The Stem-Cell Debate and Torture, Part 2

So if you read this before, you know I was examining the way in which humans make life and death decisions. This all surrounds the question of embryonic stem cell research and how killing babies could be a worthwhile means to an end, the end being the creation of life saving or altering therapies for those outside of the womb. Are not some lives worth more than others? If embryonic stem cell research proves to be as gainful as some say it will, many more people will be affected than will be harmed. Therefore, it is a worthwhile enterprise.

Listen again to Saletan:

You don't have to equate embryos with full-grown human beings—I don't—to appreciate the danger of exploiting them. Embryos are the beginnings of people. They're not parts of people. They're the whole thing, in very early form. Harvesting them, whether for research or medicine, is different from harvesting other kinds of cells. It's the difference between using an object and using a subject. How long can we grow this subject before dismembering it to get useful cells? How far should we strip-mine humanity in order to save it?

So, at least in this circumstance, is some life worth more than other life? I would say no:

1. I remember watching an old Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where a medical doctor had decided to use humans to test a new drug that could save millions of lives. The only problem was that she was killing many people in the process. When Beverly Crusher, the on-board medical doctor, finds out about this, she is outraged and stops the drug trials immediately. The doctor objected, "Yes, this will kill some people. But it could save millions!" Crusher responded, "I will not be subjected to making decisions based on hypothetical outcomes." What she is saying is that no human life should be ended at the "promise" of medical breakthrough. Though stem cell research could yield great benefit, there is no guarantee that it will.

2. People need to start equating 5-day-old embryos with 5-day-old babies. You don't need to believe in God to realize that there is no logical way to determine when an embryo becomes "full-grown." Consequently, and necessarily, embryos must be considered fully human, not partially so. And this of course solves immediately any dilemma. Except for the morally depraved and insane, no one would support hacking up 5-day-old babies to ameliorate the suffering of some, or even saving of a few. Though this may be utilitarian (isn't everything?), it is more profoundly a basic moral assumption.

3. The one lingering question about this is in regard to the issue of a woman whose pregnancy threatens her life. Many pro-lifers will advocate terminating pregnancies if it will save the life of the mom. Now what must be understood is that pro-lifers only advocate terminations when the baby has no chance for survival. That is, if the mom can be saved, but the baby cannot be saved, it is okay to end the pregnancy. A good example of this is a tubal pregnancy. So the difference between this and stem cell harvesting is that, with respect to stem cell harvesting, babies are being killed that could have survived. Now some would argue that these babies were going to be tossed out anyway. To that I say, stop freezing babies.