however, I think my response was thorough enough that you can understand his position and mine from this post.

As a disclaimer, I want to note that I asked his permission to post this comment.  I always intend to respect those who wish to keep dialogue private, so you do not have to worry that I'm going to post a long response to anything you email me about, unless you just want it posted.  The text of my response email follows:

Dear Sir,

Thank you so much for your comments.  I was actually fully aware of everything you noted here (he wrote to me to mention that most of the stem cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from embryos generated by in vitro fertilization, and that the embryos used are donated for the purpose of science, and that they would otherwise be destroyed).  None of this changes my position though.  My position is: once an egg and a sperm have been joined such that there results a joining of DNA and naturally occurring cellular division and reproduction, that entity is now a new human life.  Therefore, because embryonic stem cells are derived from the destruction of these embryos it is an unethical and immoral area of study, due to the fact that it necessarily requires the destruction of a human life in order for research to be conducted.

The issue for me is not where or how the egg is fertilized.  My own personal position (and that of my wife) is that if we were unable to naturally conceive, we would adopt.  We would not go the route of in vitro feritilization.  However, I have no actual moral complaint against women who do go that route, so long as they have fully considered the reality of what they are doing and have weighed their options.  I do believe that some couples have acted selfishly in conceiving in vitro, however, couples act selfishly in adopting and in natural pregnancy, so I can hardly raise that as a complaint.  Certainly I wouldn't argue that because one person has abused the system the whole enterprise is immoral.

As far as the egg being incapable of surviving on its own, of course it cannot survive on its own.  No egg once fertilized can survive on its own.  The very nature of any human act of reproduction requires a womb for the baby to develop.  The reality that the egg cannot survive outside of the womb does not negate its very real humanity though.  This argument is akin to saying that a scientist could remove (in some fashion) an egg that has just implanted itself in a woman's womb, and then say, "I have not killed the child, it simply cannot survive outside of the womb, therefore I should use it to experiment."  The issue is not whether it (the embryo) was implanted at any given time nor whether it could survive outside the womb at any given time, the issue is what "it" is.

As to the throwing away of embryos, I do find this to be a rather abhorrent situation.  Most embryos are frozen for extended periods of time, and quite safely at that, so we can store embryos as a stop-gap for our current situation.  I would fully agree that embryos ought not be destroyed.  One possible solution that I think rightly answers the seriousness of the situation are embryo adoption groups who seek to stop the destruction of innocent children by finding those will adopt the embryos and raise them as their children.  Hopefully, with the ability to safely preserve embryos, those willing to adopt unused embryos, and the advancement of in vitro fertilization, the number of embryos destroyed will decrease and eventually stopped altogether.

I am aware that most science requires years of study in order to advance to a particularly useful point.  Stem cell research, in general, has advanced to the point where over 70 different treatments are being done using them.  All of these have been derived from adult stem cells though.  I have come across only one treatment that I know of where embryonic stem cells have been used to derive a treatment (for a form of blindness).  I am sure that additional treatments will be developed in the coming years and decades, perhaps even additional treatments from embryonic stem cells, but no amount of time will change the morality of committing murder today for the sake of future benefit.

There are also those who make (perhaps valid) arguments that embryonic stem cell research, while not yielding cures, is helping us to better understand early biological developments and cellular development in general, in ways that adult stem cells do not.  This research, it is argued, has multiple uses and much value, and is invaluable in itself because of how it deepens our understanding of biology.  These arguments do not change my position any more than the arguments that we are deriving cells from embryos that would be destroyed.  My argument is not against the research being done, nor even the question of whether there is valid research being done, such arguments, to me, are secondary.  My argument is, and remains, solely with the means of deriving the materials necessary for the research being done.

Allow me to give you what I consider to be a valid example of my position: Imagine, if you will, that a scientist argued (reasonably) that, if he were allowed to kill 10 babies he could utilize the material from those babies to develop potentially life saving research.  He would not steal babies, he would only use deformed babies who had been abandoned at hospitals and who would die within 3 months.  However, he could not wait for those babies to die naturally, he had to, instead, actually kill the babies in order to conduct his research.  He would kill the babies quickly, they would feel no pain, and he could not guarantee results, but he was confident that within 20 years he could have some results.

Would it be okay with you if he conducted the research?  Would it be right to fund that research with public money?  Would any amount of results make his research ethical?  What if he could guarantee results within 5 years?  What if he only needed to use 2 babies?  My argument is that such research, regardless of its rewards, regardless of its potential, regardless of its potential "return on investment" would be immoral, because it relies upon the murder of innocent human lives.  Because I believe that God is the creator of life, and that he creates a new life at the moment of conception, I believe that it is murder to destroy embryos for research, and thus any research conducted from that position is immoral.

We do not make life, we can only bring together physical components (egg and sperm) God actually creates the life that results.  Therefore, for us to murder that life, at any stage, is an act of immorality.  When we determine who has the right to live and die based on what value they may contribute to us as a society, or to science as an experimental specimen, we begin to play God.  This is the temptation of Satan in the Garden, "You can become like God, knowing (determining) good and evil."  This is the root of all human sin, our decision to place our ethics above God's clearly revealed will.

Those who would argue against my position must first convince themselves of one thing: what we are destroying, when we kill and embryo, is not a human life.  Yes, it is undergoing cellular development, yes if placed within its most natural environment, (a womb) it has the potential to grow and develop all the way to the point of birth as a baby, yes it has human DNA and is rightly recognized as an independent living organism, but it is still not a human.  My complaint with embryonic stem cell research thus rests upon the same foundation of my argument against abortion: we do not create life, and we do not get to determine when a human becomes a human.  Because of the very serious moral complaint that God could raise against us, we are better to err on the side of caution, that we may seek the blessings of God in the rest of our lives.  Let us not assume a wisdom beyond ourselves, but rather recognize that when confronted with a mystery, it is best that we act humbly and move cautiously, lest we overextend ourselves and stride proudly into sin.

Now, since I have laid out quite thoroughly why I am against embryonic stem cell research, I do want to say that I am not entirely against embryonic stem cell research.  If there were a means of deriving embryonic stem cells not related to the destruction of embryos I would have no compunction against research done on those cells.  Thus, if there were, for instance, some way that scientists could derive embryonic stem cells from umbilical cords, or if they were able to harvest some from embryonic fluid withdrawn during necessary in utero surgeries, or some other means, then I would not be against doing research based on those cell lines.  (However, if scientists withdrew embryonic fluid solely for the purpose of attempting to harvest embryonic stem cells, and thus endangered a pregnancy, I would be against that.)  The issue for me is entirely the means by which the cell lines are developed, and as long as even one embryo is destroyed, or one child needlessly endangered, I will continue to protest that this is an act of gross immorality.

Caiaphas said, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."  John made clear that Caiaphas was prophesying that Christ would die in order to bring all of God's children together, as one.  But, for Caiaphas, what he intended was that it was better to kill Jesus than that Jesus should bring the wrath of Rome on Israel. (John 11:47-53)  Even if it meant that Caiaphas had to bring false charges against Jesus and reject the Christ of God, he would kill one man in order to protect his nation.  While we can understand his passion, we rightly reject his actions as immoral and worthy of condemnation.  Are we somehow more innocent than him if we allow the murder of babies, the murder of innocent children, humans, regardless of how they came into being, for the sake of research?  Do our "good" goals make right our wicked actions today?