Correction Regarding the Isakson Stem Cell Bill

Last week I wrote in response to a Washington Times article about a bill (S. 30) sponsored by Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). According to the paper, the White House was in support of the bill which would allow federal funding for research on embryos deemed incapable of surviving in the womb.

A few minutes ago I received an email from Stand to Reason's Melinda Penner who, after reading my post, asked Scott Klusendorf for his take on the proposed legislation. Scott forwarded the following comments from National Right to Life:

[On April 11, the Senate will also vote on a second bill, S. 30, sponsored by Senators Norm Coleman (R-Mn.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), that would encourage federal funding for research into new ways to obtain different kinds of stem cells suitable for research, without harming human embryos. The Coleman-Isakson bill is titled the “Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act,” or “HOPE Act.” NRLC has no objection to S. 30.]

The Family Research Council offers further clarification:

Misleading reports claim that S. 30 would fund research on human embryos if they are "nonviable." In fact, S. 30 would fund all stem cell research, including both adult stem cells and stem cells that are "embryonic-like" so long as they are not derived from embryos that are harmed, placed at risk, or destroyed. The bill allows the funding of research on stem cells taken from naturally dead embryos--but not if their death was hastened in any way. We are neutral on S. 30 because, while it holds the ethical line, we want to be sure its safeguards are observed in practice.

I'm relieved to learn that the Times report was in error. I regret circulating misinformation and am grateful to Melinda and Scott for their help in clarifying the issue. Melinda has encouraged Scott to offer further analysis and explanation of the bill at Life Training Institute's blog so keep an eye out.

Wanted: Moral Clarity at the White House

The Washington Times reports that yesterday the White House expressed support for a bill that would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research using embryos deemed incapable of surviving in the womb and/or that have died during fertility treatments. The article applauds the bill, authored by Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, as one that "skirts moral concerns over using embryonic stem cells while ensuring federal funding for the breakthrough science."

A White House spokesman is quoted as saying that the Bush administration is "very supportive" of the legislation and that "By intensifying support for non-destructive alternatives, we can advance medical research in valuable ways while respecting ethical boundaries. But it's mistaken and/or misleading to describe the proposed legislation as a solution to the ethical problem of embryonic stem cell research. Experimentation on already dead embryos poses no problem. However, harvesting stem cells from living embryos is destructive in that it terminates the embryo's life. That the embryos are going to die anyway because they can't survive in the womb is ethically irrelevant. A consistently pro-life stance acknowledges the intrinsic value of every human life and rejects pleas to take innocent life on the grounds that death is inevitable and countless other lives could benefit.

There appears to be a puzzling inconsistency in the administration's thinking. As the article points out, President Bush last year vetoed a bill providing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because "he said taxpayers should not support research on embryos at fertility clinics, even if the embryos would otherwise be destroyed. Now he says that federal funding for destructive embryonic stem cell research is acceptable because the embryos to be used would otherwise be destroyed, only this time in the womb.

The Isakson bill is a compromise - a moral one.


Technorati Tags: embryonic stem cell research, stem cell research, stem cells, pro-life

Infanticide by Any Other Name

Scott Klusendorf shares his strategic response to the charge that the pro-life description of partial birth abortion is misleading, extremist rhetoric:

When critics call our descriptions of partial-birth abortion extreme, I first ask them to describe the procedure:


"Obviously, you must be an expert on partial-birth abortion to call my description medically inaccurate and extreme. So here is your chance to set the record straight. Why don’t you explain the procedure so those listening can hear for themselves where my description is extreme?"

Once the question is put like that, the game is up. Without exception, my critic either 1) doesn't know the specifics of the procedure, or 2) knows full well the specifics, but tries to dodge the question.

Read the whole thing to find out how he develops his argument.

Joe in WaPo

Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost fame is featured in a Washington Post article on evangelical bioethics and the web.

Is it just me or does Joe resemble Kevin Spacey?

What's the Difference Between Breast Reduction and Abortion?

Melinda Penner asks, illustrating the illogic of "pro-choice" reasoning.

Marginalized Voices in the Stem Cell Debate

Watch the mainstream media and you'll get the impression that disabled Americans are united in their support of embryonic stem cell research. James Kelly, who suffered a spinal cord injury in 1997, explains why he believes President Bush's veto of H.R. 810 is a cause for hope. (HT: bioethics.com)

Joni Eareckson Tada, a disability rights activist who has been a quadriplegic since suffering a spinal cord injury nearly 40 years ago, also supports the decision. This from LifeNews.com:

"People like me -- who are medically fragile -- are left vulnerable and exposed in a society that views human life as a commodity which can be experimented upon or exploited," she explained.

Tada said the disability community has another vested interest in the Presidential veto. Despite lack of reporting by the media, people with disabilities can be encouraged by recent and dramatic advancements in adult stem cell research, she said.

Adult cells may be more elastic than scientists previously thought and are offering short-cuts to treatment which embryonic cells cannot match. Over 70 medical conditions are either being treated using adult stem cell therapies or are presently in clinical trials. “I am grateful for the principled stand our President has taken, first and foremost because of the sanctity of human life, but also because restrictions on use of taxpayer dollars may well encourage funding in the overlooked and less commercially viable field of adult stem cell therapy," Tada explained.

Aborting Reason to Justify Killing

An excerpt from a NY Times editorial supporting the expansion of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research (my comments in italics):

"Therapeutic cloning involves the creation of embryos genetically matched to patients with specific diseases so that scientists can extract their stem cells and then study how the diseases develop and how best to treat them. The microscopic entities used in these studies may be called embryos but they have none of the attributes of humanity and, sitting outside the womb, no chance of developing into babies. "

None of the attributes of humanity? These embryos exhibit all the attributes of humanity at the embryonic stage of human development. By the Times' own admission, the embryos in question are clones, genetically matched to human patients. So how can they turn around and say that they have none of the attributes of humanity? To assert both that the embryos are human clones and that they are void of any of the attributes of humanity is to assert a contradiction.

What the editors really mean is that human embryos don't look like more mature humans. But this is no justification for killing them.

The Dispositional Decision

That's the term coined to refer to the decision in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients must make about what to do with their excess frozen embryos. A fascinating article in Mother Jones called Souls on Ice describes how the glut of cryogenically preserved in fertility clinics is forcing families and researchers to seriously reconsider their beliefs about when life begins, choice, and reproductive freedom.


The article highlights a study of 58 couples who gave birth to children conceived as a result of IVF and also had frozen embryos in storage (the average couple had seven embryos in storage with the average embryo having been in storage for four years). Dr. Robert Nachtigall, a reproductive endocrinologist at the University of California-SanFrancisco, led the study and "found that even in one of the bluest regions of the country, which is to say, among people living in and around San Francisco, few were able to veiw a three-day-old laboratory embryo with anything like detachment." Here are some other interesting quotes:

“I was like, ‘I created these things, I feel a sense of responsibility for them,’” is how one ivf patient put it. Describing herself as staunchly pro-choice, this patient found that she could not rest until she located a person—actually, two people—willing to bring her excess embryos to term. The presence of embryos for whom (for which?) they feel a certain undefined moral responsibility presents tens of thousands of Americans with a dilemma for which nothing—nothing—has prepared them.

Strikingly, Nachtigall found that even in one of the bluest regions of the country, which is to say, among people living in and around San Francisco, few were able to view a three-day-old laboratory embryo with anything like detachment. “Parents variously conceptualized frozen embryos as biological tissue, living entities, ‘virtual’ children having interests that must be considered and protected, siblings of their living children, genetic or psychological ‘insurance policies,’ and symbolic reminders of their past infertility,” his report noted. Many seemed afflicted by a kind of Chinatown syndrome, thinking of them simultaneously as: Children! Tissue! Children! Tissue!

For virtually all patients, [Nachtigall] found, the disposition decision was torturous, the end result unpredictable. “Nothing feels right,” he reported patients telling him. “They literally don’t know what the right, the good, the moral thing is.” In the fluid process of making a decision—any decision—some try to talk themselves into a clinical detachment. “Little lives, that’s how I thought about them,” said one woman. “But you have to switch gears and think, ‘They’re not lives, they’re cells. They’re science.’ That’s kind of what I had to switch to.”

“You weigh what’s best,” Nachtigall quoted one parent as saying, but what’s best is not, often, clear. This parent continued: “Are they people? Aren’t they people? In part of my mind, they’re potential people, but the point is, it seems odd to me to keep them frozen forever. It seems like not facing the issue.” A patient who had decided to donate embryos for research said, “We’ve agreed that it’s the right thing for us to do, but the final step is to get the forms notarized, and we haven’t done it. I will honestly say that it will be a day of mourning.”

The article notes that the overage of embryos has reached such proportions that companies now exist for the sole purpose of managing embryo inventory. Reading what Russell Bierbaum, the founder of one of these companies, had to say, illustrates why the church cannot afford to be ignorant of the bioethical issues involved in this and other reproductive technologies:

In a few instances, he says, he will take over abandoned embryos and attempt to track patients down. It is therefore people like ReproTech staff members—rather than, say, ministers or psychologists—who often are the ones discussing, with patients, fundamental questions touching on birth and death and life and reproduction, all the essential questions of humanity. “We end up being the counselors without the credentials,” acknowledges Bierbaum, “just answering the questions, being available.”

With the Senate debating whether to loosen restrictions on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research this week, this is especially timely reading. The folks at Stones Cry Out have put together a helpful list of their stem cell posts from the last year worth checking out too.

Are Pro-Lifers Consistent?

I disagree with his conclusions concerning the moral status of embryos but Slate founding editor Michael Kinsley is right to point out that a consistent pro-life position would object as much to the destructive practices of fertility clinics as to embryonic stem cell research.

As Kinsley notes, the process of in vitro fertilization (IVF) frequently involves the production of more embryos than will be implanted with the excess being either discarded or indefinitely frozen. Kinsley's assessment of this practice is inescapable:

In short, if embryos are human beings with full human rights, fertility clinics are death camps —with a side order of cold-blooded eugenics. No one who truly believes in the humanity of embryos could possibly think otherwise.

I've often wondered about this inconsistency. Those who are most vocal about the evil of abortion are often less so when it comes to embryonic stem cell research and, as Kinsley notes, relatively silent when it comes to the destructive methods used by most fertility clinics. Perhaps because reproductive technology such as IVF is considered "pro-family," we're not as critical of its practices as we should be, turning a blind eye to its many casualties. But this is to adopt an "ends justifies the means" mentality antithetical to pro-life logic. Might Kinsley be right when he states that the majority of opponents to embryonic stem cell research have never thought about this inconsistency or have thought about it and don't care?

To his credit, Mr. Kinsley, who describes himself as a strong believer in abortion rights, identifies the flaw in the reasoning most often presented to justify the destruction of huma embryos for the purpose of medical research:

Proponents of stem-cell research like to emphasize that it doesn't cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and it misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it's not OK to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway.

But then he says that a more devastating point is that if embryos are human beings, more of them are killed in fertility clinics than in stem cell research and no one objects very loudly. However, this is simply to point out an inconsistent application of the pro-life position, not to offer a sound argument in support of medical research that destroys human lives in the process.

Since we're on the subject of logical consistency, it should be noted that Mr. Kinsley commits a fallacy (or two) of his own. He claims that the fact that embryos are regularly created and destroyed in the course of nature makes it difficult for him to "make the necessary leap of faith to believe that an embryo and, say, Nelson Mandela, are equal in the eyes of God." This seems to be an implicit form of the naturalistic fallacy; reasoning from the way things are to the way things should be (or, as it is sometimes stated, arguing from the is to the ought). Since spontaneous abortions occur regularly, then it must be permissible for us to kill unborn children as well. But the consistent application of this way of thinking would also justify infanticide and other forms of murder since death at all stages of life is a natural phenomenon. Furthermore, I don't understand why Kinsley thinks that those who die earlier than others are somehow less valuable than those who survive them. Where's the logic in that?

Related:
Russell Moore - Nelson Mandela and the Frozen Embryo
JivinJ - Honesty-What Michael Kinsley is missing in the stem cell debate
Al Mohler - Has Kinsley Found Our Weak Spot? On the Logic of the Embryo

Non-scientific Motivations: James Sherely on Harvard's Stem Cell Plan

A few weeks ago I pointed to a Boston Globe editorial by M.I.T. biological engineer and Harvard graduate James Sherley in which he criticized Harvard's plan to attempt human embryo cloning for stem cell research on scientific and ethical grounds. In a recent interview with MercatorNet (HT: Mere Comments), he gives more reasons for his opposition and asks the most critical question. Some excerpts:

MercatorNet: As a world-renowned university, Harvard prides itself on the calibre of its cutting-edge academics, not only in science, but also ethics, theology and politics. But has the desire to maintain Harvard's reputation affected its ethical judgement?

Sherley: The public should demand to hear this question addressed by Harvard professors of ethics, politics, history of science, and economics and also by Harvard professors who have a dissenting view. They may be silent, muted, or unreported on the issue. The public needs to know which is the case. Surely, this revered faculty of original and independent thinkers, who recently cast out their President for his regressive prejudicial ideas, is not monolithic in its view on the moral status of human embryos and their treatment by Harvard scientists.

MercatorNet: You seem pretty convinced that human embryos are human beings. Can you explain briefly why?

Sherley: My answer is, "What else could they be -- aliens?" Scientists who want to conduct experiments with human embryos are quick to say what human embryos are not. I challenge them to tell the public what human embryos are. There is only one answer to this question, "living human beings."

MercatorNet: But why can't you convince your colleagues at Harvard and MIT of your point of view? What's the stumbling block?

Sherley: When scientists arrange their own press conferences to announce promises for the future that involve significant self-gain, let the public beware. The stumbling block is non-scientific motivations.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. And if you'd like to read my reaction to Harvard's stem cell initiative, I blogged about it here.

A Horrifying Vision

James Kelly, biotech writer for The Seoul Times, explains what changed his mind about backing embryonic stem cell research:

In 2002 I changed my stem cells course because of a horrifying vision – the image of millions of desperate and trusting humans holding plates of hope to an empty sky.

The actions of scientists have confirmed my course. While telling the American people that they only want "to keep all research options open," science and industry convinced the people of California to commit three billion dollars to ES cell research and human cloning – ten times the annual NIH budget for adult stem cell research. They're pursuing an additional billion dollars in public funds in both New York and Illinois, and another $750,000,000 from Wisconsin.  Under the guise of "keeping all options open," colossal resources are being siphoned away from practical and foreseeable causes for medical hope.

Kelly, who has testified before Congress and debated the late Christopher Reeve, has been paralyzed since 1997 and is Director of the Cures 1st Foundation in the US. His article reveals numerous ways that the public is purposefully misinformed and misled by backers of embryonic stem cell research. Here's an example:

One Washington-based science reporter, an avowed atheist, often writes that embryonic stem (ES) cells "can become every cell in the body." But he fails to mention that nine months of fetal development in the fetus are needed to do this. Nor does he report that ES cells matured in vitro (in a petri dish) tend to be genetically unstable and often function abnormally. Yet issues such as these determine whether publicly funded science leads to medical treatments in a foreseeable future, in a decade or two, or never.

Kelly has come to the conclusion that embryonic stem cells are of little practical worth for therapeutic purposes and gives ample support for his position. His thoughtful article should lead us to question who is really being anti-scientific and dispassionate. (HT: stem-cell-therapy.blogspot.com)

Veritas? Harvard's Stem Cell Initiative

Last night I read a press release announcing Harvard University's launch of a privately funded program that will create cloned embryos for the purpose of embryonic stem cell research. I wondered how the institution would handle the ethical controversy surrounding the procedure so I read this article in the Harvard Gazette. Doing so left me thinking how ironic it is that the school's seal bears the Latin word for "truth."

Consider the following quote from Lawrence Summers, Harvard's president:

While we understand and respect the sincerely held beliefs of those who oppose this research, we are equally sincere in our belief that the life-and-death medical needs of countless suffering children and adults justifies moving forward with this research.

Notice, Summers didn't identify the beliefs he claims to understand and respect. Nor did he attempt to offer any reasons why those beliefs are false. He, like many other backers of embryonic stem cell research simply evaded the issue of greatest importance - the moral status of the human embryo.

What's more troubling, however, is that a leader of a renowned intellectual center would suggest that the sincerity with which one holds a belief is sufficient warrant for holding it. Instead of offering a rational justification for Harvard's actions, Summers essentially says, "We're as convinced that we are right as our opponents are that we're wrong." So much for debate and moral discourse. What kind of example is Summers giving Harvard's young scholars when he engages in this kind of rhetoric?

Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute didn't fare any better in his attempt to address the ethical issue:

But Melton responds that "all human cells, even individual sperm and eggs, are 'living.' The relevant question is 'when does personhood begin?' That's a valid theological or philosophical question, but from the scientific perspective, this work holds enormous potential to save lives, cure diseases, and improve the health of millions of people. The reality of the suffering of those individuals far outweighs the potential of blastocysts that would never be implanted and allowed to come to term even if we did not do this research," he said.

Melton tries to blunt the force of the fact that harvesting an embryo's stem cells inevitably results in its death by likening it to any other somatic cell. But this is misleading. Yes, it's true that human cells are alive but the crucial difference between an embryo and a sperm or egg cell is that the embryo is a complete human being - not simply a part. In order to escape this, Melton evokes the artificial distinction between a human being and a person, saying that this is the relevant question. The inescapable conclusion of reasoning like Melton's is that human life has no inherent value. It is whatever qualities he thinks a human being must possess in order to qualify as a person that are actually valuable. And, of course, this has troubling consequences for more members of our species than just the preborn.

If you pay careful attention to Melton's comments, you'll also note the frequently observed attempt to trump philosophy and theology with science. Sure, philosophy and theology may ask some valid questions but they don't deal with reality like science does. Melton contrasts the philosophical/theological issue of when personhood begins with the scientific fact (?) that embryonic stem cell research holds great potential for finding cures for millions. Improving the lives of this number outweighs the cost of destroying nascent individuals. But note that this is not a scientific but an ethical (and thus, philosophical) assertion.

I'm thinking Harvard needs a new seal...again.

A Clone by Any Other Name

Someone in our congregation emailed me requesting information about the ethical issues related to stem cell research. One of his coworkers has been absent from work due to cardiac complications and his fellow employees are trying to raise money for him to undergo treatment that involves stem cells of some sort. To his credit, the gentleman in our church wanted clarification before he made a contribution. This request serves as a vivid reminder of why it's important for Christians to be aware of the ethical issues that accompany advances in medical technology. The following is an edited excerpt from my reply:

Before I made a financial contribution toward stem cell therapy, I'd want to know what kind of stem cell treatment is involved.

There are two methods for acquiring these cells which have the unique ability to transform into various kinds of tissue. The ethically controversial method involves harvesting the desired cells from human embryos produced by cloning or provided by fertility clinics (embryos created for the purpose of reproduction but no longer wanted by their parents).

What's referred to as therapeutic cloning requires taking a female egg, removing its nucleus, and replacing it with the genetic material of the person to be treated. By means of electrochemical stimulation, this cell begins the process of cellular division and is essentially an embryonic clone of the donor. Given the proper environment it would progress through the stages of maturation as would any other embryo.

Advocates of this method refer to it as therapeutic cloning because it involves the cloning of an individual in order to potentially cure him or her of a disease. Proponents contend that while it would be unethical to allow this embryo to come to full term (reproductive cloning), it's morally acceptable to destroy it in its earliest stages in order to benefit others suffering from various diseases. However, this is merely to justify taking some human lives in order to improve others.

In contrast to embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells are produced in various parts of our bodies and can be obtained without taking human life. I would have no problem supporting therapy involving these.

For more information about stem cell research, I encourage you to read an article offered by the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity called "Stem Cell Research and 'Therapeutic' Cloning: A Christian Analysis." It's written in a Q & A format and isn't very long. It will not only help you to make an informed decision about your participation in this situation but will also serve to equip you to confidently engage your coworkers on this important topic.

In an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times, Michael Gazzaniga, the director of Dartmouth's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, castigates President Bush for requesting that Congress "pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms." Gazzaniga takes issue with the President's referring to both therapeutic (or what he calls "biomedical") and reproductive cloning as egregious abuses. While he presumably thinks that such a description is fitting for the former kind of cloning, he finds it completely inappropriate for the latter. President Bush's characterization "makes it sound as if the medical community is out there cloning people, which is simply not true." Oh?

You'll have to read Gazzaniga's article for yourself but I find it quite confusing and contradictory. On one hand he denies that scientists are cloning people while acknowledging that both the products of reproductive and biomedical cloning are.....clones! For crying out loud, the article's title is "All Clones Are Not the Same!" If, as Gazzaniga claims, medical researchers are not cloning people, one wonders what exactly is being cloned? He writes that "the phrase 'in all its forms' is code, a way of conflating very different things: reproductive cloning and biomedical cloning." But in actuality, what makes reproductive and biomedical cloning differ is not the product or process but the intent of those doing the cloning. Concerning the oxymoron of so-called therapeutic cloning, Amy Coxon notes:

...there is absolutely no difference in the scientific techniques used to accomplish - or the embryonic human beings produced - via therapeutic cloning or the cloning of a human being for other purposes. The idea that an "organism" created by cloning is a "new type of biological entity never before seen in nature" is an attempt by scientists to hide the truth of this new technology behind scientific jargon. Instead of calling this cloned organism an embryo, which is precisely what it is, scientists have labeled it an "activated egg." This is again manipulation of terminology with the hope of deceiving the public. In fact, the term "therapeutic cloning" itself is used to deceive the general public into believing that human cloning is acceptable and beneficial in certain medical circumstances. With the media's and the scientific community's frequent misuse of scientific terminology, it is crucial that we as Christians correctly discern the meanings behind this terminology. If we do not take steps to understand the science, we cannot defend our position in an educated manner and therefore will have no public voice on these issues.

Gazzaniga says that in 2002, he and the other members of the President's Council on Bioethics "voted unanimously to ban reproductive cloning--the kind of cloning that seeks to replicate a human being." He goes on to say that this kind of cloning has not been attempted and is not in the works. But this is misleading. In an attempt to derive embryonic stem cells compatible with a diseased person's system, a procedure known as somatic cell nuclear transfer is performed. This involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized egg with a somatic cell from the patient. Cellular division is then stimulated so that eventually stem cells can be harvested from the embryonic clone which is destroyed in the process. Regardless of the absence of intent to allow the clone to mature into subsequent stages, the fact remains that it is a human clone.

If there is anything with which I agree with Dr. Gazzaniga about it's that at the heart of the moral debate surrounding biomedical cloning is a clash of ideas about what it means to be human. According to Gazzaniga, President Bush's concept of what constitutes humanness is "nonsensical" and "a form of the 'DNA is destiny' story." To the contrary, he asserts, "...all modern research reveals that DNA must undergo thousands if not millions of interactions at both the molecular and experiential level to grow and develop a brain and become a person. It is the journey that makes a human, not the car."

When they're not accusing opponents of embryonic stem cell research of being dispassionate, they're accusing us of being unscientific. However, if you pay close attention to what Dr. Gazzaniga is saying, you'll see that his case does not rest on scientific conclusions but on a functionalist view of humanness or personhood. The distinction that Gazzaniga would like to make is a philosophical not a scientific one. The claim that only those members of the human species that have a brain functioning at a certain level count as human beings or persons is not one that can be verified or falsified by means of empirical inquiry. Furthermore, Gazzaniga's analogy between the earliest stage of human development and a vehicle is faulty. Regardless of how long a drive I take, it will never be true that I was a car. However, it is true that I was once an embryo.

Concluding his essay, Gazzaniga writes:

In his State of the Union speech, President Bush went on to observe that "human life is a gift from our creator-and that gift should never be discarded, devalued or put up for sale." Putting aside the belief in a "creator," the vast majority of the world's population takes a similar stance on valuing human life. What is at issue, rather, is how we are to define "human life." Look around you. Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else?

Most humans practice a kind of dualism, seeing a distinction between mind and body. We all automatically confer a higher order to a developed biological entity like a human brain. We do not see cells, simple or complex-we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. It doesn't yet have the memories and loves and hopes that accumulate over the years. Until this is understood by our politicians, the gallant efforts of so many biomedical scientists, as good as they are, will remain only stopgap measures.

The tiny cloned embryo in the petri dish may be void of memories, loves, and hopes. But then again, so are newborns. What conclusions would Dr. Gazzaniga have us draw from that?

Christmas in the Biotech Century

Nigel Cameron reflects on what "and the Word became flesh" really means at Christianity Today's Life Matters Blog reminding us that the incarnation didn't begin at Jesus' birth:

God took human form; and he took it not simply as a baby, but as the tiniest of all human beings, a mere biological speck, so small and so undeveloped that it could be mistaken for a laboratory artifact, a research specimen, an object for human experimentation. But this speck was God; this complete genetic human organism, in its primitive and undeveloped form, was so much "one of us" as to bear the existence of the Creator. He dignified humanity by taking the form of this creature he had made in his image; and he did it at the most inauspicious and feeble point in the human life story. At the heart of the Christmas celebration lies the fact of all facts, that God became a zygote.

Bad Press for Planned Parenthood

Peggy Jo Connor allegedly beat her pregnant friend and neighbor with a baseball bat, led her into a wooded area, and sliced her abdomen open in an attempt to steal her unborn child. When I learned of this grizzly crime on this morning's Good Morning America, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the text at the bottom of the screen read something along the lines of "Woman Tries to Steal Unborn Baby" (emphasis mine). I've come to expect network coverage of such stories to refer to the unborn as a fetus so as to avoid personalizing and humanizing him or her but that wasn't the case here and I was glad.

Curious, I decided to search Google's news engine for the accused's name to see how other news sources were describing the crime. I was further surprised to find that most of them also referred to the life in the mother's womb as either a baby or a child.  Just for the heck of it I decided to search for the phrase "unborn baby" at Planned Parenthood's site. The sole result was a letter from Planned Parenthood to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt objecting to the content of a HHS website including its allegedly "anti-choice" language. Among PP's complaints:

In its definition of menstruation, the website states that "if the egg is fertilized, this lining will nourish and protect the unborn child." "Unborn child" is not medically correct language; embryo or fetus would be accurate.

The website defines abortion as "ending a pregnancy before a live birth occurs by removing the fetus or unborn baby from the uterus." Again, there is an agenda inherent in the language used.

Understand that Planned Parenthood is simply seeking to be neutral and unbiased in their insistence upon the use "medically correct language." Planned Parenthood would have us believe that "unborn child" and "fetus" are mutually exclusive categories which is as inane as claiming that it's incorrect to refer to an octogenarian as an adult. I wonder if Planned Parenthood would object to calling unborn humans "offspring." That is, after all, the meaning of the Latin word from which the English word "fetus" is derived.

CT's New "Life Matters" Blog

Christianity Today has launched a new life ethics weblog called Life Matters, featuring Dr. Nigel Cameron. They describe it as, "a weekly roundup of news and commentary on issues of life: creating it, ending it, enhancing it, and treating it properly."

Frist's Folly: How Does He Do It?

This morning in a reply to a friend who expressed her appreciation for the title of last Friday's post about Senator Bill Frist, I mentioned that I still can't get over how contorted his reasoning is. I also commented that I don't know how the man can sleep with all that cognitive dissonance ricocheting around. 

Christianity Today's Stan Guthrie shares his own wonderment at the senator's "marvelous burst of logical and moral incoherence." Commenting on the Mr. Frist's affirmation that he is pro-life and that the human embryo "deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect," Guthrie asks, "In other words, treating human embryos with 'the utmost dignity and respect' includes killing them for research—as long as that killing is done 'within ethical bounds.' That's pro-life?"

Guthrie concludes his appropriately titled article, "Frist's Folly", with this important reminder:

Finally, Frist's flip-flop reminds Christians that we cannot rely on any political party—even one officially "pro-life"—to always make moral (or even logical) decisions. While we may make temporary alliances with this politician or that, ultimately we do not belong to any party. We belong to Jesus Christ.

Bill Frist Supports the Destruction of Human Life AND Logic

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's decision to support a bill to expand federal financing for embryonic stem cell research is all over today's news. Frist professes to be pro-life and says that it's a "fact of science" that an embryo is "nascent human life." From the other side of his mouth, however, he says, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."

Mr. Frist insists that the bill provides an ethical framework because federal monies would only be used to fund research on embryos that would otherwise be discarded. It seems to me that if the senator were consistent with his stated belief that conception marks the beginning of a distinct human life, he'd be opposed to all forms of embryonic destruction. It shouldn't matter whether they're thrown out like yesterday's trash or experimented on for the noble cause of seeking cures for terrible diseases. In either case, a defenseless human life is being terminated unnecessarily.

Mr. Frist would have us believe that it's ethical to kill an innocent person who was going to be killed anyway as long as it's for the greater good. I'm sure he wouldn't want to state it that plainly but when you excise the euphemistic rhetoric that's what you're left with.

Illinois Governor Orders Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich pulled a fast one this week reminiscent of Mayor Richard Daley's decision to bulldoze Meigs Field under the cover of darkness. The governor's decision is more grave, however, as it will result in the taking of human lives and that at the expense of taxpayers opposed to having their money used to fund such actions.

On Tuesday, Gov. Blagojevich issued an executive order earmarking 10 million dollars of the state's 55 million dollar budget for stem cell research, including that which requires the destruction of human embryos. The Chicago Tribune (free registration required) reports that Blagojevich asserted that his was the "morally right" decision and quotes the Democratic governor as saying that he is prepared for any backlash he receives as a result of it: "So whatever criticism and remarks that come my way--and I suspect there will be a firestorm of criticism because I'm using executive power--I enthusiastically embrace it. I feel very good about this decision." Frankly, I don't care how the governor feels about his decision. I'm interested in hearing his reasons for believing, as he surely must, that embryonic human life is not deserving of protection.

The Trib article describes the governor's underhanded methodology:

The governor's order follows the defeat of several stem-cell research measures in the spring session of the legislature. The most ambitious plan, pushed by state Comptroller Dan Hynes, proposed increasing taxes on cosmetic surgery to raise $100 million for research.

Although Blagojevich opposed Hynes' proposed tax increase, he supported allocating more money for stem-cell research, and the two hatched the plan to plug the $10 million into the $55 million budget that took effect July 1.
The money was added as a single line item to the budget of the Illinois Department of Public Health and was listed as being "for scientific research," without mentioning stem cells.

In a response to the governor's order, Peter LaBarbera, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute writes, "The governor has done an end-run around the legislative process to fund research that advances a utilitarian agenda in which the end justifies the means."

Sarah Flashing (yes, the Intellectuelle ), Director of Public Relations for the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, issued the following press release today:

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) strongly denounces Gov. Blagojevich's executive order to fund embryonic stem cell research through the creation of the Illinois Regenerative Institute for Stem Cell Research with 10 million Illinois taxpayer dollars.

"Though it's commendable to want to help those who are suffering debilitating diseases and injuries, it is unconscionable to do so at the expense of other human lives," said Dr. John Kilner, president of CBHD. "This is an imposition of morally problematic research on the citizens of Illinois. The people have already spoken through the democratic process- legislation to promote this research failed in the General Assembly. Stem cell research can be pursued ethically by focusing research on adult stem cells, including cord blood cells."

Dr. C. Ben Mitchell, Senior Fellow at CBHD said, "The governor's action is not only morally reprehensible, but should be a signal to every Illinois voter. If he will not protect the most vulnerable among us, he cannot be trusted to protect the rest of us."

Gov. Blagojevich's executive order comes on the eve of CBHD's 12th Annual Bioethics Conference, Genetics and Reproductive Ethics, to be held July 14- 16, 2005 on the campus of Trinity International University in Deerfield, IL. A media reception will be held on Thursday, July 14th, from 5 to 6 p.m. Details can be obtained by calling 847.317.4097. Speakers for the Bioethics Conference include Leon Kass, head of the President's Council on Bioethics and Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. Other speakers such as Princeton University's Robert George will explain why the embryos destroyed in embryonic stem cell research should be recognized and treated as the human beings they are. Other conference topics will include reproductive and genetic technologies, cloning, and embryo adoption.

Since Governor Blagojevich is prepared for criticism, I hope Illinois readers won't disappoint him. You can contact his office via the web or by calling (217) 782-0244 or (312) 814-2121.

Stem Cell Debate Myths

In today's Chicago Tribune, editorial board member Steve Chapman identifies misinformation widely disseminated by proponents of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). We're probably all familiar with the argument that rather than discarding 400,000 frozen, "surplus" embryos in fertilization clinics we should use them for potentially life-saving research. Chapman notes, however:

The truth is that most of them are anything but "surplus." According to a 2003 survey by researchers at the RAND Corp., a California think tank, 88 percent of them are being stored for their original function: to make babies for their parents. (See How Many Frozen Human Embryos are Available for Research.)
Just 2.2 percent of the embryos have been designated for disposal and less than 3 percent for research. The latter group amounts to about 11,000 embryos.

Chapman points out that given this significantly smaller number, embryo adoption is not as far-fetched an idea as ESCR advocates would have us believe.
The RAND study concluded that the 11,000 embryos would yield no more than 275 stem cell lines, far less than the "hundreds of thousands" of lines (derived from millions of embryos) that may be required according to a Scientific American article. I fear Chapman is right about the reason ESCR advocates pushed for the federal bill recently passed by the House. I also agree with his concluding note of caution:

....they want Americans to get used to the idea of destroying human embryos in research. Then it will be a small step to get the public to accept what they really want--creating human life in order to destroy it.
Maybe most Americans will support creating vast farms of tiny embryos that will be culled like cattle for their stem cells. But if that's where this train is going, we ought to know it before we get on board.