From the Non-Scientist
I've never claimed to be the world's smartest person, and so admittedly there is a lot I don't know. I don't know about things that I should know, like what's the latest deal with affirmative action and the SATs. I am not exactly clear on what the presidential candidates positions are on healthcare--which I feel I should be well versed in, since there is so much coverage about it (but I sort of glaze over whenever election stuff is on these days). And I don't have the first clue about stem cell research. I know Michael J. Fox is all about it, and I know it seems like it can do a great deal of good and I know there is a whole lot of controversy about it. That's about it. I learned a bit more about it yesterday. At church.It's "Respect Life Month" in the Catholic Church and my church bulletin has been covering different topics within this subject over the last few weeks. While abortion is up there as a main issue, I found this week's bulletin on stem cell research very interesting. I'm sure how scientifically accurate it is, but I'm going with it for now.
Is the Catholic Church opposed to all stem cell research?
Not at all. Most stem cell research uses cells obtained from adult tissue, umbilical cord blood and other sources that do not impose a moral problem. Useful stem cells have been found in bone marrow, blood, muscle, fat nerves, and even in the pulp of baby teeth. Some of these cells are already being used to treat people with a wide variety of diseases.
Why is the Church opposed to stem cell research using the embryo?
Because harvesting these stem cells kills the living embryo. The Church opposes the direct destruction of innocent human life for any purpose, including research.
I haven't thought much about stem cell research. But it's nice to know that the Church isn't against it. Well, except in the case of destroying embryos, but I'm down with that. I would have assumed the Church would have unilaterally condemned stem cell research, because they seem to do that with anything, you know, progressive.
Cloning though? That wigs me out. I know my scientist friends' heads are probably imploding at reading this. But really, cloning? Wigs. Me. Out.
What I do like however, is that my Church, for better or for worse, is trying to explain issues like cloning and stem cell research and how it relates to faith. I know it gives some people aneurysms when religion and science mix, but I think it's nice to have that perspective.
posted by DJ Heavy D @ 6:18 AM
3 Comments:
My thoughts as a Catholic and as the partner of a scientist.
Using embryonic stem cells does not technically "kill the living embryo" in the way that the Church phrases it.
Even if you think of abortion as the destruction of human life (a view I personally hold although politically, I am pro-choice), the statement that embyronic stem cells destroy life is not accurate.
After the abortion, there are embryonic stem cells. At that time, they can be disposed of OR scientists can use them. The life has already been destroyed (if that's your belief). At this point, no one has suggested that people get pregnant and then abort so that we can get stem cells. That doesn't even make sense.
At this point in time, abortion is legal. There are millions of embryonic stem cells that exist because abortions are performed every day. I tend to think that facilities that perform abortions would be respectful and sensitive when asking a woman if she would be interested in donating the cells to research.
The argument that "the evil, abortion people" would pressure a woman to have an abortion so we could have stem cells to use for research is cold and manipulative. I just don't think that would happen. And people who tell you it would are trying to scare you.
Whenever reading scientific information from a religious organization, I am wary. Which is why my post should have read that I'm "not" sure how accurate the information is, but I sort of left out the "not". Anyway,
I guess what the Church is trying to say, although not well, is that it's opposed to stem cell research involving embryos because, well, those cells were collected as a result of an abortion (not that the pregnancy and subsequent abortion were specifically for gaining stem cells) and according to the Church, abortions shouldn't be happening. I don't know how one is supposed to support a good (stem cells and therefore possible research) that's a result of a bad (at least to me, abortion). I'm not saying that one can't be pro-life and pro-stem cell research--I think you can be. The more I learn on the topic, the more I think I may be just that. It's just a little complicated.
People get pregnant with the hopes that a baby will have the same blood type/bone marrow as relatives with cancer. I'm sure there will never be a huge bunch of pregnancies created with the hopes of getting stem cells (and it's not exactly the same thing as the example I just used). But there's no reason I'm aware of why it couldn't happen occasionally. I'm NOT saying that that should be an argument against stem cell research or that it should be used to scare people. With all this great research comes great opportunity. And great responsibility.
I'm with you on the cloning.
Post a Comment
<< Home