In the past week, a Japanese scientist successfully created a stem cell from an adult skin cell, as opposed to embryonic stem cells as are normally used.
This is a breakthrough. Pro-life activists everywhere will be encouraging the development of this new technology. Finally, the systematic destruction of life for scientific purposes is at an end!
Not so fast. First, the fact that this process of creating stems cells from skin exists 1) does not mean it is widespread, 2) does not mean it is easy, 3) does not mean that there is currently adequate funding to accelerate the development of it (at least at the moment), and 4) does not mean that the research on embryos will be stopped.
Why won't it be stopped? The idea is: research to help those who are hurting should not be slowed at all in any area while it still provides a potential to save more lives. The underlying emotion behind the idea is kind (and even Christian), in that its goal is to help others. Yet pro-lifers argue that such scientists are in moral error because the destruction of embryos is still murder. But this poses an interesting quandary--what is the lesser of the two evils: to "kill" embryos who cannot think or feel so that one might help those who do have feelings and thoughts? Or to "save" the embryos at the expense of living, breathing people who live in pain who are about to die, and might live and even have quality of life if they got the right newly-researched medical treatment? What is more cruel? Destroying life that will not even feel its departure, or "condemning" living, breathing, whole, emotionally and mentally attuned people by leaving them to die?
I use emotionally-charged language to get you to think about it. I've thought about the issue of abortion, for example, from the pro-life side of view for all my life. But recently, my barber (of all people), explained to me the pro-choice argument in a way I hadn't heard it before--in a way that seemed more caring toward the mothers than I've seen most Christians act. He made me recognize that those expectant mothers are whole, real people who may get ignored or even condemned because of their decision to get an abortion. This is exactly the kind of situation that I would expect that Christians could do the most good--loving the mother (even if she goes through with the abortion), and worrying about her soul, instead of saving the baby at the cost of all else. I hate to propose this kind of dilemma, but what is better: saving the soul of the mother or the body of the child?
I agree, the dilemma is unfair, but I think it has a real element to it. What if the baby is saved? What's to stop that baby from being abused, unloved, and grow up to perpetuate the cycle of sin and death? Should Christians be going for saved souls and transformed lives over physically saved bodies? If it comes down to one or the other (which in some cases, I think it actually might), then what are we to choose? What would Jesus, the maker and sustainer of life, choose?
It's a difficult question. I hope that questions like this become a non-issue because of things like non-embryonic stem cell research (though I'm not sure that the abortion issue will be drastically affected because of this new research). However, the questions that I asked in the paragraph above, what do you think? Even if it becomes pretty much a non-issue, what is right? Or why should we care if it is a non-issue?
These are the kinds of questions that I believe that Christians need to deal with. However, when it comes down to it (from a Christian perspective), it's about love. Loving the scientist who is destroying embryos. You don't have to love what he's doing, but you are called to love him. Love that woman who is getting an abortion, or who got an abortion. The world will be changed by Christ's love--it is only in this way that we can truly bring healing and peace to a lost a broken world. Everything else is just details. Agree?
Taking Every Thought Captive,
Zachary
Even though I like to take a scientific/ethical look at a lot of these
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi Zachary,
Interesting post.
I think you're right in saying the dilemma is unfair. I don't know of any prolife people who want to save the child's life at the expense of the mother's soul. The question seems to assume for some reason that not having an abortion would injure the mother's soul which seems to me to be a very odd perspective. It also seem difficult to help a human being become a Christian if that possibly-future-Christian is killed before they're born.
The whole stem cell question also seems to assume human embryos aren't real human beings. Imagine someone making the same argument for killing a toddler whose death could possibly help treat someone else.
Post a Comment