The Stem Cell Debate

During the early middle ages (also known as the Dark Ages) the Church held complete sway over every aspect of human behavior. Dissidents could be, and often were, run through with the sword or burned at the stake. If the Church decreed that the sun revolved around the earth, no amount of scientific evidence could refute such a decree.

There are times when it appears that some would like to go back to those glorious days of Christianity. I must confess that I am not one of them. The Church also teaches that the first and most important teachers of Christianity are your parents. The first teaching I learned from my Mother was that "God gave you a brain and he expects you to use it". Fortunately, the fathers of the Second Vatican Council enshrined into the teachings of the Catholic Church for all time the doctrine of the primacy of conscience. Church fathers today can deemphasize it or pretend it's not there, but they will never be able to remove it from the teachings of the Church.

So we now have the outcry about the Obama administration removing the ban on embryonic stem cell research. Understand that this outcry is a purely political response. First of all, this move is not a surprise. It is the fulfillment of a campaign promise. President Obama made clear that he would do this from early on in his campaign. Also, the dire consequences are far over done. Much less is changing than meets the eye. This kind of research has been going on all over the world. It has also been going on legally by private companies in this country. A number of states have authorized and provided funding for such research. The only change is that federal dollars can now be used for this purpose.

Opponents of this kind of stem cell research will say that it is unnecessary because adult stem cells are doing just fine. This is not an honest argument. They are really asking scientests to approach stem cells with one arm tied behind their backs. Science is about exploring every possibility, like Edison who tried every possible substance in his light bulb until he found the right filament. Most didn't work, but he finally found the right material which is precisely how science is supposed to work. Stem cell opponents eliminate what most scientests say is the most promising avenue of progress and claim they are not infringing on the operation of science. They make this point even though the cells in question are destined to be destroyed anyway. Do they prefer that the cells simply be destroyed rather than that their destruction benefit others? It is the same argument that says I would rather my son die of aids than that he be allowed to use a condom. That is an argument that most people find incomprehensible.

Of course the primary concern for these opponents is the destruction of human life, which is a serious and legitimate concern. Yet most people including many conservative politicians have made a judgement that the incredible promise of this research for alleviating suffering and disease outweighs such concerns. Perhaps they are wrong. Perhaps the lives of the Christopher Reeves, Michael J. Foxes, mothers, fathers, and children of the world are not important enough to approve research that may transform their lives.

The bottom line remains, however, that in our pluralistic society of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and non-believers, one group no matter how sure they may be of their correctness does not get to make decisions for everyone else. Certainly every group has a right and absolutely should have their voice heard. The Church, however, too often continues to believe that we still live in the middle ages. No they don't usually run dissenters through with the sword or burn them at the stake, but they are still quite good at destroying people's lives. To characterize all those who disagree as evil, or acting in bad faith is beneath the charity that God demands of his Church. The destruction of peoples careers and the loss of genuinely valuable insights whenever the Church has the leverage to do so is not the mark of a valued institution and contributing member of the world we live in in the 21st century. State your case as clearly as possible, but recognize that others may see things differently, and that doesn't mean they belong to the 'axis of evil'.