One of the face-to-face classes discussed “Is stem cell research a sin?” thinking it might be less emotionally loaded than the other life issues, such as abortion, in vitro fertilization, contraception, genetic engineering, and euthanasia. People obviously find it easier to speak about using some of the 100,000 or so embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that will be destroyed anyway. The hope was to get beyond bumper sticker slogans and name calling to the really tough issues. 

The problem has developed, because a great deal of past religious, moral, political, and medical wisdom believed each person is sacred and of equal worth so that none should ever be treated as a means or instrument.

Those on the right believe personhood is conferred by God at conception so that the embryo, fetus, and newborn must always be treated as a person, always an end, and never a means. Any exception leads to a slippery slope.

For instance, it extends to the self-centered individual and unaccountable group the license to kill which has previously been reserved for the state in cases of war and capital punishment.  They also claim it returns to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries, because it is willing to dispose of some life form evaluated as inferior. We often forget this was a very sophisticated program in the USA as well as Nazi Germany. Many Christian leaders advocated, among other things, sterilizing people on welfare. The right points out this resembles agricultural insemination of animals and plants, because it involves throwing away the inferior product.

Many on the right claim to do this is to “play God”. To make personhood a social construct or to use utilitarian norms in all ethical decisions inevitably leads to the accommodation of selfish human goals. We are not prepared or even inclined to set up significant indifferent oversight. Profit remains the determining factor. For instance, government studies always include “experts” who will profit from the research.

The primary argument from the left is that the research offers new ways to overcome human suffering, especially in its promise for new more efficient ways to overcome disease and injury. They ask how we can deny these benefits to people in need.

Their argument focuses on the dramatic changes in our situation. We are faced with critical problems such as overpopulation, which raise questions our forbearers could not foresee. Technology has made obsolete old concepts of what is “natural”. Medicine is constantly intervening in areas once regarded beyond human control. Everyone knows people close to them who have been helped. The left might acknowledge we are destroying some form of human life, but they do not believe this equates with the murder of a living person already engaged in social relationships

They insist ethical action always calls for the courage to do the best we can in the present situation. Having already given vast new powers to individuals and independent groups, we should be setting up methods for accountability. Not being able to foresee all the consequences of our actions, we should insure the correction of the bad ones. But beyond all that, we should be devoting our energies to the needs of persons living and suffering right now, rather than expending so much on arguments which are primarily academic.

Those who want a clear statement of the position from the right can turn to the Ramsey Colloquium’s response to the NIH. I find Gene Outka’s “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research” (I’ll attach to the “Just in Case” e-mail) to be a very thorough and thoughtful presentation of all the arguments. I tend to agree with Outka that Christians can assume human beings are morally capable and accountable, but must also acknowledge they inevitably exalt themselves, flaunt God, and manipulate others. Still he believes we can take a “nothing is lost” position in this issue, because the innocent will die in any case and other innocent life will be saved.  He still expresses great discomfort at the lack of oversight, the role of the profit motive, the government’s tendency of allowing too many decisions to be made by default, the question of affordability, and the prevalence of insurance company reasoning.

In some sense, the conclusion sidesteps the issues, because it deals with forms of life already slated for destruction. Still we have examined the basic arguments used in all the life issues. There is no doubt that we are going to be continually confronted with the challenges of the new technologies. And there is no doubt that we are not going to find a consensus about how to proceed. It is another area where we must proceed with faith in uncertain territory, being willing to “sin bravely” as we try to serve other people and relieve suffering. As much as we value the wisdom of the past we can not let it stand in the way of ministering to the situation in the present.