Obama's Stem Cell Order Reopens the Culture Wars

Conservative Christians are looking for an opening to challenge embryonic stem cell research

March 19, 2009 RSS Feed Print

When President Obama signed an executive order lifting restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research last week, he plunged headlong into the culture wars. For once, though, the wedge issue at hand is one that benefits Democrats, unlike hot buttons like abortion and gay marriage, which mostly help the GOP. "People have come to a consensus that if nobody wants these frozen embryos, they should be used in research," says Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "People believe that embryos are not people."

Indeed, public opinion polls show that few Americans believe that embryonic stem cell research is immoral, as many Roman Catholic and evangelical leaders insist. But that doesn't mean the controversy is over. Unanswered questions about the science surrounding stem cell research and the details of Obama's new regulations promise to yield more political battles. For instance, Obama left open the possibility of federal funds going to the creation of new embryos, rather than relying entirely on excess embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. The National Institutes of Health will now study the question. "Creating embryos expressly for research and destroying them would be more controversial," says the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life's David Masci. "It has the potential to drain some public support."

For now, though, public support is solid, predicated on hopes that the research yields cures for such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. According to a February Gallup Poll, 52 percent of Americans want fewer restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, or none at all. Recent Pew polls show that white evangelicals are the only major religious tradition in which a majority opposes the research. The Roman Catholic Church has been outspoken in its opposition, but a large majority of rank-and-file American Catholics back embryonic stem cell research.

To avoid appearing antireligion, Obama had a handful of mainline Protestant and Jewish leaders on hand for Monday's signing ceremony. The president spoke of rejecting a "false choice between sound science and moral values" and invoked his own faith to argue that "we are called . . . to ease human suffering."

At the same time, Democrats have used George W. Bush's 2001 executive order banning federal dollars for new embryonic stem cell lines to paint the GOP as antiscience. "The idea is that when Republicans see scientific evidence they don't like, like on global warming or evolution, they ignore it," says Masci.

Still, even some supporters of federally funded embryonic stem cell research acknowledge that Obama's action raises ethical concerns. The University of Pennsylvania's Caplan fears that biotechnology companies will rush into clinical trials that use modified embryonic stem cells to treat diseases and wind up hurting patients. And he worries that embryonic stem cell research will be expected to quickly yield the kind of breakthroughs that noncontroversial adult stem cell research has, even though that research has been well funded for 40 years. "It's like comparing jet engines to Orville and Wilbur's prop plane," he says. Conservative Christians will be looking for such an opening to argue that the promise of embryonic research has been oversold and to keep the political battle going.

Tags:
Christianity,
conservatives,
Obama administration,
stem cells,
Barack Obama,
politics,
research

Reader Comments Read all comments (12)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I think we need to look at this from another point of view. If our children were sick is there anything that we wouldn't do to help them? Which would include giving them our own parts if we could. I can tell you that during ones menstrual cycle you release an egg that dies, now that is nature. So if we were to use eggs that are not intended to be humans to help people with diseases what is wrong with that?

Christine Foster of IL 1:02PM May 22, 2009

Katie McDonald wrote: "OK this issue is really very simple. An embryo is living, because it is growing. It is human because DNA says so. A living human is a person. That's not religion. That's science."

It's important to understand that embryos from which stem cells are extracted are not embryos that are implanted and growing in a woman's uterus. Rather, embryos from which stem cells are extracted are blastocysts. Blastocysts contain cells that have not yet differentiated into organs of the body, such as kidneys, etc. An embryo is human life only in the biological sense that it is living and not dead and that it is human and not bovine. However, if this is how we are going to define a human being, then we will also have to say that a human cell (a skin cell, for example) is a human being because a skin cell is alive and it is human as opposed to being bovine. This demonstrates why the argument that an embryo stem cell is "human" (as opposed to being bovine) is not an argument that is persuasive in supporting one's position that an embryo is a human being.

Katie McDonald didn't stop with the argument that an embryo is human, however. She also stated that "an embryonic stem cell is growing." I'm not exactly sure what she meant by that. I think what she meant to say was that embryos develop from embryo to fetus to child. This argument is also not persuasive. Here's an analogy that explains why:

Although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees differ. So do human embryos and human beings, and in the same way. Just as acorns are potential oaks, human embryos are potential human beings."

Another good resaon to be skeptical of claims that an embryo is a human is that those who make such claims do not usually embrace the full implications of such claims. For example, George W. Bush said that the reason he vetoed embryonic stem cell research was that, "the government should not support the taking of innocent human life."

If George W. Bush really believed that embryonic stem cell research was equivalent to the taking of an innocent human life, then wouldn't he have banned embryonic stem cell research altogether? Interestingly, however, George W. Bush was not willing to come out and state that he believed embryonic stem cell research was murder.

In stating these refutations to Katie McDonald's claim that embryos are human beings, I have summarized an analysis of these claims provided in a very compelling rticle published in The Boston Globe on April 8, 2007.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/04/08/embryo_ethics/

Embryo Ethics

by Michael J. Sandel

Darcy Grant of NY 11:51PM March 20, 2009

Come on now... that is just ludicrous! We were once all embryos... or am I missing something here? Are some of you not human?

Kat Clark of WA 9:37PM March 20, 2009

Subscribe Today

Order the new U.S. News Weekly digital magazine at a special low introductory price!

advertisement

Is increasing access to healthcare a moral or faith-based cause?

View Results

SPECIAL REPORTS

Secrets of Islam

A guide to the world's fastest growing religion.

Sacred Places

Explore the significance, history, and enduring power of places people consider most sacred.

Women of the Bible

The "daughters of Eve" play many roles in the Old and New Testaments.