A Culture of Life
Joshua and I ordered a season pass to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on iTunes (thanks to the gift certificate from Nana and Papa for our anniversary!). We watched it last night with the past few days’ worth of podcasts from ABC’s World News.
One hot news item this past week was President Bush’s veto of the stem cell research legislation passed by Congress. Now, I don’t claim to fully understand the ins and outs of stem cell research, but from what I understand - please correct me if I am wrong - the bill allows for research to be done on embryos that are the “cast-offs” from fertility treatments. In other words, from the leftover frozen embryos that would otherwise be thrown away.
For once, I agree with Bush on something. I don’t think that research should be performed on these embryos, even in the name of “good” or “progressive” scientific research. My position is that they are still human life, however small. Now this could open up dozens of cans of worms, each going in different directions, I know, so for now I am only going to take this in one meandering direction.
The President’s reason for vetoing the legislation is that he cares about a culture of life, and the use of these embryos would be a form of murder. I would agree. The problem with his rhetoric, however (and which Mr. Stewart so eloquently and satirically pointed out), is the 30,000 some-odd Iraqi civilians who have died in his so-called war on terror. Joshua and I had to actually pause the video to discuss it.
What a disconnect. I like that the President talks about a culture of life, but there is a huge link missing when this doesn’t pervade to all life. Civilian casualties in a war are justifiable, but not embryonic in the name of research? This makes no sense to me. Never mind the erroneous justifications for this war in the first place. This is why I am generally against embryonic stem cell research, abortion, the war on terror, doctor-assisted suicide, and even the death penalty. I value life.
Now you could bring up the issue of what if someone harmed my child, would I be willing to use enough force to actually kill to protect my child? For one, I hope and pray to God that scenario would never present itself. I also imagine my first thought would be just how to get my child out of that situation as quickly as possible. If I thought it was the only solution, I think I probably would kill another human to save my child, in self-defense. Does this mean I think killing is right? No. Does it mean I’m a hypocrite? I don’t think so. I think it just means I’m human.
I think many of our ideologies break down at some point. Perhaps not all, but many. For some people, they don’t like the idea of using embryos to perform research. But perhaps they know or they are someone who is afflicted with a disease that the research could possibly help, so to them the benefits outweigh the costs. I can understand this. I can understand why people have abortions. I can understand why some terminally ill and people with debilitating chronic pain don’t want to go on living anymore. I think any hot-button issue, on a personal level, is no longer about the issue, but the person.
I’m not saying I have the answers. I just have some thoughts and wanted to throw them out there. It’s bothersome that the President doesn’t see a link between valuing embryonic life and the life of civilian war casualties, many of whom are children. That’s all.
July 24th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
I think the bigger “disconnect” is that he doesn’t seem to appreciate the importance of research to save and improve EXISTING lives (through stem cells) as part of a ‘culture of life’. Frozen embryos have a shelf life, they don’t last forever and most of them WILL be destroyed. If the only other option is “use them for research and THEN destroy them”, why wouldn’t you? They are not all going to result in children, regardless of anyone’s opinion about when life truly begins or whether or not the president supports stem cell research. I also happen to think you can value life and still see a use for euthanasia (anyone who has watched someone die in pain can attest that their life ended long before they died)& stem cell research, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
July 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Well, part of this is one of the cans of worms I didn’t want to open in the post - and that is this: I don’t think those embryos should even be there to be able to discard in the first place. I think it’s horrible that so many embryos are created in the hopes that one or two will “take” and that the rest are simply thrown away.
Which brings up even more issues about fertility and treatments and reproductive rights, etc., that is way too much to get into on the blog. To me, it’s along the lines of two wrongs don’t make a right - they (the embryos) shouldn’t be there in the first place, so just because they are, doesn’t mean they’re game for research. But I totally understand the argument. It makes a lot of sense.
You also have people who are “adopting” and surrogate parenting many of these embryos to life - the Snowflake Babies. I don’t know that’s the answer either. I had a good, long conversation with a friend about that when I first heard about it. Debating the ethics of all of these issues isn’t really something I want to dialogue about in blog format, with the obvious limitations involved, but they’re all good issues to be thinking about, and they’re not black and white, cut and dry. There’s lots of gray, and people’s lives and choices and desires and convictions wound up in them that makes the whole mess real sticky.
Shouldn’t the fact that so many are set up to be “wasted” be a cause for grief, anyway?
With euthanasia, in thinking about it, on one level it seems cruel to end people’s lives prematurely, and on another level, it seems just as cruel to keep them alive in a state of pain. I left personal anecdotes out of the post for a reason. Things are trickier when it’s someone you know and/or love. We don’t ever want to see people suffer. I don’t know that I necessarily agree with a view that prolongs life at all costs - the baby born that everyone knows won’t survive, the perpetually comatose, or the ransacked, diseased body… It makes me wonder more about whether the technology we use to keep and sustain life at those levels is just as ethically flawed as euthanizing. On both sides, just because the technology is there, does that mean we should use it?
I don’t have answers, just trying to sort through some of this.
July 24th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Kirsten, I’m glad you’re delving into issues without fear. For my part, I can say I strongly oppose abortion, but I am in favor of stem-cell research, (because, on one hand, it does support life in the end). Yes, they do seem like contradictions. But, perhaps like you, I think I may be in a fantastic place of my faith where I can honestly accept two opposing ideas without having to reconcile them. And I have to admit, it’s kind-of nice.
July 24th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
wow. my college years made me extremely opinionated. though i knew i never had any answers, i at least believed something or leaned one way or the other. somewhere along the way age set me down in the middle of the road with weak opinions.
’cause i just don’t know.
but i like how you go back to discuss the beginning reasoning behind the embryo’s in the first place. i had no idea and am pretty turned off anyway by any artificial means to creating a life because humans egos are bigger than their hearts. (they need the child to look like them (?) over taking in a child in need)
here’s an idea: let’s try some research on ole george w. wonder what we’d find.