A phd's response to a person who thinks stem cell is murder

[DanCa]

To: Embryonic Stem Cell supporters


Since when is it ever right, to take one life to save another.

What a shame it is, that our country doesn't value precious souls,
who never even get a chance to see the world.

May God forgive our nation.

Joanne

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Joanne

Thanks for writing to us. I fully respect the position you are
taking. You are clearly concerned with treating others with respect
and care. I applaud you for that. We all need to be sensitive to
the wellbeing of others. And I for one oppose the death penalty
just for the reason you give: it is not right to take a person's
life. Your mention of God suggests to me that you take a religious view of this matter. But do the religious beliefs you hold really mean that you must condemn embryonic stem cell research? I guess I'll have to know more about what those beliefs are. So I'm going to need more information from you. Meanwhile, let's reflect on some medical and religious considerations. Perhaps you realize that embryonic stem cell research does promise for better understanding and treating (if not curing) some very terrible diseases. I don't know if you know anyone with one of these diseases: Parkinson's, juvenile diabetes, MS, ALS, Alzheimer's, and the like. We do want to alleviate the suffering and death that these diseases bring -- I'm confident you agree with that aim. It follows from the value of charity and compassion that is embraced by all the world's great religious traditions.


You suggest in your objection that embryonic stem cell research is a
kind of murder. I do not view the research that way. Please
consider: Strictly speaking, it's true that "Human life begins at
conception." A five-day old embryo is human (it belongs to the
human species) and is alive, hence it is "human life." In fact,
any cell in our bodies is "human life." It is appropriate, however,
that we distinguish between human life, on the one hand, and
personhood on the other. A 5-day old embryo (which scientists call
a "blastocyst"), invisible to the naked eye, is not a person, any
more than an acorn is an oak tree. And it is to persons that we
have ethical obligations and attribute a right to life. At the beginning of life, it seems to me that personhood develops gradually. Do you believe that at some point in time -- at the time
of fertilization perhaps -- the embryo gains a soul that makes it
human, makes it a person? My own view is that personhood -- not
only at the beginning of human life but also sometimes at the end,
e.g. when a person suffers from a disease like Alzheimer's and
gradually loses his/her mental functioning and sense of identity --
isn't easy to define. I would say that Terry Schiavo, kept alive in
the hospital, was no longer a person. Personhood involves
sentience, intelligence, social-relatedness. There is the sense we
have (or at least, many of us have it) of each individual person
being precious, irreplaceable. But for me, this does not require
the possession (there we go again with that notion of ownership!) of
an individual "soul."

Science finds continuity and gradation throughout nature (quantum
physics being a notable exception). Religion too sometimes
acknowledges that development and change are typically gradual
processes. Many religious faiths (including Roman Catholicism in
the tradition of Thomas Aquinas, the most famous Catholic
theologian) take a "developmental" view of personhood. On this
view, the early embryo only gradually develops into a full human
being, and thus is not entitled to the same ethical regard that we
give to persons. Let us note as well that, as a matter of natural course, something like half of fertilized eggs originating in a woman's body do not implant in her uterus, but instead die a natural death. If we viewed all of these eggs as persons with a sacred right to life, we would be ethically obligated to do what we can to "rescue" them by ensuring that they do implant. I find that pretty implausible. I assume you do too, Joanne.
Some religious perspectives are more compatible with embryonic stem
cell research than are others. Conceiving God as a transcendent
agent who implants a soul into the egg cell at the time of
fertilization leads to regarding embryonic stem cell research as
murder. However, a different religious perspective – acknowledging
God as immanent presence has different ethical implications.
Immanentism of a Spinozan or Buddhist or even intelligent design
kind can walk hand in hand with science, and with stem cell research
specifically. The ways in which stem cells "figure out" how to
become each of the specialized tissues is a story – gradually being
deciphered by science – that is as extraordinary in its own way as
any Biblical tale. Moreover, there exists a quite unobjectionable source of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. Several hundred thousand excess embryos are stored in our nation's IVF clinic freezers. Many of these embryos are of no use to the couples who own them, and are slated to be thrown away. A humane alternative is to use them to provide embryonic stem cells for biomedical inquiry. Again, thanks for your interest in all of this. If you're willing to continue this conversation, I'll be happy to consider seriously what you say and respond again. In fact, I hope you will indeed reply. If you believe your religious faith condemns embryonic stem
cell research, please explain that to me. This kind of
communication can help us all to deepen our understanding.

Best wishes,

Raymond xxxxxxxx Ph.D.
Berkeley, CA

[DinahMoeHum]

1. GOP - The party that loves fetuses and hates children.

:kick:

[DanCa]

2. Our slogan should be Democrats the party of human beings :D (nt)