Hush, Hush, Speak if You Dare
When (and where) does human life begin?
A rather remarkable debate is playing itself out in the public square among those opposed to abortion as the Bush administration struggles with the question of whether research using stem cells taken from pre-embryos should be funded by the federal government. Almost all the players, with the exception of the Catholic bishops, seek to distance the discussion from the abortion debate. Advocates of legal abortion don't want to offend groups that support stem cell research as the potential answer to such diseases as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes. The conventional wisdom holds that the surest way to kill permissive regulations is for abortion-rights supporters to weigh in vigorously with any analogy to abortion. Patients and patient advocates are single-mindedly focused on the benefits that cures or treatments for currently fatal or debilitating diseases would bring--the moral status or rights of pre-embryos, or blastocysts, is not in their line of vision.
For those opposed to legal abortion at all stages of pregnancy and for almost all reasons, the moral status of even primitive embryos is as easy to see as the large print edition of the daily newspaper. Those anti-abortion legislators who are inclined to support pre-embryonic stem cell research need to find a reason to support such research that does not undermine their foundational belief that fetuses--from the moment of conception--are persons with an inviolable right to life.
First, some background. According to AP science writer Paul Recer, stem cells are "biological building blocks. They are the ancestral cells for all the body's tissue. Stem cells…evolve into the heart, lung, skin and all the other organs in the body." Researchers hypothesize that stem cells could be used to cure diseases that involve cell damage or cells that fail to repair themselves. Privately funded research has shown promise with the use of both adult and pre-embryonic stem cells, although pre-embryonic cells are considered more flexible and thus more promising.
The arguments of those opposed to abortion have been best received when the examples are related to late-term abortion, where the images of fetuses that look like babies and are sometimes viable compete with images of seemingly less-vulnerable women. |
While embryonic stem cells have been obtained from both fertility and abortion clinics, the most commonly used cells are extracted from 4- to 7-day-old pre-embryos created outside the uterus for use in fertility treatment. The pre-embryos used are slated to be discarded as they are in excess of those needed for treatment and have been obtained with the permission of the couple who created them. Under rules issued by the Clinton administration in August 2000, the NIH can fund research using stem cells, but not the extraction of the cells from the pre-embryos. So if the researchers could obtain the stem cells from privately funded sources, their work could be federally financed. In an attempt to avoid the abortion debate, every effort was made to separate the stem cells from aborted fetuses and from the process of extraction.
Extracting stem cells results in the death/destruction of the pre-embryo. And that is the problem for abortion opponents, including those who are on record as supporting a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would declare the fetus a person from the moment of conception. In spite of this, a number of abortion opponents in Congress have become strong supporters of stem cell research, although it results in the destruction of pre-embryos whom up to now they have considered persons--and none of them has indicated any change in their position on abortion or the status of the fetus.
How have they come to this position? For the most part, they have relied on variations on the theory of the greater good--or lesser evil. Since the pre-embryos would have been destroyed anyway, they say why not allow some good to come of their destruction. In a television interview, Senator Orrin Hatch noted that support for stem cell research was "the most prolife position" because it could save millions of lives.
In addition, they have moved from the relatively absolutist position that personhood begins with conception and adopted the view held by many that the value of fetal life increases with the passage of time. The arguments of those opposed to abortion have been best received when the examples are related to late-term abortion, where the images of fetuses that look like babies and are sometimes viable compete with images of seemingly less-vulnerable women. The debate about stem cell research puts before us pre-embryos, entities that bear no resemblance to babies and are comprised of fewer than 200 cells. Listen to former Senator Connie Mack when asked by Tony Snow when life begins: "I believe life begins at conception…but it depends on how one defines conception. Initially we said that conception…took place in the uterus. We're talking about embryos that in fact have been created in petri dishes."
Or Senator Orrin Hatch: "You know, I'm against generalized abortion, but searching my conscience I just cannot equate a child living in the womb, a child with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart with an embryo about to be taken from a freezer."
These images compete with images of adults as well as children desperately suffering from debilitating and incurable diseases. While induced abortions do not take place in such early pregnancies at this time, the debate is extended and the concept of competing values is introduced.
The long-term question is whether the delicate balancing act being performed by those who oppose abortion--who have decided that early embryos are not equal in value to sick people--will open the way for them to consider whether other embryos might have less value than pregnant women who are threatened by a range of physical and social problems that lead them to seek abortions. After all, over 50 percent of abortions in the US occur in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, and over time abortions induced by medication very early in a pregnancy should be less cumbersome than the current RU-486 regimen.
Another important change that the debate about stem cell research might make is to knock the Catholic bishops off the moral high ground they currently occupy in the minds of anti-abortion legislators. First, the absolutism of the bishops has already caused some consternation among legislators and social commentators. Secondly, those legislators such as Hatch and Mack who have come to support stem cell research have immersed themselves in both the facts and the ethical theory. They have been shocked to find the spokesperson for the Catholic bishops engaged in "fudging" on both accounts. On Fox News, Connie Mack said of the bishops' spokesperson: "I think he's painted a rather inaccurate picture."
The quality of the debate on stem cell research and the thoughtful and respectful way Senator Hatch in particular has dealt with the issue are encouraging. One can only hope that a similar discourse on abortion will be possible as a result of this exercise.