Bio-Ethics: Embyonic Stem-Cell Research Unmasked

“Understanding the Embryonic Stem-Cell Research Debate”

I. Scriptural Foundations for Proceeding:

A. Before we begin, I actually want you to read through the last section of this newsletter(“Closing Comments” -- included above if you're on the blog-site). This will appropriately set the stage for understanding the Biblical approach to ethics. Embryonic stem-cell research entails a serious moral wrong because it involves a form of killing that the Scriptures do not provide for, that being basic murder (“the unlawful killing of a human being by another”).
B. Do the Scriptures touch on the issue of embryonic stem-cell research? The Bible does not explicitly address the hot-button topic of embryonic stem-cell research; in fact, you’ll not find those words (“E.S.C.R.” or “embryo”) throughout the pages of Scripture. On a related note, you’ll not find the word “Trinity,” although God, as a Triune Being, is a valid Biblical concept.
C. The Bible has plenty to say, however, about human beings; furthermore, if we can show that the embryo is an example of a human being, then we have the appropriate connection.
D. Go ahead and read Genesis 1:26-27; Exodus 20:13; James 3:1ff. [notice in this passage the reasoning as to why we should not “curse” our brothers, and its connection to Genesis 1:26-27]

-//-

II. Important Definitions for You to Understand:

EMBRYO -- the human organism during the 1st 8 weeks of gestation (i.e., from
conception until approx. the 8th week); after week 8, it is called the fetus (or is
considered to be in the fetal stage of the pregnancy);

EMBRYONIC STEM-CELLS -- stem-cells are just the "root" cells that are believed to produce tissue and major organs (your heart & lungs, for example, are said to have come from a group of stem-cells);

-//-

III. Landscape/Background:

A. There are nearly 500,000 embryos in storage in the U.S. that were produced during in-vitro fertilization procedures.
(1) The parents had the I.V.F. (in-vitro fertilization) cycles done and so get enough embryos for them [in light of their infertility problems]; those that are left over are then referred to as "embryos in excess of clinical need";
(2) What should we do with the “extras?” Should we give them up for adoption? Should we donate them to research?? How about putting them down the sink??? Is that a valid option, considering that the embryo is roughly the size of a pinhead? It’s too small to be valuable, right?
(3) Thousands of people suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson’s, diabetes, or Alzheimer’s (like Michael J. Fox & Mary Tyler Moore). It is claimed that the furtherance of embryonic stem-cell research (which we will now refer to as E.S.C.R.) could hold lots of promise for these types of patients;
(4) We now have the means to get the ball rolling with this E.S.C.R. thing . . . so . . . what’s the big deal???

B. Questions:
(1) “What stance should we take on this issue?”
(2) “Should the Church even take a stand here; if so, how?”
(3) “Does Scripture address the issue of E.S.C.R. or the status/nature of the embryo?”

*This issue is vitally important . . . you’ll see why below!!*

IV. The BIG Question . . .

!!To be quite honest, all the complexities of this issue can be boiled down to just ONE QUESTION. I will illustrate this below!!

Mommy, Can I Pleeeaaassseee Kill This???

Imagine this scene:

You’re in the kitchen washing dishes and gazing at two feeding hummingbirds through the window in front of you . . . suddenly, you hear the door (behind you) open and the voice of your 6 yr.-old son asks: “Mommy (or Daddy) – can I kill this?” Now without turning around, what is the 1st thing you’re going to say? Do you ask, “Will it solve your crisis?” Do you ask, “Will it make you happy?” Do you possibly ask, “What is it? What is that ‘thing’ that you desire to kill?” You would ask the latter question, would you not? Any rational person would have to ask the question “what is it?” before daring to utter a premature “yes” or “no” to a question involving death. What if your son says that he wants to kill a roach? What if he asks to kill Morris, your neighbor’s cat? What if you turn around to see your 3 yr.-old daughter in a headlock? You see, you can’t answer the question “can I kill this?” until you answer a logically prior question . . . that being “what is it?”! When you add to this the fact that E.S.C.R. entails the death of embryos, we need to ask ourselves what the embryo actually is before we mumble a mere “yes” or “no” in determining whether or not we can kill it for the sake of research.

What can we learn from this illustration?

[1] E.S.C.R. is not wrong . . . IF it doesn’t entail taking the life of a human being (without Biblical justification); but if it DOES entail taking the life of a human being in a way not provided for in the Bible, then no so-called “justification” (no matter how emotionally compelling it may seem) can be valid.

[2] E.S.C.R. may indeed help an Alzheimer’s patient or a 5 yr.-old suffering from juvenile diabetes, but alleviating the painful suffering of these people does not justify killing human beings in order to deal with that predicament. The Church should care about helping to alleviate the painful suffering of these folks (no question), but not at the expense of ending human life in order to do so.

[3] The end doesn’t justify the means guys! That’s the lie of pragmatism that we’re drowning in whereas modern-day America is concerned. Let me illustrate a pitfall of “pragmatism” another way:

I have bills to pay, and paying those bills on time is a very good thing. At the same time, I cannot rob a bank in order to get the $$$ to pay those bills. Why??? Simply put, the act of robbing a bank is a moral wrong itself. If the end justifies the means, then let’s go ahead and allow E.S.C.R. to continue . . . just don’t complain when you see my name in the Sheriff’s report next Thursday for robbing a bank!! If you do complain upon seeing my name in that report, you become inconsistent and arbitrary in your thinking. That’s not a good thing! :~}

-//-


V. The Process Described & the Problem Defined:
A. Question – “What, exactly, does the embryonic stem-cell research process entail?”

B. Answer –
1. The embryonic stem-cell research process entails removing the embryo’s stem-cells (remember – these stem-cells are the root cells which are said to produce tissue and major organs such as a heart and a pair of lungs) from the embryo (an embryo, if you’ll recall, is the human organism in the 1st eight weeks of gestation, prior to the fetal stage) for the purpose of scientific experimentation and medical research. It is said that the findings of E.S.C.R. could very well hold potential benefits for certain people who suffer from various debilitating diseases.
2. The stem-cells are removed from the embryo, and then “manipulated” in a sense, causing them to reproduce in what is known as a stem-cell line. These stem-cell lines are then taken and injected into the brain tissue of a Parkinson’s patient (this is merely one example), with hopes of stimulating/regenerating new tissue growth in that Parkinson’s patient.

3. Many patients, however, have experienced rejection problems; this is due to the D.N.A. in the stem-cells differing from their own D.N.A.. At this point, “cloning” enters the whole E.S.C.R. debate. To avoid host rejection problems, talk has begun of cloning oneself for “therapeutic purposes.” You may not hear the word “cloning,” but you will hear of “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” which equates to cloning at the end of the day. If the term “cloning” was used by folks like Ron Reagan there would be more of an outcry from the general public. In this case, a “somatic” cell (let’s say a skin cell) can be taken from your hand and your D.N.A. extracted from that skin cell. That D.N.A. is then injected into an enucleated egg, which is basically an ovum with the D.N.A. taken out (i.e., the pre-existing D.N.A. is taken out of the egg, after which your D.N.A. is inserted in its place). After this, some chemicals are added to the newly nucleated egg, then it is zapped with energy; subsequently, it starts to divide. Low & behold, we now have an embryo. At this point, the stem-cells can be removed for research purposes.
4. In both cases, however, the problem lies here: when you remove the stem-cells from the embryo, the embryo no longer has any stem-cells of its own to develop its own body. So, in EVERY case of E.S.C.R., an embryo dies. When the death of something is in question, what has to be our primary question?? [note the “Mommy, Can I Kill This?” illustration] When we’re dealing with the death of a living organism, we would do well to figure out what that living organism actually is, right? Right!! So . . . what is the embryo???

C. At this point, someone is bound to say: “But no one knows when life begins!” First, how would this person “know” that statement? To this, we can reply with the following simple argument:

1. If the embryo is growing, it must be alive . . .
[a] living things exhibit 3 characteristics:
{1} cellular reproduction (they grow);
{2} conversion of food to energy;
{3} reaction to stimuli;
[b] these 3 characteristics are present even in the embryo;
[c] embryologists, therefore, don’t question whether or not the embryo is
living;

2. If it has human parents (which it does), then it must be human; after all, living things reproduce after their own kinds, right? Two human beings have never produced a reptile, have they? You see my point!
[a] the embryo also has it’s own D.N.A. structure (a “human” D.N.A.
structure at that), thereby showing it to be a “whole,” not just “part” of
a larger organism; in fact, the embryo is on its own trajectory of
development . . . that is, it wants to eventually “get out” of its mother’s
body;

3. Human beings are not to be killed unjustly (i.e., for reasons not provided for in the Bible), are they?

***This is a fast, simple case for the “humanity” of the unborn. The embryo is clearly part of the human family!***

VI. The S-L-E-D Test . . . [most objections to your position will fall into one of the 4 following categories]

Abraham Lincoln, during the days when slavery was being debated, warned of the dangers of “grounding” human value (an imputed value, not even an intrinsic one, according to Scripture) in a characteristic or acquired trait within a human being. When people do this, said Lincoln, it’s going to be a loser every time as that brand of thinking is bound for failure. He illustrated this in his writing by creating an “imaginary” debate opponent for the sake of making his point.

He said:

“You [the opponent] say that ‘A’ is white and ‘B’ is black . . . it is color then . . . the lighter having the right to enslave the darker . . . but take care, for by this standard you may become a slave to someone who has a fairer skin than your own! It is not a question of color then, you say, but rather one of intellect . . . but take care again, for by this standard you may become a slave to another who has an intellect that is superior to your own. No, you say – it is not a question of intellect, but one of interest . . . take care once more, though, for if you can make it your interest to enslave another, then one can make it his interest to enslave you.”

Lincoln was no idiot, and so took some of the more popular arguments of his day (against the abolition of slavery) to their logical conclusions. When you ground human value in a certain characteristic or acquired trait (such as form [skin color or appearance] or function [matters of development or intellect]), you have jumped into dark waters. That is to say, when you say “these human beings who have such & such . . . they’re valuable . . . but the ones who don’t have it . . . too bad, they’re not so valuable and they don’t count,” you cross a barrier that was never meant to be crossed!! “Woe to those,” Isaiah the prophet of God said, “who call right wrong and wrong right . . . who call sweet bitter and bitter sweet . . . who call light darkness and darkness light . . . woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” “WOE” means watch-out, danger right ahead for those who disregard this truth!

If you take issues like form, function, size, and intellect and then look at mankind, you’ll see very quickly that not every human being possesses these things equally (i.e., some are larger, some are less developed, etc.). Let’s take the “S.L.E.D. Test” below to put the whole E.S.C.R. debate into even better perspective:

-//-

[S]ize – they will claim that the embryo is too small to be valuable . . .
* But should size determine our value??
* Remember that the fetus is bigger than the embryo – the newborn is bigger than the

fetus – the toddler is bigger than the newborn – the adolescent is bigger than the toddler

– etc. This is a dangerous position to take, when you follow it through to its logical

conclusion.
* Men are generally bigger than women; should they have more rights?
* This argument means that those who are the “biggest” should have the most rights, which

is complete and utter nonsense.

[L]evel of Development – many argue that the embryo isn’t developed enough to be considered “worthy” . . .
* But does our level of development determine our worth/value??
* One Senator has said that “the embryo thinks nothing, feels nothing, cannot suffer, and is

not aware of its own existence.”
* The problem with that type of careless thinking is that we not only disqualify embryos . . .

we, by default, disqualify anyone who’s asleep [awareness issue] . . . those under general

anesthetic having a surgery done [awareness/feeling issue] . . . people in an irreversible

coma [awareness/feeling issue], or, better yet, my son (Josiah) who cannot yet think on

my level [thinks at an inferior capacity]. For instance, I could (hypothetically) take the life

of someone under heavy anesthetic without them ever feeling anything . . . does that make

it alright? In the same sense, just because the embryo “couldn’t/wouldn’t feel a thing”

doesn’t give us free reign to do as we please with it. Again, we must go back to the basics .

. . that being “what is it?”
* We must answer the moral question before the practical one, just as we do with any other

issue that may not be a hot-button topic at the moment. When it comes to hot-button,

politically correct/incorrect issues, we tend to have blind spots that ironically cloud our

thinking. This was evidenced by the whole pragmatism scenario with me robbing a bank –

that was a no brainer, right?? But when the same clear-headed thinking is applied to

E.S.C.R., somehow many want to apply different rules. This is, again, a bit inconsistent.

[E]nvironment – some will say that its “environment” is all wrong . . .
* But does “where” we are have any bearing on “who” we are??
* I am the same person (with the same worth) whether I’m here, in my car, in my bed,

under the water, or in another country. If I hide behind this closed door, would you feel

comfortable throwing a grenade in my direction? You can’t see me, so what would it

hurt?? You see my point, don’t you?
* In a similar sense, the embryo is in a Petri dish (or implanted in the uterus by artificial or

natural reproductive means). This doesn’t change it’s worth, does it? Again, we

must come back to our fundamental question, that being “what is it?”

[D]egree of Dependency – others will try to make a case for the embryo being too dependent to be considered a human being . . .
* But should dependency have any bearing on our worth??
* What about a diabetic who depends on insulin?
* What of those who have heart pace-makers?
* What about folks like John Glenn, Buzz Aldron, or Neil Armstrong who depended on their

space suits to sustain their lives???
* What about the physically and mentally handicapped, even those on feeding tubes. What

if nobody wants to care for these people? Are they, then, less valuable than you or I?
* Shouldn’t it make more sense for us to take MORE care for our fellow human beings who

are MORE dependent than you & I? In America, we discard them . . . & may God have

mercy on us.

-//-

When our society begins to designate a person as worthy or valuable based on a certain trait or characteristic (which none of us, by the way, possess equally), we make a “bell curve” out of “rights”. Think of the basic sloped shape of the Liberty Bell . . . got it? . . . when “rights” become married to acquired traits (that we can gain and/or lose), we will step into a steaming pile of dog dung. That is, we have no rights at the beginning of our lives . . . we grow in rights . . . and at 40 (at our intellectual peak or so), we’re at the top of the bell curve . . . then we begin to lose our rights and ultimately, we could become a disposable nursing home patient or a disabled person (like Terri Schiavo). By this rule, pre-born babies aren’t the only ones in danger are they? Think about yourselves as senior citizens one day . . . this could very well be you.

***Did you know that there are only 4 differences between you and an embryo? The S-L-E-D test covers these 4 distinctions.***

VII. Conclusion: [note the logical syllogism below; a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a true major premise [“A”], a true minor premise [“B”], and then a conclusion validly derived from both; for example, if “A” – and “B” – then “C”; if the premises are valid, then the conclusion must necessarily follow]

“A” – Killing a human being without Biblical justification is a serious moral wrong.
“B” – Embryonic stem-cell research involves the Biblically unjustified taking of human life.
“C” – Therefore, embryonic stem-cell research involves a serious moral wrong.

Remember . . . even if E.S.C.R. held a legit glimmer of hope for suffering patients, this is not adequate justification for taking human life in order to do so.

*Are there any alternatives? Actually, there is one huge alternative, and it is called Adult Stem-Cell Research (A.S.C.R.). A.S.C.R. doesn’t involve the death of any human life (so we’re okay morally-speaking), and looks to hold even more promise for those suffering from various debilitating diseases. Adult stem-cells are usually taken from umbilical cords and bone marrow.
* With E.S.C.R., there have been cases of tumors and certain types of cancer (down-stream cancer) that have developed in the “guinea pigs.” With A.S.C.R., this hasn’t been the case.
ü Here’s you a riddle to solve. In the private sector (where there are no restrictions whatsoever on the process of E.S.C.R.), the bulk of their $$$ is funneled into Adult Stem-Cell Research. Why do you think this is . . . think about this guys!

*What should we do?
-We should engage in regular prayer (intercessory prayer) on behalf of those who have no voice but us as a defense.
-We should actively engage others in conversation whereas this vital topic is concerned. We should not run from the strategic opportunities that we are given by God to make an impact.
-We should vote with things of this nature in mind when that time comes! On a related note, we should contact our two Senators and one Representative (our elected officials) to let them know where we stand as constituents.