In the book Sophie's Choice by William Styron, a woman is given a horrible choice by a sadistic Nazi officer. Either her son or daughter will be allowed to live – but not both. She must choose between the two.
The horror of such a choice would drive any parent to the brink of insanity – and perhaps beyond. It is a nightmare none of us can even imagine. And yet, in some ways, stem-cell research poses a similar choice, if one contemplates more deeply the questions it raises.
Those who oppose stem-cell research do not trouble themselves with questions; they are content to claim the high moral ground and cloak themselves in the purity and certainty of their religious convictions. They argue life is a gift of God, and that life begins at the very moment of conception. They claim all life is equally sacred and valuable. But I wonder if their beliefs can stand a simple test:
The room is on fire, and you have a choice – grab your six-month-old baby or seven frozen embryos in a Petri dish. It's one life against seven, right? What will you do?
I submit that unlike poor Sophie, the choice would be easy. I submit that no reasonable person would even think twice about their choice. There is no comparison between the life of the baby and the “life” of seven zygotes in a Petri dish. As far as I’m concerned, those who argue against stem cell research on such a basis are making a transparently foolish argument.
As the father of a child conceived through in vitro fertilization, I know full well how difficult the path from eight-celled zygote to birth. I can assure you, I never allowed myself the luxury – or as far as I'm concerned the stupidity – of thinking of those eight-celled zygotes as my children.
Like my son, millions of children have been granted life thanks to the miracle of in vitro fertilization. But not so long ago, that process was decried by people who claimed it was "playing God". But the truth is, those who tried to deny life to children like my son were the ones playing God.
Sad to say, the same sort of people now decry stem-cell research for much the same reason. Some may protest the "Sophie's Choice" I posed is purely hypothetical, but these questions are far from hypothetical:
(1) How is denying the benefits of stem-cell research to living people "pro-life"?
(2) As a practical matter, how long would these eight-celled organisms exist without the benefit of the scientific environment that created them?
(3) Do you really believe it is “pro life” to destroy embryos rather than to use them for research that might save your child or mine?
(4) Do you really believe there are enough "adoptive" parents ready, willing and able to "absorb" the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of embryos?
Yes, I know stem-cell research is fraught with danger, but that is all the more reason why it should be rigidly regulated by the government rather than be left to the same sort of "free-market" forces that spawned the travesty and the tragedy of in vitro octuplets in California.
In that sorry episode, the true paradox in all this is revealed. By refusing to choose to reduce the number of embryos she was carrying, this mother very likely condemned all her children to a worse future. I suggest her "choice" was not a choice at all, but a cowardly abdication of her responsibility to her children – born and unborn.
Her refusal to choose was not the absolute moral equivalent, but it was akin to what would have been the case had Sophie refused to choose between her children. And it is akin to allowing millions to suffer or die rather than make the difficult choice to support stem-cell research.
Again, the Religious Right sees itself as occupying the moral high ground with its absolutist positions, but morality is seldom so simple as the Religious Right would have it. For just as doubt is an element of faith, so choice is an element of morality. In essence, those who claim they have no choice cannot also claim to have made one. That may be a fine distinction, but it is one worth contemplating.
But for those who'd rather avoid such deep contemplation, let me pose a couple more simple questions:
Haven't many of the people who were against in vitro – or whose parents or pastors or churches were – taken advantage of that procedure? Won't many of the people who are now adamantly against stem-cell research take advantage of its benefits in the years to come? The answer to the last question is as obvious as the answer to the first.
True-Believers would do well to keep in mind that one day they may face a Sophie’s Choice of their own if one of their children could be cured through some medical miracle wrought by stem-cell research. Any person so heartless as to deny their child such a cure would still be left with another question:
Which of you, if your children asked for bread, would hand them a stone?
©2009 Tom Cordle
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Abrawang
Jeremiah Horrigan
koshersalaami
Kim Gamble
Stacey Youdin
Steven J. Gulitti
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for raising this debate about a very important issue to our attention.
Rated
A zygote may, in fact, constitute life, but it is not yet human life. It is potential human life. For me, human life is of immeasurably greater value than potential human life.
J.L -- Thanks for the kind words, and I would live to hear the comments from those you forward this post to
That is what I enjoy about most of your post - you make the reader think.
Or more simply put, don't confuse me with questions (or facts), my mind's made up.
Yes, that's harsh. So let me hasten to add, that some True-Believers actually believe the nonsense they spout. All I ask those who do is to answer the simple questions I've posed here. The Sophie's Choice Dilemma alone ought to be enough to open their eyes, but itprobably won't.
One other point about the octo-Mom... I don't believe her reasons were pure and religious. Something sick, self-serving and craven about her. Too dumb to write a book, but happy to sell her story to highest bidder. Those poor kids.
She shows every sign of being a "professional victim" right down to financing her grotesque lips and spawn with a $160,000 settlement she received for her "bad back". Well, if she didn't have a bad back before, she sure as hell has one now after toting that load.
Thank you.
But this is not a perfect world, so as grown-ups, we are sometimes required to make difficult choices. In this case, the right decision should be obvious to anyone who really understands the in vitro process.
Some couples experiencing fertility problems resort to in vitro fertilization, a process in which the woman is injected with progesterone in order to produce a larger than normal number of eggs, which are then "harvested" from her body and fertilized artificially in a petri dish, ideally with sperm from her husband.
It is necessary to create as many of these fertilized eggs as possible because many do not survive long enough to reach the eight-celled division stage (zygotes) at which they can be implanted in the woman's uterus.
The survivability of embryos even in utero is dicey as well, which is why women are often implanted with multiple embryos, though I have never heard of a doctor so irresponsible as to implant eight – as was done with Octomom.
Even if an implanted embryo attaches to the uterus, it frequently does not carry to full term. In our case, the first attempt failed, but happily, the second produced a beautiful baby boy.
The in vitro process frequently carries with it another difficult decision – what to do with the extra fertilized eggs, They can be frozen (an expensive proposition, as is the entire in vitro process) in hopes of using them for another in vitro procedure, they can be destroyed, or they can be donated for medical research.
That’s where the stem cells come in. They are extracted from donated embryos left over from in vitro procedures, embryos that otherwise would usually be destroyed. Most knowledgeable experts agree that these stem cells hold the potential to cure many terrible diseases such a s Alzheimer’s and could ever repair spinal chord injuries.
Given all this, it seems an obvious choice to stem-cell research.
But this is not a perfect world, so as grown-ups, we are sometimes required to make difficult choices. In this case, the right decision should be obvious to anyone who really understands the in vitro process.
Some couples experiencing fertility problems resort to in vitro fertilization, a process in which the woman is injected with progesterone in order to produce a larger than normal number of eggs, which are then "harvested" from her body and fertilized artificially in a petri dish, ideally with sperm from her husband.
It is necessary to create as many of these fertilized eggs as possible because many do not survive long enough to reach the eight-celled division stage (zygotes) at which they can be implanted in the woman's uterus.
The survivability of embryos even in utero is dicey as well, which is why women are often implanted with multiple embryos, though I have never heard of a doctor so irresponsible as to implant eight – as was done with Octomom.
Even if an implanted embryo attaches to the uterus, it frequently does not carry to full term. In our case, the first attempt failed, but happily, the second produced a beautiful baby boy.
The in vitro process frequently carries with it another difficult decision – what to do with the extra fertilized eggs, They can be frozen (an expensive proposition, as is the entire in vitro process) in hopes of using them for another in vitro procedure, they can be destroyed, or they can be donated for medical research.
That’s where the stem cells come in. They are extracted from donated embryos left over from in vitro procedures, embryos that otherwise would usually be destroyed. Most knowledgeable experts agree that these stem cells hold the potential to cure many terrible diseases such as Alzheimer’s, and they could even repair spinal chord injuries.
Given all this, the choice to use these embryos for stem-cell research seems to me inarguable.
Tom, you are one smart and talented dude.
As in so many other areas, fundamentalist Christians fail to comprehend the faith they claim. But it was the founder of their faith who prophesied about modern miracles such as in vitro and stem-cell research:
"the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do"
Also, thanks for adding a pointer to this essay in the comments on my related article. In my obsessive quest to make it easier to navigate this silly place, I added a pointer from the text of that article back to here.
Not sure it will help though, since I've encountered a Catholic priest who taught boys that masturbation was "wasting life" because their sperm were living beings. The absurdity of such a position is pretty easy to argue, but arguing logically doesn't help against such people.
What it comes down to is that a certain type of religious person is opposed to human beings. Follow me for a moment. A vast number of fertilized eggs fail to implant, yet no one cares about their fate or tries to save them. But if a woman wears an IUD, that's "murder" because a fertilized egg is a "baby." What's the difference? Ask a Fundie and very quickly you are likely to get the response, "One is God's will and the other is the woman's will."
Aha! So you admit it. What you object to is the exercise of human will!
I submit that God's will is not that easy to thwart. I submit that if you believe that God can create the universe, make a menopausal woman give birth to the ancestor of the Jewish people, part the Red Sea, impregnate a virgin, or roll up the sky like a scroll, you should believe that he can do pretty much exactly what he wants to get done with or without your permission. I submit that the Fundies who talk about opposing God's will are demonstrating a lack of faith in their own God.
And, as it turns out, that's true. Among self-described religious people, those who describe themselves as Evangelical and score high on a measure of authoritarian thinking are also likely to (anonymously) confess that they have severe doubts about their faith. All the thrashing around they do isn't swimming, it's drowning.
However, for the most part, I chose to stay away from on this post and in my comments here because they too easily allow people to change the subject, which I hope I have clearly defined. Th question I pose is this: Is it better to destroy embryos or use them for research that might save people's lives?
There ought not be any doubt to the right answer to that question.
btw are you aware of the case of Dr P. Thakkar? could there be many more such people violating professional, social norms plus human rights of women who might otherwise want to see their children alive?
I'm sure Victor will recognize that quote.
All life is sacred, but all life is not equally sacred.
I think Ghandi might not agree. ;-D
As you already know, Tom, they choose the term "pro-life" because it makes it sounds like they espouse a positive humanistic approach to life. I mean, really - who is not PRO LIFE? We all are (except maybe for folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and Unruh and .... well, I could go on).
Thumbed for taking a stand. And making a cogent argument for said stand.
I've used your same point about choice with my son, but I'm sure you and I can agree it is logically absurd to claim you have no choice and yet simultaneously claim that you've made one
As for Gandhi, despite the claims of Hinduism, if confronted with the Sophie's Choice Dilemma I posed, I am completely confident Gandhi would chose one baby's life over the "lives" of seven zygotes in a petri dish.
OESD -- Thanks, and I have to be very careful not to fall into absolutist arguments myself. But in this case, it seems absolutely beyond questioning that it is better to use unwanted embryos for stem-cell research rather than to simply destroy them.
I thought this was a very thoughtful and well-organized post. Gave me a lot to think about as I still struggle with these issues myself.
Thank you!
Sophie’s Choice is a great analogy for this issue. I love this kind of stuff, as I’m sure you know by now, so, here is a limited rant…
This issue is fraught with contradictions when one examines the views of people opposed to stem cell research on the basis of religious BELIEFS.
First, as you point out, “They argue that […] life begins at the very moment of conception.” Unfortunately, this argument has no foundation whatsoever, whether scientifically speaking OR religiously speaking; there is nothing in religious texts that supports this argument that “life begins at conception”. Where did that idea originate, anyway? This idea originated in the minds of men.
Consider these quotes from www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL09/Catholic.html :
******
Tertullian: “For us, killing and murder being forbidden once and for all, it is not permitted to destroy what is conceived in the mother’s womb. To hinder the birth of a child is a faster way to murder [sometimes translated as ‘accelerated homicide’]. It makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or prevents it from coming to birth. It is a human being. …”
“In the thirteenth century as well, St. Thomas Aquinas discussed Aristotle’s theory that a rational human soul is not present in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Significantly, however, he reaffirmed that abortion is wrong at every stage, calling it a sin “against nature” to reject God’s gift of a new life.”
******
These are the words of men and have no special veracity; it is an unscientific, unfounded opinion from the Dark Ages, nothing more. This seems to me to be the crux of the debate; there is nothing definitive regarding when a group of cells becomes a “human being”.
In terms of Christianity, an interesting question might be, “At what point did Jesus’ life begin via his virgin birth, which quite obviously means there never was a meeting of sperm and egg?”
If life begins at conception, and conception never occurred, did Jesus live?
Another aspect of this debate is based in the concept of when a group of cells is able to “receive a soul”. Is there such a thing as a “soul”? What is it? Can it been known? The answer to whether or not it can be known is, “No.” With that being the case, is it not yet another form of murder to deny life-saving treatment to someone thereby condemning that person to death based on such an unfounded and unknowable belief? This question seems to fit well with your analogy to Sophie’s Choice.
You ask, “As a practical matter, how long would these eight-celled organisms exist without the benefit of the scientific environment that created them?” It seems this question cuts to another crucial aspect; what is required to be a living being?
I’m not a biblical scholar, but I ran across these quotes:
Here is a sampling of biblical offerings supposedly supporting “life begins at conception”:
******
“Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb…” (Isaiah 44:2)
"Did not He who made me in the womb make him, And the same one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15)
“Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb… Thou hast been my God from my mother's womb.” (Psalms 22:9-10)
“For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Psalms 139:13-16)
www.godandscience.org/slideshow/stem059.html
******
None of the above four biblical quotes clearly supports the idea that “life begins at conception”. In fact, they seemingly support the idea “potential life”, not “life”.
Here is a sample of biblical offerings concerning what constitutes life:
******
Isaiah 42:5: “... God the LORD who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it....”
Acts 17:25: "... because he himself [God] gives all men life and breath and everything else."
www.nonprofitpages.com/mcfl/abible.htm
******
So, the above represent at least two biblical quotes that seemingly indicate two things that constitute life: breath, and walking. I have never found anything that stipulates life begins at conception in biblical quotes.
Can we distinguish between “life” and “potential life”? It seems so. “Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb” seems to indicate formation in the womb and life began for this individual upon exit from the womb, an event that seemingly signifies completion of formation, which implies prior “potential” but not “completeness”.
The only point behind references to Jesus’ virgin birth and all of this biblical quotation is that the views of those opposed to stem cell research are based on absolutely nothing except an ‘opinion’ of men. There is nothing remotely superior in their beliefs on the matter, and to deprive other human beings of life-saving treatments based on such beliefs is nothing short of a form of murder.
You pose the test, “The room is on fire, and you have a choice -- grab your six-month-old baby or the seven frozen embryos in a petri dish. It's one life against seven, right? What will you do?”
This appears to be a perfect test of the issue at hand. In keeping with the Sophie’s Choice analogy, I feel fairly safe in saying that nobody would choose embryos in a Petri dish over a six-month-old baby. And the issue would be one of ability to suffer, which embryos do not. This raises another of the contradictions to which I refer: if everything is god’s will, then the events leading to destruction of these embryos must be god’s will. One might postulate that there is a very real possibility (within this Christian context of belief) that god does not want those particular children born.
You write, “…choice is an element of morality. In essence, those who claim they have no choice cannot also claim to have made one.” This is part of the problem with religion at large, including those who consider themselves “moderate Christians” (whatever that means). It attempts to take “choice” out of the equation of morality.
The contradiction here is that these religions tend to separate suffering of others from moral choices, as if the two are not connected. Can a zygote suffer? It can’t if its brain is not formed, as that is the organ in human beings that experiences suffering.
Consider the following from a highly revered Christian, Mother Teresa from her Nobel Lecture given on December 11, 1979:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/teresa-lecture.html
****** “And today the greatest means - the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion. And we who are standing here - our parents wanted us. We would not be here if our parents would do that to us. Our children, we want them, we love them, but what of the millions. Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between.”
And just a little later she says:
****** “…we have sent words to all the clinics, to the hospitals, police stations - please don't destroy the child, we will take the child. So every hour of the day and night it is always somebody, we have quite a number of unwedded mothers - tell them come, we will take care of you, we will take the child from you, and we will get a home for the child. And we have a tremendous demand from families who have no children; that is the blessing of God for us.”
The above Mother Teresa quotes seemingly imply, “Forget about the starvation, disease and suffering of children already born and let’s see how many more we can bring into the world instead of finding help for those already here.” One might suppose Mother Teresa would save the Petri dish of embryos and condemn the six-month-old baby to a horrible death of tremendous suffering, and she would judge that act as moral by virtue of a totally unfounded belief.
Okay, this rant was not as limited as I expected, and still could be longer, but I’ll stop here; great post, Tom.
RATED
Rated
I'll play the devil's advocate -- or should I say god's advocate? -- and suggest that Christian dogma has no problem with life beginning at Christ's conception even without a meeting of egg and sperm because it was an Immaculate Conception -- so by definition it qualifies as conception.
That's the kind of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument I tried to avoid on my post, because such arguments have a tendency to devolve very quickly into irresolvable philosophical jousts.
I had considered your “god’s advocate” position, and the point is made, but it doesn’t seem to mitigate the contradictory nature of the strange circumstance I see in it for those who argue that once there is a meeting of egg and sperm, there is life. To my view, it just seems to reveal the unfounded nature of their perspective in general.
I realized you were avoiding some of those issues, and understandably so, but I think it’s important to point out upon what the objections of these individuals are based. I think it reveals even further the strangeness of their view.
You write, “That's the kind of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ argument I tried to avoid on my post, because such arguments have a tendency to devolve very quickly into irresolvable philosophical jousts.”
That is precisely the point I was making; their perspective (opinion) is based solely on those kinds of “irresolvable philosophical jousts”, which is why they should not have the ability to force that perspective on society via legislation.
Immaculate Conception, indeed.
;~)
I sometimes use a similar argument in dealing with the strange thinking of absolutists. Do you really mean to say that as a strict Jew or Muslim, you would let your child starve rather than feed that child pork?
Here's a sample of the kind of thing that muddies the waters fairly quickly from my comment on Aaron Rury's post Ask A Scientist:
Just to confuse the issue by injecting a religo-philosophical element, the Nothing of which you speak is the Nothing of which the Buddhist speaks, the Nothing that is Everything. For if the Nothing that preceded the Big Bang produced the Everything that is the Universe, or Universes if your prefer, then that Nothing had to have contained that Everything.
Christians complain that Buddhism is a "godless" religion, but that is because they can no more contemplate -- let alone comprehend -- the Nothing that is Everything than their Book, which they hold to be the Be All and End All of the Knowledge of the Divine (God) and an infinite source of wisdom, contemplates -- let alone comprehends -- the Big Bang, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, a spherical earth or a helio-centric solar system.
rather than take advantage of the miracles science has wrought.
I sometimes use a similar argument in dealing with the strange thinking of absolutists. Do you really mean to say that as a strict Jew or Muslim, you would let your child starve rather than feed that child pork?
Here's a sample of the kind of thing that muddies the waters fairly quickly from my comment on Aaron Rury's post Ask A Scientist:
Just to confuse the issue by injecting a religo-philosophical element, the Nothing of which you speak is the Nothing of which the Buddhist speaks, the Nothing that is Everything. For if the Nothing that preceded the Big Bang produced the Everything that is the Universe, or Universes if your prefer, then that Nothing had to have contained that Everything.
Christians complain that Buddhism is a "godless" religion, but that is because they can no more contemplate -- let alone comprehend -- the Nothing that is Everything than their Book, which they hold to be the Be All and End All of the Knowledge of the Divine (God) and an infinite source of wisdom, contemplates -- let alone comprehends -- the Big Bang, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, a spherical earth or a helio-centric solar system.
Here's a sample of the kind of thing that muddies the waters fairly quickly from my comment on Aaron Rury's post Ask A Scientist:
Just to confuse the issue by injecting a religo-philosophical element, the Nothing of which you speak is the Nothing of which the Buddhist speaks, the Nothing that is Everything. For if the Nothing that preceded the Big Bang produced the Everything that is the Universe, or Universes if your prefer, then that Nothing had to have contained that Everything.
Christians complain that Buddhism is a "godless" religion, but that is because they can no more contemplate -- let alone comprehend -- the Nothing that is Everything than their Book, which they hold to be the Be All and End All of the Knowledge of the Divine (God) and an infinite source of wisdom, contemplates -- let alone comprehends -- the Big Bang, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, a spherical earth or a helio-centric solar system.
You write, "Back then, they claimed to know the mind of God well enough to be able to state categorically that in vitro was 'playing God'."
Now they base their view of stem cells solely on that premise that they "know the mind of God well enough to be able to state categorically" that stem cell research is wrong, as if anything relating to "God" should even be involved in the discussion; it shouldn't be. In the end, I don't think rationality such as that exhibited in your post will reach past the irrationality upon which their perspective rests.
I shudder to think how many people failed to survive life due to the maniacal right wing.
Just one thing: in your comments you (rhetorically) ask, so would a strict Jewish person let their child starve instead of feeding them pork? And actually, within the Jewish religion, one is allowed to break any commandment if it means saving a life. Even if one is observant, one is allowed to break the Sabbath -- which is considered the holiest day, even holier than any of the holidays -- if it means that by doing so, you are saving a life. Just thought I'd correct that...
As for the movie Sophie's Choice, it was exquisitely acted but exquisitely painful. But if you don't mind the pain, it is well worth the viewing for Meryl Streep's performance alone. Her Polish accent was amazing - what a truly talented woman.
You reveal what fundamentalists gloss over with Holy Writ and Righteous Tongues: choosing what's invisible ove what's real. A compact and well-argued piece.
Thanks for visiting, it's rewarding when someone like you pays a visit to one of my "children" -- especially at such a late date
Thank you for visiting, and thank you as well for reminding us in your other comment what happens when the govt decides to control reproduction. It matters not a wit if it's supposedly Socialist Nazi Germany or supposedly Communist Romania or supposedly Capitalist Democracy America -- what matters is the desire of totalitarian regimes to control every aspect of human life.
This is what it boils down to. If people really believed that all life were equally sacred, then we would not be able to kill liviing cancer cells, germs, viruses or mold. Let alone killing animals for food...
People just need to be more transparent about their own level of sanctity of various life, and accept that we all draw the lines in different places
Thanks for visiting, it amazes me that the Rabid Wrong never bothers to think beyond the obvious or to consider that what's obvious isn't always what's right
Thanks for visiting, glad you got something from this post
Thanks for visiting, and thanks for the kind words. Yes, I think the choice would be very easy, and of course, that puts the lie to notion of all life being equally sacred.
How do you feel about that?
To be honest, such a scenario leaves me a bit squeamish, particularly since it is premeditated. Still, I don't think even that decision is the business of the public.
But as I suggested in this post, the bulk of stem cells left-over from in vitro fertilization procedures do not have that stigma attached to them.
In any case, the onus in all this is on those who claim the moral high-ground, since they're are the ones trying to deny someone else's choice. But their claim to being "pro-life" is made bitterly laughable by blowing-up abortion clinics and by murdering a doctor in his own church, and their cause is ill-served as well when they refuse to contribute to the care, feeding and educating of living, breathing human beings -- usually because they object to their color.
What a great thought-provoking discussion! As always, the reality on the ground is far more nuanced than the talking points of politicians.
Kudos!
"As always, the reality on the ground is far more nuanced than the talking points of politicians."
Amen to that!!
Those of us who have faced these decisions first hand are far more qualified to make judgments about them than are those who remain willfully blind by virtue of ignorance not only about science, but about their own faith. In my Bible, it says "Man was not made for the law, but the law for Man."
Thank you, and kudos to you for your generosity.
Thanks for visiting; you are surely one who has moved far beyond black and white
Thanks for visiting. I've always been baffled by the idea that God gets all the credit and humans get all the blame. That kind of thinking is the real root of the problem with the religious right.