Stem-cell Research

I'm not sure if anyone ever reads this blog, but whether they do or not, I still need someplace to express my opinion.

In the KC Star this morning, there was a story about the House passing legislation lifting federal embryonic stem-cell research limits. In an effort to present both sides of the issue, the reporter, Margaret Taley, wrote, "Opponents, including the president, said the destruction of embryos involved in such [stem-cell] research is tantamount to abortion and is immoral."

Let's consider the facts. The embryos being destroyed for stem-cell research are no more than a cluster of undifferentiated cells. They are by-products of fertilization of eggs in a laboratory for in vitro fertilization or for somatic nuclear cell transfer (SNCT), a technique of swapping a cell's nucleus for another to produce a genetically identical or cloned cell whose stem cells can be harvested.

In the former case, excess embryos, resulting from in vitro fertilization processes, that are not implanted in a mother-to-be's womb are going to be destroyed eventually. Some excess fertilized eggs are destroyed immediately, while others are kept refrigerated in the event another egg implantation in a womb is feasible. However, these un-used cell clusters will not be kept in temperature-controlled facilities forever.

Abortion is the expulsion of a fetus from the womb. Is an embryonic cell in a laboratory vial or petri dish equivalent to a developing fetus in a womb? I think not. Sooner or later, they will be discarded. Will the destruction of these un-used, non-implanted embryos be tantamount to an abortion of a fetus? I think not. Can the destruction of a fertilized egg stored in a laboratory be the moral equivalent of an abortion? I think not. What about all of the fertilized eggs that are implanted in wombs that never become a fetus? Are they to be considered the equivalent of a fetus? Of course not. I think it is immoral to waste the potential beneficial use of these un-used excess embryos. Actually, the last time I checked abortion was legal nor is it not immoral, at least not to the majority.

In the latter case of SNCT, what's the fuss? The embryo is not formed from the union of a sperm and an ovum, as is the case with an embryonic cell produced as a forerunner to in vitro fertilization. In fact, the cell is made inert by the removal of its nucleus to enable the transfer of another nucleus into it. I'll concede that the product of SNCT may still be human tissue. However, in its laboratory condition, it is not a human being and never will be. It exists only for the production of embryonic stem-cells, which is not evil. The harvesting of stem cells from tissue that was never on the path to being a fetus is not an abortion.

The news article also quoted a congressman, Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican, "It is never, never justifiable to deliberately end a life." This statement is patently false (and one "never" was sufficient). Ending a life in self-defense is justifiable. Ending a life for capital punishment is justifiable. The withdrawal of artificial life support systems from a human body to permit the process of death to continue is justifiable. Ending the life of an enemy combatant is justifiable. Ending a life through self-sacrifice to save the life of another is justifiable. Other examples of case where ending a life is justifiable also exist. If you think about it, you can identify other cases yourself where ending a life is justifiabe. What is not justifiable is the denial to embryonic stem-cell research of the necessary elements of achieving its goal of finding life-saving cures.