Part 2: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

This is a continuation of Part 1: Embryonic Stem Cell Research and it is recommend to read the 1st part first.

To summarize, if you believe organ donation is morally right and in vitro fertilization as it is done presently is morally right then you ought to believe embryonic stem cell research can be morally acceptable. That's because organ donation takes advantage of people's deaths which happen regardless, which is comparable to how embryonic stem cell research takes advantage of the destruction of embryos; and in vitro fertilization results in embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways and thus provide a source of embryos.

In August 2001, President Bush stated he would permit federal funding for embryonic stem cell research using lines of stem cells from about 70 embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. Research involving new lines could not receive federal funding. The first thing to address is why this line of about 70 is not enough. Although theoretically the cells could divide ad infinitum, over time defects enter in, which is what happening. So, limiting research to just these 70 is causing problems in carrying out effective research.

Secondly, what did this compromise accomplish. I would say it accomplished nothing, not that in the world of politics things have to make sense to be done. The problem is that these stem cells are coming from destroyed embryos. Now if it alright to use these embryos from before a certain date then there is no reason why embryos couldn't be used from after that date as they are the same thing, embryos. If you can use embryos before date x, then why not day (x +1). And if you can use those from day (x +1), then why not (x+2)... Do moral laws change from day to day? No.

The reasoning behind this 'compromise ' was to ensure that embryos aren't created with the purpose to be destroyed for research. But in vitro fertilization is still going on, so there is still a source of embryos that are going to be destroyed that weren't created for the purpose of being destroyed. I will grant that care must be taken to ensure that the embryos used were created for the legitimate purpose to allow a couple to have children, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

The line Bush drew in the sand was pointless. It neither truly addressed the moral question nor does the scientific one. If the destruction of embryos is wrong then it took advantage of that wrongful act, and if it isn't then it hurt scientific research.

There are adult stem cells, why don't we use those? Basically, they're not as malleable as stem cells from embryos. What about stem cells from umbilical cords? I have to admit, this one perplexes me, since plenty of babies are born each day in the US which come with umbilical cords for free. Why don't we just use these and avoid all the controversy? Could it be all the Democrats who support embryonic stem cell research also abort all their babies and so they never get umbilical cords? Maybe, but probably not. (Yeah, I went there.)

So in conclusion, a belief in the moral rightness of organ donation and in vitro fertilization as done today necessitates a belief in the moral rightness of embryonic stem cell research. Bush's compromise of using a limited number of stem cell lines from before a certain date does nothing. (Actually, I have to take that back. It does appease some of the right wing even though it is illogical.) However, we should make sure the embryos used only were created without he intent to be implanted. But we could avoid controversy by using umbilical cords.

Part 1: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

The Senate voted today to approve funding for embryonic stem cell research. It passed 63 to 37, four votes shy of the two-third majority necessary to override a veto. President Bush is expected to veto it, as he said he would.

Do you believe that organ donation is right or wrong? In such cases, a person dies from some cause, and organs are taken from him or her, transplanted in other people in order to save their lives. The organs would go to waste if they weren't transplanted. The people are not killed for the purpose of providing organs. People are not raised for the purpose to have their organs harvested. That would be wrong.

How is stem cell research necessarily any different? To get the stem cells embryos have to die, but likewise for most organ transplants someone who is undeniably a living, human being has to die to get the organs. Just as it would be wrong to create people to harvest their organs, it would be wrong to create embyros to get stem cells. (It would also be wrong to get stem cells from abortions.) But, just like when a person dies incidentally, its okay to use their organs; it would be okay to use stem cells from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyways.

Where do these embryos come from that are going to be destroyed anyways. Well, they are left over from in vitro fertilization procedures which allow people who can't have children naturally to do so. So the real question you have to ask yourself is whether in vitro fertilization is morally acceptable. (Unless you believe organ donation is wrong, then you don't need to go further. But for everybody else...) I personally, don't have a problem with it, but I do question why to pay lots of money to create a child when you could just adopt. There are plenty of babies around the world, in the US and overseas, who are orphans and could use loving parents.

In in vitro fertilization more eggs are harvested than generally necessary because it is expensive to harvest them. Generally several embryos have to be implanted at a time with the hope that one will become a child, and this may have to be done many times until a child is born. Those embryos not used are frozen, and eventually destroyed. We certainly can't expect that the embryos are going to be kept frozen forever, for thousands upon thousands of years, so at some point they will die.

Another thing to consider is that the embryos from in vitro fertilization absolutely, 100% will never become babies or fetuses, etc., unless implanted. So, the destroying of the frozen embryos is different from abortion since abortion is the killing a fetus that would be born if not stopped. (These frozen embryos for stem cell research are blastocysts, of about 100 cells each.) We are not obligated to maximize the number of children born. Otherwise, every person when they become child bearing age would have to start trying to have children. Just because a woman has an egg in the right state to be fertilized doesn't mean she has to try to get it fertilized. Likewise, just because these embryos have been created with the purpose to become children doesn't mean they all have to be used.

Look for the next part on this controversial topic. In the mean time, consider if you think in vitro fertilization is right or wrong, and for that matter if organ donation is right or wrong. If you believe they're right, logically you would have to support embryonic stem cell research.