Human Life: Location-Dependent?

Fr. Robert Araujo, S.J., a law prof at Gonzaga, offers these thoughts in response to Michael Perry's posting of the Outka and Cadley pieces on embryonic stem cell research:

First of all, there are life advocates who are quite aware of the political, social, economic, legal, and moral issues that are at stake. I am intrigued by the language that uses formulations like "potential life", "living cells", and "the need to help innocent and suffering people." I was taken by Ms. Cadley's reference to scripture, including the Psalms. She apparently has not yet reached Psalm 139, but if she has, she did not indicate this. I may be viewed as one of those ideologues who promotes the "theology of the few." But, it is essential for anyone who enters the debate on whether to ban or endorse embryonic stem cell research to be mindful of the nature of the subject that is at the core of the debate.

The scientific methodology involved with embryonic stem cell research is indeed complex regardless of whether the source of the stem cells is from aborted children (some would argue fetuses or tissue), in vitro fertilized embryos, or cloned embryos. But the reality of what the researcher is about to take apart is quite simple: it is a human life. It is not a cell or cluster of cells, it is not a potential human being, it is something that you and I were in the continuum of our unique human development. Our lives started and continued. The lives of the "donors" of stem cells have also started. Why is it that their lives may be sacrificed? Many advocates who support embryonic stem cell research do not identify and do not discuss this utilitarian problem, but there it is staring us in the face.

There is often heard from supporters of stem cell research that the embryo (it does not matter if the embryo was formed by cloning or by in vitro fertilization) will never be implanted in a womb; therefore, one need not be concerned about the "potential" human life that will be sacrificed in medical research that may help lives that now exist. This argument from the geography of the embryo's location must fail. A similar rationale was used in Dred Scot. But Dred Scot was always who he was regardless of whether he was in a slave state or a free state. A human embryo is always a unique human regardless of whether it is in a Petrie dish, a cryogenic preservation unit, or a womb. Its geographic location does not enhance or detract from its fundamental nature as a human life in the early stages of life's continuum.

Another important point to make about the nature of the embryo and the stem cells that are constitutive of each embryo is this: the removal of the stem cells necessitated by the research to which Outka and Cadley refer inevitably and irrevocably leads to the death of the embryo. I never cared much for Monty Python skits, but one sticks out in my mind that illustrates well the grave moral concerns associated with embryonic stem cell research as it currently exists: one day an official from the organ donor bank visits a residence of a prospective donor and inquires whether Ms. Smith is home; indeed she is and she answers the door. The organ donor bank representative then says, "Ah, good, we're here for your liver!" But, Ms. Smith protests, and a robust debate ensues. Finally, the official says, "Well, there must be another reason why we can't have your liver?" Ms. Smith responds in the affirmative and says, "Yes, I'm using it!" The same goes for the embryo whose stem cells are being targeted for extraction: the embryo needs its stem cells because its life is dependent on them, too.