Since the infamous Supreme Court decision in 1973, murderous hands have reached into the wombs of willing mothers—designed to be a safe haven for the innocent—and butchered millions upon millions of precious babies. Many are the excuses given to justify such barbaric practices. One of those reasons is “research.” A recent scientific breakthrough may bring salvation for many of those innocent souls yet to be carelessly tossed aside.

Due to President Obama’s March 2009 executive order, restrictions on embryonic stem (ES) cell research that President George W. Bush had signed into effect were lifted. The order allows federal funds to be used for ES cells from “donated surplus embryos originally made for reproduction” (Hyun, 2014, p. 28). So, living embryos that were not used during in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures can be used for ES cell research. In vitro fertilization is a procedure in which a woman’s ovaries are stimulated to generate several eggs, which are sucked from the ovaries and put into a sperm bath in a Petri dish for a few days. Selected embryos are then implanted by catheter into the uterus. The process has been used successfully for decades, with over 200,000 IVF babies being born since 1981 (Nivin, 2015).

From a biblical standpoint, is there anything wrong with this procedure? There are various issues with IVF from a Christian perspective, but one significant problem is the death of many fertilized eggs—i.e., babies—whether intentionally or unintentionally. According to the Bible, the life of a human begins at conception (cf. Jeremiah 1:4-5; Isaiah 49:1; Miller, 2006, p. 36ff.), making IVF essentially premeditated murder. In IVF, only selected embryos are implanted into a woman. The rest are discarded or frozen (typically, eventually to be discarded). Of those that are implanted, most miscarry. Transabdominal selective reduction is further utilized in the process to wipe out those implanted zygotes that are deemed “inferior.” [NOTE: Transabdominal selective reduction is a procedure in which the number of fetuses present in a uterus are reduced (through abortion), typically by inserting a needle through the mother’s stomach, into the uterus, and then into the desired fetus, injecting a potassium chloride solution into the baby, which burns and poisons it, ultimately stopping its heart (Healthwise Staff, 2014). Fetuses chosen for survival are selected on the basis of gender and health status (“Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction,” 2013).]

ES cell researchers step in at this point. In ES cell research, the goal is to grow cells that can be used for various purposes. Researchers hope to use those cells to learn about the human body and growth patterns and, especially, for harvesting cells that can be transplanted into individuals with various physical conditions (e.g., macular degeneration, leukemia, spinal cord injuries, etc.). Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) is typically used in ES cell research—the process used to clone the famous sheep, Dolly. In SCNT, the nucleus is removed from an egg and the nucleus from a skin cell is transferred into the egg. The egg recognizes that it has been fertilized and begins growing like a normal embryo. The embryo is subsequently destroyed to harvest its cells for the generation of ES cell lines.

You might ask, “Why not use adult stem cells instead of embryos?” The reason is that cells differentiate as they grow—i.e., change into cells with specific functions. For example, a cell will differentiate from a naïve embryonic state during development to acquire the unique characteristics of, say, a bone or liver cell. For many medical purposes, however, researchers need undifferentiated cells without those cell-type specific programs. So, ES cells are used. Scientists could not figure out how to reprogram a differentiated cell back to an undifferentiated state until 2006. Elizabeth Landau, a science reporter for CNN, explained that

[t]he first developments in the field of stem cell research used leftover embryos created by the union of sperm and egg fromin vitro fertilization. But embryonic stem cell research is controversial because to use the stem cells for developing medical treatments, the embryo is destroyed. Embryos have the potential to develop into a fully formed human [NOTE: Christians would argue that they are already fully humans—JM], bringing up ethical questions. Scientists later realized that it’s not necessary to use embryos to obtain stem cells that match patients. Shinya Yamanaka won the 2012 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering how to make “induced pluripotent stem cells,” or [iPS] cells (2014).

And that brings us to the good news.

Shinya Yamanaka and Sir John Gurdon received the Nobel Prize in October 2012, when Yamanaka’s lab discovered that “mature cells can be reprogrammed to become pluripotent”—i.e., they figured out how to reprogram cells by defined factors after they had already specialized (“Shinya Yamanaka—Facts,” 2014). By doing so, they made iPS cells, pluripotency being that characteristic of “stemness” that is required for medical purposes. They discovered how to reprogram almost any kind of cell by inserting genes into “mature cells that already have specific functions,” turning back the clock on those mature cells (Landau). First, Takahashi and Yamanaka succeeded in reprogramming cells back to an undifferentiated state using differentiated, embryonic fibroblasts in mice (2006). Subsequently, Yu, et al. (2007) successfully applied the process to differentiated, embryonic fibroblasts in humans, while Takahashi, et al. (2007) successfully applied the process to adult human somatic cells, rather than embryonic cells.

This groundbreaking research promises to eliminate the need for cloning embryos for ES cell purposes. Deiter Egli, senior research fellow at the New York Stem Cell Foundation, explains that “[t]he cloning method takes a few weeks, and is not significantly faster than generating [iPS] cells” (as quoted in Landau). So, time is not a factor in the process. In fact, Egli notes that nuclear transfer advantages “would have to be considerable to beat out [iPS], which is ‘much more efficient and less ethically contentious’” (Landau).

Gretchen Vogel, writing in Science magazine, highlighted in 2014 that several states have banned human SCNT research. She explained: “The political energy needed to overturn those laws might be hard to generate given that there’s now an embryo-free alternative to producing patient-specific stem cells” (p. 462). And that is good news. How can anyone justify destroying embryonic human life when he can get the human cells he needs without embryos? Thank God for Yamanaka and Gurdon, whose research may help repair the breaching dam holding back the proverbial river of American baby blood shed at the hands of abortionists.

REFERENCEs

Healthwise Staff (2014), “Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction,” WebMD, reviewed by Kathleen Romito and Femi Olatunbosun, http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/tc/multifetal-pregnancy-reduction-topic-overview.

Hyun, Insoo (2014), “Regulate Embryos Made for Research,” Nature, 509[7498]:27-28, May 1.

Landau, Elizabeth (2014), “Cloning Used to Make Stem Cells from Adult Humans,” CNN Health, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/28/health/stem-cell-breakthrough/.

Nivin, Todd (2015), “Infertility and In Vitro Fertilization,” WebMD, http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/guide/in-vitro-fertilization.

Miller, Dave (2006), Sexual Anarchy: The Moral Implosion of America (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction” (2013), The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Ethics, Num. 553, February, http://www.acog.org/-/media/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/co553.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20151005T1420301791

“Shinya Yamanaka—Facts” (2014), Nobelprize.org, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2012/yamanaka-facts.html.

Takahashi, K., K. Tanabe, M. Ohnuki, M. Narita, T. Ichisaka, K. Tomoda, and S. Yamanaka (2007), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell, 131[5]:861-872, November 30.

Takahashi, K. and S. Yamanaka (2006), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Mouse Embryonic and Adult Fibroblast Cultures by Defined Factors,” Cell, 126[4]:663-676, August 25.

Vogel, Gretchen (2014), “Therapeutic Cloning Reaches Milestone,” Science, 344[6183]:462-463.

Yu, J., M.A. Vodyanik, K. Smuga-Otto, J. Antosiewicz-Bourget, J.L. Frane, S. Tian, J. Nie, G.A. Jonsdottir, V. Ruotti, R. Stewart, I.I. Slukvin, and J.A. Thomson (2007), “Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Lines Derived from Human Somatic Cells,” Science, 318[5858]:1917-1920, December 21.

[SPECIAL THANKS TO: Dr. Michael Kareta (Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from The University of California, Davis), currently at the Department of Pediatrics & Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine at Stanford University, for reviewing this article.]

The post Promising News for the Unborn appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Not only have scientists changed adult stem cells into “iPS,” or pluripotent cells that carry the same possibilities for regenerative medicine as do embryonic stem cells (see Vogel and Holden, 2007), but now scientists have “transformed one type of fully developed adult cell directly into another inside a living animal” (Stein, 2008). Harvard biologists have “pinpointed three crucial molecular switches that, when flipped, completely convert a common [adult] cell in the pancreas into the more precious insulin-producing ones that diabetics need to survive” (Stein, bracketed item added; cf. Zhou, et al., 2007). This raises the possibility that “patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies” (Stein). Zhou and colleagues discussed their research, in Nature:

Here…we identify a specific combination of three transcription factors (Ngn3 (also known as Neurog3) Pdx1 and Mafa) that reprograms differentiated pancreatic exocrine cells in adult mice into cells that closely resemble β-cells. The induced β-cells are indistinguishable from endogenous islet β-cells in size, shape and ultrastructure. They express genes essential for β-cell function and can ameliorate hyperglycaemia by remodelling [sic] local vasculature and secreting insulin. This study provides an example of cellular reprogramming using defined factors in an adult organ and suggests a general paradigm for directing cell reprogramming without reversion to a pluripotent stem cell state (2008, parenthetical items in orig., emp. added).

Researchers in the field of regenerative medicine have grand dreams of using adult cells to replace conventional surgery with a sort of genetic substitution (see Stein, 2008).

Those of us at Apologetics Press continue to pray that the Creator’s view of the matter will be paramount in the minds of those who push our society to new limits of biological inquiry. Embryonic stem-cell research is unscriptural and unethical. The scientific community is making it increasingly clear that embryonic stem-cell research is also unnecessary.

Bush, George W. (2001), “Remarks by the President on Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.

Colley, Caleb (2007a), “Adult Stem Cells Match the Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3551.

Colley, Caleb (2007b), “Therapeutic Embryonic Stem-Cell Research ‘Just Not Realistic’,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3504.

Gibson, Robert (2007), “Stem Cell Research Is Good News for Heart Patients,” The Epoch Times, [On-line], URL: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-11/60678.html.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Kolata, Gina (2007), “Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html.

Lillge, Wolfgang (2001), “The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research,” 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine, [On-line], URL: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html.

McIlroy, Anne (2007), “Stem-Cell Method Hailed as ‘Massive Breakthrough’,” The Globe and Mail, [On-line], URL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071121.wstemcells21/BNStory/Science/home.

Miller, Dave (2007), “Adult Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3272.

Saunders, William L., Jr., and David Prentice (2006), “Adult Stem Cell Treatments–Nine Faces of Success” (Washington, D.C.: Family Research Council), a tract.

Stein, Rob (2008), “Scientists Reprogram Adult Cells’ Function,” The Washington Post, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082701829.html.

“Stem Cell Basics” (2006), The National Institutes of Health, [On-line], URL: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp.

“Stem Cell Research: Facts and Fallacies” (2001), National Right to Life, [On-line], URL: http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS08_StemCellResearch.pdf.

Takahashi, Kazutoshi, et al. (2007), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell, 131:1-12, November, [On-line], URL: http://images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdf.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Research—Science’s ‘Slippery Slope’ [Part III],” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2510.

Vogel, Gretchen and Constance Holden (2007), “Field Leaps Forward With New Stem Cell Advances,” Science, 318:1224-1225, November 23.

Zhou, Qiao, et al. (2008), “In Vivo Reprogramming of Adult Pancreatic Exocrine Cells to β-Cells,” Nature, [On-line], URL: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html.

The post Adult Cells Still the Better Option for Therapeutic Research appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Stem cells harvested from blood or marrow, whether administered as purified HSCs or mesenchymal stem cells or as an unmanipulated or unpurified product can, under appropriate conditions in select patients, provide disease-ameliorating effects in some autoimmune diseases and cardiovascular disorders (Burt, et al., 2008).

In other words, while stem cells harvested from newly formed human beings have shown no verifiable promise, “blood-derived (from peripheral or umbilical cord blood) and bone marrow-derived stem cells, which can be easily and safely harvested” (Burt, et al., parenthetical item in orig.), are producing positive results.

Adult stem cells, which can be used to replace damaged or aging cells, are located in tissues throughout the body, and may be harvested without danger to the donor. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are harvested from embryos four to five days after fertilization, thus requiring the death of the embryo. Advocates of the use of embryonic stem cells insist that they “are thought to offer potential cures and therapies for many devastating diseases” (“Frequently Asked…,” 2007), but thus far proof is still lacking.

Regardless of the scientific aspects and the potential medical benefits, the central issue that ought to head the list of considerations in the controversy over embryonic stem-cell research is the life of the children involved. One of the things that is listed as an “abomination” to God is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). During the period of the kings, God denounced the Israelites as wicked because “they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:35). God must surely be outraged that “modern” man is also sacrificing children—but this time on the altar of medical research.

Burt, Richard, et al. (2008), “Clinical Applications of Blood-Derived and Marrow-Derived Stem Cells for Nonmalignant Diseases,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, 299(8):925-936, February 27, [On-line], URL: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/299/8/925.

“Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)” (2007), Stem Cell Information, National Institutes of Health, [On-line], URL: http://stemcells.nih.gov/StemCells/Templates/StemCellContentPage.aspx ?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bA604DCCE-2E5F-4395-8954-FCE1C05BE CED%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRCACHEHINT=NoModify Guest#whatare.

The post No Need for Embryonic Stem Cells appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Now, it has been demonstrated that adult skin cells not only can be “reprogrammed” to assume earlier levels of development, but they actually can be transformed into “blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone” (Kolata, 2007). This method allows for the development of truly pluripotent cells without resorting to “therapeutic” cloning or the destruction of embryos (see Kolata, 2007). Stem-cells from adults may offer hope of developing therapies for patients suffering from diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (see McIlroy, 2007).

Kyoto University’s Shinya Yamanaka and his colleagues “used a retrovirus to ferry into adult cells the same four genes they had previously employed to reprogram mouse cells” (Vogel and Holden, 2007, 318:1224). Yamanaka’s group reported on November 21:

Human iPS [induced pluripotent stem—CC] cells were similar to human embryonic stem (ES) cells in morphology, proliferation, surface antigens, gene expression, epigenetic status or pluripotent cell-specific genes, and telomerase activity. Furthermore, these cells could differentiate into cell types of the three germ layers in vitro and in teratomas. These findings demonstrate that iPS cells can be generated from adult human fibroblasts (Takahashi, et al., 2007, 131:1 parenthetical item in orig.).

James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his colleagues were performing similar experiments and reported their findings at virtually the same time (Vogel and Holden, 2007). He told Science that the reprogrammed adult skin cells “act just like human ES cells” (Vogel and Hogel, 2007, 318:1225).

Researchers agree that the next step is to learn how to reprogram cells without inserting new genes (318:1225). Stem-cell researcher Douglas Melton of Harvard University, commented: “It’s almost inconceivable at the pace this science is moving that we won’t find a way to do this without oncogenes or retroviruses” (quoted in Vogel and Holden, 318:1225). Gibson’s observation that adult stem-cells are “superior to both umbilical and embryonic stem cells” carries even more weight in light of current developments (2007). In view of the general desire to develop cures for major diseases, and the respect for the sanctity of human life, we suspect the pattern of developing nonviolent means of therapeutic research will continue. As it does, we will continue to be impressed by the striking evidence for an intelligent Designer, and recall His strictures against murder (see Miller, 2003).

Bush, George W. (2001), “Remarks by the President on Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.

Colley, Caleb (2007), “Therapeutic Embryonic Stem-Cell Research ‘Just Not Realistic’,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3504.

Gibson, Robert (2007), “Stem Cell Research Is Good News for Heart Patients,” The Epoch Times, [On-line], URL: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-11/60678.html.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [On-line] URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Kolata, Gina (2007), “Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html.

Lillge, Wolfgang (2001), “The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research,” 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine, [On-line], URL: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html.

McIlroy, Anne (2007), “Stem-Cell Method Hailed as ‘Massive Breakthrough’,” The Globe and Mail, [On-line], URL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071121. wstemcells21/BNStory/Science/home.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

Miller, Dave (2007), “Adult Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/3272.

“Stem Cell Basics” (2006), The National Institutes of Health, [On-line], URL: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp.

Takahashi, Kazutoshi, et al. (2007), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell, 131:1-12, November, [On-line], URL: http://images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdf.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Research—Science’s ‘Slippery Slope’ [Part III],” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2510.

Vogel, Gretchen and Constance Holden (2007), “Field Leaps Forward With New Stem Cell Advances,” Science, 318:1224-1225, November 23.

The post Adult Stem Cells Match the Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells appeared first on Apologetics Press.

On September 14, the institute’s oversight board announced that Alan Trounson, director of the Monash Immunology and Stem Cell Laboratories in Melbourne and a founder of the Australian Stem Cell Centre, will take over as soon as he works out visa requirements (Engel, 2007; cf. “Professor Alan…,” 2007).

It is unsurprising that the board of the California institute chose a man with Trounson’s qualifications. Trounson holds a doctorate in embryology from Sydney University (“Renowned Scientist…,” 2007). In 1998, he was part of a team of scientists from Singapore and Australia, racing to be the first to remove stem-cells from days-old human embryos and grow them in a lab (Engel). Trounson was the first scientist to freeze embryos for future pregnancy attempts (Engel).

Dr. George Q. Daley, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and president of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, called Trounson a “terrific, inspired choice” (quoted in Engel). “This position is going to be the single most important steward of stem cell research internationally,” Daley said, adding, “We’re all envious of California” (quoted in Engel).

Over the past 30 years, Trounson founded eight companies devoted to infertility treatment, biotechnology, and stem-cells (“Renowned Scientist…”). He is a sheep farmer who has cloned cows and wombats (Engel). Trounson definitely is qualified academically and professionally to lead a group such as CIRM. He obviously has no ethical problems with embryonic stem-cell research.

But is he confident that CIRM can accomplish its objective to “heal” people as a result of stem-cell research? Curiously, Trounson has expressed skepticism about the therapeutic potential of embryonic stem-cells: “The so-called therapeutic cloning to my mind is a non-event,” he told Nature Medicine in 2005. As a method for developing cures for dreaded diseases, “it’s just not realistic” (quoted in “Australian Appointed…,” 2007). It is ironic that the man slated to lead one of the world’s premier embryonic stem-cell research centers, is highly doubtful of the possibility of his accomplishing one of the center’s primary objectives.

Evidently, Trounson’s own research suggests what Kelly Hollowell observed:

The best sources of stem cells are (1) from our own organs—termed adult stem cells or tissue stem cells; (2) cord blood (the small amount of blood left in an umbilical cord after it is detached from a newborn); (3) bone marrow stem cells which have been demonstrated to make more than blood but also bone, muscle, cartilage, heart tissue, liver, and even brain cells; (4) and neuronal stem cells which can be stimulated to make more neurons, or to take up different job descriptions as muscle and blood.

Bone marrow and cord blood are already successfully being used clinically, while clinical use of embryonic stem cells is years away. Current clinical applications of adult stem cells include treatments for cancer, arthritis, lupus and making new corneas, to name a few (2001, emp. added).

How sad that many scientists adhere to the technological imperative that we should do whatever we are capable of doing. Any procedure that results in the death of embryos—regardless of the potential for a perceived good—is unethical and unbiblical (Proverbs 6:16-17; see Thompson and Harrub).

“Australian Appointed Head of California Stem Cell Institute” (2007), BioEdge, [On-line], URL: http://www.australasianbioethics.org/Newsletters/266-2007-09-19.html.

“California Institute for Regenerative Medicine” (2007), [On-line], URL: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/.

Engel, Mary (2007), “Stem Cell Pioneer to Lead State’s Institute,” [On-line], URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-stemcell15 sep15,1,1296150.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california.

Hollowell, Kelly J. (2001), “Nobel Laureates Letter to President Bush Contains Misinformation and Omissions,” The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, [On-line], URL: http://www.cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/hollowell_2001-03-02.htm.

“Professor Alan Trounson” (2007), Monash Institute of Reproduction and Development, [On-line], URL: http://www.med.monash.edu.au/eprb/staff/trounson.html.

“Renowned Scientist to Lead California Stem Cell Institute” (2007), California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, [On-line], URL: http://www.cirm.ca.gov/press/pdf/2007/09-14-07.pdf.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Research—Science’s Slippery Slope” [Parts I, II, & III],” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/article/2877.

The post Therapeutic Embryonic Stem-Cell Research “Just Not Realistic” appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The moral, spiritual, and biblical issue is very simple: the shedding of innocent blood is a despicable thing to God (Proverbs 6:17). Solomon warned: “My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent. If they say, ‘Come with us, let us lie in wait to shed blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause… My son, do not walk in the way with them, keep your foot from their path; for their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood” (Proverbs 1:10-16, emp. added). Even if embryonic stem cells one day were shown to be beneficial to the infirmed, saving one human at the expense of another is not the right solution. Indeed, murdering millions of innocent babies through both abortion and embryonic stem-cell research is the evil scourge of our time (cf. Jeremiah 19:5; 32:35).

Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Serafini, Marta, S.J. Dylla, et al. (2007), “Hematopoietic Reconstitution by Multipotent Adult Progenitor Cells: Precursors to Long-Term Hematopoietic Stem Cells,” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, January 16, [On-line], URL: http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/abstract/jem.20061115v1.

Williams, Ruth (2007), “Cell Replacement Therapy—Are MAPCs the Answer?” The Journal of Experimental Medicine, January 16, [On-line], URL: http://www.jem.org/cgi/content/full/jem.2041iti1v1.

The post Adult Stem-cell Research appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Should Christians let their religious convictions affect their political convictions?

A.

Many Americans will go to the polls this week to indicate their choice of political leaders. It has long been a common sentiment that “religion and politics don’t mix”—meaning that one should keep these two spheres separate and distinct, and that political preference be exercised without the interference of religious opinion. But the Bible contradicts this notion. For the faithful Christian, God’s will naturally permeates every aspect of life and takes precedence over everything and everyone (Matthew 6:33). Every thought and every action is subjected to the scrutiny of Scripture (2 Corinthians 10:5). While many decisions in life are left by God to individual taste and personal preference, nevertheless, every area of life must be approached with a proper understanding of moral and spiritual principles that may impinge on one’s decision-making. The Christian is free to form a personal opinion on many political questions—from whether the government should fund Interstate system repairs, how to restrain criminals, and how much tax should be levied on citizens, to how foreign policy should be conducted. No one’s soul is necessarily jeopardized by the stance taken on these matters. Nor has God ever destroyed cities or nations on account of these political concerns.

But we must face the fact that religious and moral issues are being politicized. Just because politicians seize upon these issues, dragging them into the political arena, does not mean that they are exempt from religious scrutiny. The two premiere moral issues confronting the nation are same-sex marriage and the butchery of unborn babies (from abortion to embryonic stem cell research). Like the great prophets of old (e.g., Amos 7:10ff.; Mark 6:17-18), Christians have the divine obligation to stand firm against all politicians who support such evil behaviors. Indeed, our voting should be guided by the same principle articulated by Jehu when he challenged Jehoshaphat’s political affiliation with King Ahab: “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord?” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

The post Religion in Politics? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

What further proof is needed? Nothing was done after conception to change these children from embryos into humans. They became human at conception. From that point onward, they were merely allowed to grow—transferred to the womb to continue their development. No difference exists between a pre-birth infant and a post-birth infant—both are simply at different stages of human growth and development. As the children produced from “adopted” frozen embryos encircled the President with their parents, proof that embryos are people was staring the nation and the world in the face. How blind can we be? Are we of those who “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13)?

Apart from the fact that the scientific community’s insistence that embryonic stem cells will be the panacea to cure disease remains both unproven and highly suspect, and despite the fact that adult stem cells have, in fact, shown the most promise and have been used successfully (Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Harrub, 2006), the only concern in the discussion ought to be the moral, ethical, and spiritual implication. On this basis alone, the entire matter ought to be—and can be—settled.

If the God of the Bible exists, and if the Bible is His Word, then human life begins at conception. To deliberately terminate that life—for whatever purpose—is the taking of human life, identified in Scripture as murder. David insisted that his development as a human being, his personhood, was achieved by God, prior to his birth, while he was yet in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13-16). Elizabeth’s pre-born baby is represented as a living human being (Luke 1:39-44). In fact, the term “baby” used in verses 41 and 44 to refer to the pre-born John is the exact same term that is used in chapter two to refer to Jesus after His birth as He laid in the manger (Luke 2:12,16). So, in God’s sight, whether a person is in his or her pre-birth developmental state, or in a post-birth developmental state, that person is still a baby! John the Baptizer is referred to as “a son” from the very moment of conception (Luke 1:36). All three phases of human life are listed in reverse order in Hosea 9:11—birth, pregnancy, and conception (see Miller, 2003).

The national discussion regarding the use of embryonic stem cells is “cut and dried” for those who believe in and respect the God of the Bible: “[D]o not kill the innocent and righteous. For I will not justify the wicked” (Exodus 23:7). God hates “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). The fact that we even are debating this subject demonstrates the extent to which the nation has strayed from its commitment to and reliance on the God of the Universe—yet another unmistakable manifestation of America’s downward spiral into moral and spiritual depravity.

REFERENCES

Babington, Charles (2006a), “Senate Passes Stem Cell Bill; Bush Vows Veto,” Washington Post, July 19, A01, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/ AR2006071800182.html.

Babington, Charles (2006b), “Stem Cell Bill Gets Bush’s First Veto,” Washington Post, July 20, A04, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/ AR2006071900524.html.

Harrub, Brad (2006), “False Marketing of Embryonic Stem Cells,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2976.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.

The post Embryos are People appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Same-Sex Marriage

Assessing the November, 2006 elections from a spiritual/religious perspective cannot help but bring some alarm and sadness. True, seven more states (bringing the total to 26) passed state constitutional amendments that define marriage as a man and a woman (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Sadly, Arizona voters (by a narrow margin—51.4% to 48.6%) failed to pass a marriage protection amendment (“Marriage Protection…,” 2006). With elation, Victory, the nation’s largest LGBT [Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender—DM] political action committee reported: “In 15 years, Victory has helped the number of openly LGBT officials grow from 49 to more than 350. Roughly 22% of all Americans are represented by an openly LGBT elected official” (“Gay Candidates…,” 2006).

One bright spot: When Dr. Frank Kauffman, assistant professor of social work at Missouri State University, demanded that his class sign a letter affirming that homosexuals make healthy foster parents, student Emily Brooker refused. Pronounced in violation of the social workers’ code of ethics, she sued the school for violating its own policies regarding freedom of speech and expression on campus. Surprisingly, the case was settled when Brooker was offered a generous settlement (which included free school tuition and living expenses), and professor Kauffman was removed from the classroom (“Missouri State Settles…,” 2006).Nevertheless, the war over human sexuality remains at a high pitch.

Abortion & Embryonic Stem-Cell Research

Those who are making war on the unborn scored unfortunate victories in the recent election (“Bad Night…,” 2006). By a narrow margin, Missourians authorized the legalized killing of human embryos for their stem cells. In South Dakota, the dignity of the unborn was dashed when citizens failed to uphold a ban against abortion. In both California and Oregon, teenage girls were given the “right” to have abortions without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Even now, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold the ban on the unbelievably barbaric procedure of partial-birth abortion.

These events are tragic circumstances for a nation that once openly avowed attachment to God and Christian virtue. The downward spiral into moral depravity stands in such stark contrast to the origins of America. The Founders would be horrified. After serving two terms as vice-president alongside President George Washington, on October 11, 1798, the second president of these United States, John Adams, delivered a speech to military officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts: “[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (1854, 9:229). When Christian religion and morality no longer characterize the people and are therefore excluded from the political process, we can fully expect the nation, in time, to collapse.

While the ultimate solution to our nation’s woes is recommitment to God and the moral precepts of the Bible, one immediate strategy ought to be that Christians do more to control the political forces that are running amok. In the words of President James A. Garfield:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If that body be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. [I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation…it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces (as quoted in Taylor, 1970, p. 180, emp. added).

On Friday, June 20, 1788, in the Virginia convention assembled to debate ratification of the federal Constitution, James Madison reminded his colleagues of the only ultimate safeguard for national preservation:

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them (Elliot, 1836, 3:536-537, emp. added).

Judging by the recent nationwide elections, the virtue, intelligence, and wisdom of a sizable number of Americans has been called into question.

Adams, John (1854), The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, ed. Charles Adams (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company).

“Bad Night for Parents and Unborn Children” (2006), Traditional Values Coalition, November 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2928.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot), [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/ lled003.db&recNum=547&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field% 28DOCID%2B@lit%28ed0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1.

“Gay Candidates Win in Record Numbers Across U.S.” (2006), Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, November 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.victoryfund.org/index.php?src=news&prid=183& category=News%20Releases.

“Marriage Protection Amendments Win In 7 of 8 States” (2006), Traditional Values Coalition, November 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2929.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/305.

Miller, Dave (2006), “Destruction of Marriage Equals Destruction of America,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3105.

“Missouri State Settles Lawsuit with Emily Brooker” (2006), Missouri State University Office of University Communications, November 8, [On-line], URL: http://www.news.missouristate.edu/releases/27833.htm.

Taylor, John (1970), Garfield of Ohio: The Available Man (New York: W.W. Norton).

The post Politics and Apologetics Press appeared first on Apologetics Press.

At least seven states are grappling with the funding of the controversial science of embryonic stem-cell research. California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have all gone on record as endorsing the research. The Massachusetts measure endorses a technique for harvesting stem cells known as therapeutic cloning, or somatic cell nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus of an adult cell is transferred into an unfertilized egg cell (whose own DNA has been removed), causing it to divide. Massachusetts has a vested interest in the research—since it is one of the nation’s leading health-care and biotechnology hubs (Finer, 2005).

However, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who strongly opposes therapeutic cloning, weighed in on the issue, calling the Senate proposal a “radical cloning bill.” He said:

Research cloning involves the creation of a human embryo for purposes of experimentation, with the intent to destroy it…. However, the process of cloning only occurs once, with the creation of the embryo—a unique genetic entity with the full complement of chromosomes. Once cloning occurs, a human life is set in motion. Calling this process “somatic cell nuclear transfer,” or conveniently dismissing the embryo as a mere “clump of cells,” cannot disguise the reality of what occurs: A genetically complete human embryo is brought into being. It is manipulated and experimented upon like so much research material. And then that emerging life is destroyed and discarded. Imagine row after row of laboratory racks, filled with growing human embryos: a “Brave New World” (2005).

Romney is right. Not only is he right in his assessment of the moral and ethical implications of embryonic stem-cell research, but he also has his science right. The fact of the matter is that the continued use of embryonic stem cells is not essential in order for science to continue making advancements in healing or preventative procedures. In fact, adult stem cells have shown far greater promise in the search for cures for diseases, and embryonic stem cells actually have proven harmful in several research trials (see Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Thompson and Harrub, 2001).

Regardless of the scientific aspects and the potential medical benefits, the central issue that ought to head the list of considerations in the controversy over embryonic stem-cell research is the life of the children involved. One of the things that is listed in Scripture as an “abomination” to God is “hands that shed innocent blood” (Proverbs 6:17). During the period of the kings, God denounced the Israelites as wicked because “they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:35). God must surely be outraged that “modern man” also is sacrificing children—but this time on the altar of medical research.

Finer, Jonathan (2005), “Mass. Senate Passes Stem-cell Bill that May Face Governor’s Veto,” Washington Post, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13970-2005Mar30.html, March 21.

Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.

Romney, Mitt (2005), “The Problem with the Stem-cell Bill,” Boston Globe, March 6, [On-line], URL: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles
/2005/03/06/the_problem_with_the_stem_cell_bill/.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-cell Research—Science’s ‘Slippery Slope’ (Part III),” Reason and Revelation, October, 21[10]:73-79, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2510.

Wagner, John (2005), “Md. Stem-cell Bill’s Last Gasp,” Washington Post, [On-line], URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57477-2005Apr15.html, April 16.

The post Maryland and Stem-cell Research appeared first on Apologetics Press.

During 1994, a special NIH panel met to formulate funding guidelines. Following the lead of several other countries, the panel gave the green light for work on embryos until the fourteenth day. Embryos could come from IVF procedures, or could be produced specifically for research purposes. Either approach creates serious ethical problems, because it is extremely unlikely that the embryos in these experiments will be implanted after the two-week limit; they will die in the lab.

Fortunately, thirty-five congressmen, led by Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.), have taken the initiative in challenging NIH policies. “Congress has not examined these initiatives,” they reminded NIH Director Harold Varmus in a June 16 letter, “and the American people are largely unaware that the NIH is even contemplating using their tax dollars to fund such bizarre experiments on living human embryos.” In particular, many conservatives were incensed that human embryos could be created specifically for research.

Apparently these concerns, bolstered by a change of guard on Capitol Hill, spurred President Bill Clinton to action. On December 2, 1994—only hours after the NIH accepted its panel’s guidelines—Clinton announced the following: “I do not believe that federal funds should be used to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes, and I have directed that NIH not allocate any resources for such research.”

Thankfully, also, the panel advised against support for research on more advanced embryos, and ruled twinning and nuclear cloning unacceptable. However, comments from various panel members suggest that they did not base their decisions on ethical absolutes. Rather, they weighed pragmatic considerations against the feelings of people “out there,” to use the words of panelist Pamela Davis. The scope of eligible research may change when feelings change. Further, the policies adopted by NIH are guidelines, not laws or rules, and are limited to federally funded projects.

Even this is no guarantee of compliance. In early December, National Public Radio revealed the results of an inquiry by George Washington University into the controversial cloning work of Robert Stillman and Jerry Hall. Although not conducted with federal funds, Stillman and Hall’s project had not received timely approval from a review board, and they did not obtain informed consent from embryo donors. Clearly, there is no room for complacency.

The post Clinton: No Creation of Embryos for Research appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Indeed, more and more people coming into the world are children of science in the most literal sense. They are the products of a technology that enables the conception, development, and birth of human life. Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are controversial chapters in this unfolding story, but we also must consider drugs, surgical procedures, and other techniques designed to aid the safe delivery of countless healthy children. The relentless advances of modern, rational medicine are proclaimed everyday, but the same drive has led to techniques that prevent conception and birth. Abortion bears the highest profile here, but chemical and physical contraceptive methods arguably have had a greater impact on the general population.

Like air travel, medical technology has become an integral part of our world. And, like powered flight, we may neither like this technology nor understand the science behind it. In the end, despite our lack of personal knowledge and the catalog of unknowns, life has ceased to be a mystery. Microscopes allow us to see the sperm and egg cells, and witness their union. Embryology, genetics, and biochemistry allow us to understand some of what happens when they meet, how the two cells become one and how it, in turn, becomes many. Not only can we observe these events directly or indirectly, we can manipulate them. Doctors can extract several eggs from a woman, fertilize them outside the body, implant one or two, and freeze the rest for later use. They can look under their microscopes to see which embryos appear the most viable, test for genetic abnormalities, and use ultrasound to check the size, sex, position, and overall development of the fetus.

These newly found capabilities introduce a host of ethical concerns. For thousands of years, people have understood that the womb held the unborn child. It was sufficient to consider our attitudes toward life from this point until death. Even so, medical choices concerning the preborn were limited compared to the tools of modern technology. Today, by going to a medical specialist, hopeful parents can control conception. And those same parents can choose to end that pregnancy if prenatal tests show that the child has, or will have, a medical problem that no existing tool can fix.

Such technology is of moral concern because it involves humans making decisions about the lives of other humans and, generally speaking, societies have put a high priority on making rules about those decisions. For example, it serves a very practical purpose to limit the situations in which it is acceptable to take life. After all, if it is too easy to kill, it is too easy to be killed. In the case of the preborn, many societies today have decided that its members’ quality of life is more important than the mere existence of human life. This means that a woman’s desire to end her pregnancy takes precedence over the death of her unborn child.

Yet these decisions have not come easily. Many citizens of the nations possessing advanced health-care systems believe that human life is all important, not for secular reasons alone, but because life has an inherent, God-given sanctity (Major, 1989).

LIFE TO SPARE?

Ever since its inception, the most pressing issue of IVF has been the destruction of supernumerary or “spare” embryos (Thompson, 1993, pp. 23-24,26). For the most part, these were, and continue to be, the by-product of a medical service intended to assist in conception and pregnancy. But the route from science to technology goes both ways. It soon became apparent to embryologists and other researchers that clinics were a good source of fertilized eggs for scientific investigation.

Individuals concerned for the sanctity of life opposed this development on the grounds that human life begins at conception. As such, it is worthy of protection from this point forward. The loss of early human life in IVF procedures was bad enough, but the idea that these individuals would become laboratory subjects on a par with mice and guinea pigs was positively ghoulish.

People defending the use of embryos for research share the prochoice position that the status of the preborn takes secondary place to other interests. These may include a woman’s desire for an abortion, or a researcher’s belief that his studies on embryos will benefit science and human health.

In the shadow of this debate, many nations moved slowly but surely toward embryo research. Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have approved research on embryos up to the fourteenth day of development, but restrict the creation of embryos specifically for research. In the United States, former President Ronald Reagan put an outright ban on federal funding of embryo and fetal tissue research. This was lifted almost as soon as President Bill Clinton took office, and an advisory committee to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has adopted guidelines similar to those of its international counterparts (see sidebar article).

Ireland, Spain, and other countries with a strong Catholic tradition have placed strict limits on embryo research. Their objections are based primarily on the Vatican’s longstanding position that life begins at conception. Germans, also, have restricted such research, ever mindful of cruel experimentation by Nazi doctors, and the subsequent postwar adoption of a constitution recognizing the inherent dignity of human life (Dickson, 1988). Although France passed a relatively conservative bioethics law, it authorized the destruction of 11,000 supernumerary embryos stored in freezers (Butler, 1994).

Despite pockets of resistance, the outlook for human life in its earliest stages remains a cause for grave concern. As the demand for embryos increases, so grow the justifications for their use. Many arguments relate to the abortion issue in general, but new technologies and trends require us to focus particular attention on life in the first few days and weeks of pregnancy.

THE STATUS OF EARLY HUMAN LIFE

Life Begins at Conception

The reasons for believing that life begins at conception are relatively straightforward.

• Conception involves the union of a human father’s sperm with a human mother’s egg. The basic rules of biology tell us that at this instance, the zygote (one-celled fertilized egg) possesses the full complement of human chromosomes—23 each from the mother and father. These chromosomes are special structures inside the nucleus of the cell containing genes that, in turn, consist of a complex chemical code known as DNA. Genes will direct the development of this new individual; they will decide sex, hair color, and countless other features.
• Geneticists can analyze the DNA of the developing human and discern that its DNA is unique (i.e., that no one else has the same sequence of DNA). In other words, it is an individual member of the human species.
• Although a zygote has no arms, legs, thoughts, or words, it will become an adult human if its development is not interrupted.

The preborn at any stage are fully human, and there is no objective way to deny them the respect and rights accorded to other humans.

From the Christian perspective, these secular arguments are buttressed by the Bible’s teaching on the sanctity of life. Although Scripture does not mention zygotes or abortion, it extends concern to the preborn. The following points are among the most important:

• God can know about us, as individuals, before we are born, and God is responsible for creating the way fetuses develop during pregnancy (Isaiah 49:1,5a; Jeremiah 1:5).
• There is no distinction in God’s eyes between the preborn and the born. For example, several passages in the New Testament use the same Greek word, brephos, to describe infants, the newly born, and a child within the womb (e.g., Luke 1:41-42, 2:12, and 8:15).

Therefore, the same divinely given laws that protect innocent human life outside the womb apply to life inside the womb (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17).

The Unborn as Nonperson

Writers on the prochoice side generally accept the premise that pregnant human mothers carry developing human life. The departure usually occurs on philosophical arguments of what constitutes “personhood.” Some prochoice advocates argue that the unborn lack essential qualities of being a person, and hence, do not obligate us morally. Whatever ethical concerns we have for each other do not apply to human life before birth, and so our actions toward life in this stage are not, in themselves, either right or wrong. A slightly different view admits that the preborn have the status of persons, and that early human life has a value. In either case, the value of the preborn at conception is practically zero, and it never equals the value of the mother until at least the point of delivery.

One simple expedient is to claim that a preborn being is not one of “us.” We know they exist, but we cannot see them directly; we know they may interact with society, but not until their birth. As a result, ancient and modern societies have allowed themselves to make different rules about prenatal life. For example, the majority opinion in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision concluded that the unborn “have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

Making such a distinction between humanness and personhood rests on the criteria of form and function: an early human is not a person because it neither looks nor acts like us. Exploring these tests moves us on to ever more dangerous and subjective territory. First, how much should someone look like us to be treated as fellow human? Would it include newborns who, even in the loving eyes of their parents, look remarkably alien-like? Would it include people with gross skeletal abnormalities, such as the famous Elephant Man?

Second, how much would they have to act like us to be considered persons? The argument from function says that the unborn are not persons because they are not conscious or self-aware. According to Bonnie Steinbock, this means that the preborn have similar moral value to trees or paintings, but none of these warrants the same moral interest as people who have been born (see Warnock, 1993). Here, too, the cutoff point is arbitrary. What about comatose patients, or twelve- to eighteen-month-old infants who lack self-consciousness (Beckwith and Geisler, 1991, p. 133)?

Joseph Fletcher (of situation ethics fame) and James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA molecule) have taken this reasoning to its logical conclusion. They argue for an across-the-board devaluation of humans who do not measure up to their personhood criteria, thus permitting abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia (Davis, 1984, pp. 9-12; Beckwith and Geisler, 1991, pp. 132-135).

The Unborn as a Potential Person

Even those who support abortion and allow for the personhood of prenatal life wish to draw the line at some point. This was the approach of an influential paper by Judith Jarvis Thomson. She set forth an idea resembling “voluntary parenthood,” which argued that a mother was not obligated to the care of her unborn child. [Her arguments begin to break down when we consider the way society normally holds parents responsible for children that do make it into this world (see Beckwith and Geisler, 1991, pp. 88-92).]

Notice, however, the condition that Thomson added to the end of her paper: “It should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here” (1988, p. 255). In other words, it may take some justification to argue for the abortion of a fetus in the final two or three months, but no justification is required for the first few months.

Fourteen Days to Live

Such a distinction between preborn as person and preborn as nonperson has been set at specific points in development. For example, many national guideline-setting groups have agreed that zygotes and embryos warrant no special consideration before the fourteenth day. It is at this stage that a groove (the “primitive streak”) begins to form, and identifiable organs and appendages being to appear. Following the argument from form, an embryo that is less than two weeks old has a nonperson status because its individuality is not established or recognizable. For the sake of medical research, the human in this early stage is referred to as a pre-embryo, and it receives about the same level of respect as ordinary body tissue.

However, a comprehensive genetic test would show that the pre-embryo’s DNA is unique. Our inability to see hair color and facial features makes this early human no less of an individual. Further, the cells of this seemingly simple embryo will produce all the specialized cells of the body in a one-way transformation: once a skin cell, always a skin cell. No ordinary body cell can match the giant step of this extraordinary metamorphosis. Destroying a single embryonic cell in these first two weeks may greatly affect the development of the individual. The same cannot be said for body cells. As French geneticist Jérôme Lejeune has commented:

If I am looking at the mass of [body] cells growing, I know by my own experience in my lab for twenty years that a baby will never form itself in our bottles because we are growing cells taken from the body. On the contrary, we know that if the cell which is dividing is a fertilized zygote, a new individual is now beginning to emerge (1992, p. 50).

Several other arguments are offered for the 14-day limit. For example, John Godfrey (1995) noted that the mother’s genes alone dominate development in the first four days and so, without the father’s genes, this cannot be an individual. However, all the genes a person will ever have are present in this cell and, if left alone, will influence its continuing development. Whether genes function normally, abnormally, or not at all does not affect the humanness of the zygote.

Also, Godfrey pointed out that twins may share embryo cells in the first two weeks if two spermatozoa fertilized the egg. If it is impossible to know whether the embryo will produce one or two individuals, he argued, then we cannot call it an individual. But it seems that if two lives were at stake, then the life of this embryo is twice as valuable. Whether one or two individuals begin at conception, human life still begins at conception (Beckwith and Geisler, 1991, pp. 375-379).

Save the Egg!?

To ridicule the idea that life begins at conception, advocates of embryo research suggest that germ cells also are human life worthy of protection. They taunt prolifers to save the hundreds of thousands of eggs and billions of sperm that die every day. If the zygote is alive because it functions and contains human DNA, they reason, then eggs and sperm are alive because they function and contain human DNA (Godfrey, 1995). The difference is that germ cells and zygotes are not “alive” in the same sense. As Dr. Lejeune showed us with ordinary body cells, a germ cell would not, by itself, develop into a human being. Human life begins at conception because the cell contains human DNA and it is developing as a new individual.

The Viability Test

Another approach is to propose a sliding scale of moral value from conception to birth. This does not guarantee protection to the unborn at any stage; it simply suggests that we have less and less responsibility for the unborn as we approach conception.

Again, Roe v. Wade set an example on this issue by taking both approaches. On the one hand, the majority opinion granted no legal personhood to the unborn, and acknowledged only an increasing “potentiality of human life” as the fetus approaches term. On the other hand, it organized its decision around three three-month periods (trimesters) of normal pregnancy. The Court decided that the fetus was nonviable during the first trimester (i.e., a baby would not survive such a premature birth). Therefore, the State could not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. However, it allowed the State to regulate and even prohibit abortion in the last trimester on the assumption that the fetus had reached viability, providing it did not threaten the life or health of the mother (the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, defined “health” in such a way as to allow abortion for any reason).

From the prolife standpoint, the issue of the preborn’s viability changes neither its humanness nor its need for our protection. And from a purely practical standpoint, viability is an ever-moving criterion because it depends on available medical technology. In the future, very premature babies may survive routinely.

Tall Oaks from Little Acorns Grow

Advocates of “potentiality” frequently illustrate their idea by comparing an acorn with a human zygote. An acorn, they would argue, is a potential oak tree, but it is not an actual oak tree, and it would be ridiculous to say they are equal (Thomson, 1988, p. 242). Similarly, a zygote is a potential person, not an actual person. The effect of destroying an acorn has some meaning, just as destroying a zygote has some meaning, but these actions are different from felling an oak tree or killing a human.

This analogy suffers from several problems, not the least of which is that it is not a good analogy: a dormant plant seed hardly is equivalent to an actively developing member of our own species. Even so, by rules of genetics an oak acorn and an oak tree have equal “oakness.” Similarly, the human zygote and human adult have equal “humanness.” To destroy the zygote is to destroy an actual human being, not a potential human being (see Alcorn, 1994, pp. 54-55).

D. Gareth Jones offered a variation on the acorn/zygote analogy (1994, 6:12-13). Imagine, Jones suggested, a student who enrolls for a course of study. At the beginning of the course he has the potential to pass, but he is not a passed student until he has fulfilled the requirements of that course. The student has value at the beginning, but the process of learning and passing the examinations changes him and gives him greater status. Similarly, Jones would argue, the embryo is a potential human, but the process of development confers increasing value until the time of birth, when it becomes an actual human being.

However, what if the professor decided to kick the student out of the course because he had too many students in the course already, or because he did not want any more students to pass the course, even though the student was allowed to enroll, paid his fees, had the potential to pass, attended lectures, and was completing assignments? Surely most observers, especially the student, would cry “Foul!” over such treatment. It is not a case of whether the student is actually successful or potentially successful, or whether he can or will pass, but how the school system treats him as a student.

With these added possibilities we have a better analogy because, like the professor who removes a student arbitrarily, IVF techniques and abortion end life that would develop and complete the “course” if left unhindered. Further, our responsibility to see that this life can survive is considerably greater in human terms than our responsibility to see that a student gets a passing grade. At least a student can make decisions that will affect his ability to succeed, whereas the embryonic human depends on the mother for its continued existence and birth. Further, a student can cry “Foul!” over his treatment; the most an unborn child can do is cry.

The intention is not to take Jones’ analogy to ridiculous ends, but to show that comparisons should not ignore that human life is at stake here.

Doomed to Death

The arguments offered in favor of IVF and research on embryos often cite the significant rate of spontaneous abortions (Jones, 1994, 6:8-11). Estimates of this rate vary from a third to two-thirds of all conceptions. By implication, because the deliberate act of fertilizing eggs in the natural way is prone to failure and “dooms” many embryos to death, then why worry about the mortality of embryos in artificial reproduction?

For example, if we start with six eggs, fertilize them successfully, implant four in a willing mother, two of which develop into children, and pass two on for research and eventual disposal at the 14-day limit, then our embryo death rate (four out of six, or two-thirds) is no worse than if we tried to achieve pregnancy the natural way. [Actually, the loss of embryos by IVF procedures is probably four times higher than in natural procreation (Jones, 1994, 6:9).]

However, there are some crucial differences. In the laboratory version, two embryos were discarded intentionally. In the natural version, all embryos have a chance to develop; if they were spontaneously aborted, it was probably because of developmental problems, either within the embryo itself or in the mother. One decision involved a deliberate attempt to end life; the other gave life a chance to proceed along its natural course.

CONCLUSION

Advances in science have allowed humans to control the stunning feat of their own procreation. Yet in the very act of satiating curiosity, we have become indifferent to the object of our study. In the epitome of reductionism, the new life lying in a glass dish has become nothing more than a biological product of physical and chemical reactions.

The same cold science tells us that when a human sperm unites with a human egg, a human zygote is formed. For the first four days its genetic uniqueness has not been set, but it will be if unhindered. For the first two weeks it has no distinct body parts, but it will if unhindered. For the first few months it may not be able to survive outside the womb, but it will survive if unhindered. For the entire pregnancy it does not interact with other human life on a social level, but it will if unhindered. For the first eighteen months it is not self-aware, but it will become this way if unhindered.

There is no logical stopping point at which we can measure quality of life, personhood, or physical appearance and capabilities. All these criteria are important, but all mean nothing unless we first consider the essential humanness of life from conception to adulthood. This brings equal responsibility to all humans. What we must value is not the quality of life, but life itself.

The same unequivocal humanness and inherent worth are enshrined within the pages of the Bible, which makes no distinction between life in the womb and outside the womb. All life from conception onward is personal and significant to God.

REFERENCES

Alcorn, Randy (1994), Prolife Answers to Prochoice Arguments (Portland, OR: Multnomah).

Beckwith, Francis J. and Norman L. Geisler (1991), Matters of Life and Death (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Butler, Declan (1994), “Compromise Reached on Bioethics Bill,” Nature, 369:599, June 23.

Davis, John Jefferson (1984), Abortion and the Christian (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed).

Dickson, David (1988), “Europe Split on Embryo Research,” Science, 242:1117-1118, November 25.

Godfrey, John (1995), “The Pope and the Ontogeny of Persons,” Nature, 373:100, January 12.

Jones, D. Gareth (1994), “The Human Embryo: Between Oblivion and Meaningful Life,” Science & Christian Belief, 6:3-19.

Lejeune, Jérôme (1992), The Concentration Can (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press; published originally by Librairie Arthème Fayard, Paris, 1990).

Major, Trevor (1989), “Life: Sanctity or Quality,” Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, 3:75-76, Fall.

Thompson, Bert (1993), The Christian and Medical Ethics (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Thomson, Judith Jarvis (1988), “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, ed. J.R. Burr and M. Goldinger (New York: Macmillan, fifth edition; published originally in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1971, 1[1]:47-66).

Warnock, Mary (1993), “Unborn Interest,” Nature, 362:421, April 1.

The post The Value of Early Human Life appeared first on Apologetics Press.