Enlisting Jesus in the Stem Cell Cause

Lalor Cadley seems to suggest that Jesus would be in favor of embryonic stem cell research (see Michael's post below), citing scripture passages establishing his compassion and healing power. One verse she omits is his caution that "as long as you did not do it for one of these least ones, you did not do it for me." (Matt. 25:46) Certainly Jesus weeps for all those who suffer from the various afflictions that are part of life in this fallen world. But that's a far cry from establishing that Jesus would embrace an instrumental vision of human life when it comes to the alleviation of such suffering. If Jesus weeps for those suffering from crippling diseases, he surely weeps for those who never get to see the light of day. Do I believe that an embryo should have identical protection under law as a two year-old child? No. But I still see enormous danger in our headlong pursuit of medical miracles through the conversion of human life into another research tool. It is no answer to say that these embryos will be destroyed eventually anyway (although it does underscore the trouble with the reproductive-therapy industry that has made that destruction inevitable). One of my legal ethics students defended Nazi researchers whose work on concentration camp inmates led to medical advances, arguing that the inmates were likely to die anyway. I'm not equating the two scenarios in terms of their moral significance, but I think the Nazi example highlights the moral bankruptcy of the proffered justification.

Ms. Cadley says that we must tread carefully in this area. What does that mean specifically? Even taking the existing number of available embryos as an unfortunate given, how can we be assured that giving the green light to embryonic stem cell research will not create market incentives to increase the number of embryos available? Is she prepared to create the massive regulatory/enforcement scheme necessary to stem market forces in this area? Is such a scheme even conceivable?

I agree that human suffering is a horrible part of life. I agree that Jesus longs for humanity to be made whole. But that does not settle the moral (or biblical) inquiry. Embryos, in Ms. Cadley's view, should not be treated as "sacred cows." Very well, what should they be treated as? Research tools? Research tools that we should be especially careful with? Research tools, but only if they already missed out on their chance to develop into a baby? Sacred objects generally, with only a few unfortunate ones being treated as research tools? I don't pretend to have the answers to all these questions, but I certainly can't cover over the moral dilemmas inherent in the inquiry with self-serving scriptures about the nature of Jesus.

Rob