A Novel Approach: Pro-Choice/ Anti-Stem Cell Research.

Posted by Joshua White on 08.02.2006

While Bush and Frist condone what they should consider murder, I will try to give you a better view of how we should be treating fetuses.



I think that there is a wide acceptance of the belief that you have to either be for both abortion and stem-cell research, or against them both. At first glance, this makes sense. Both acts involve the destruction of embryos. So, depending on how you view an embryo you will see both of these actions as right or wrong. If you believe that life beings at conception then you're going to think that abortion and stem cell research is murder and the scientific research done on the victims of murder respectively. If you think that embryos are just clumps of cells, then you'll probably think there is nothing wrong with either act.

Now, I say that you'll probably because there are a few out there that haven't followed my little rubric. The two that come to mind right about now are our dear leader George W. Bush, and potentially our next leader Senator Bill Frist.

Both of these men believe that human life starts at conception. As soon as the l'il spermy finds his way into the egg, according to these guys, we have a human life with full moral rights. And as we all know, murder is immoral. In the end, we come to the conclusion that killing a conceived egg, a fetus, is immoral. Easy enough. This explains why abortion is wrong. You can't just kill a person because you don't want to take care of them, are not ready to have a baby, just don't want one, etc. This too makes all sorts of sense.

Here is where Bush/Frist line of though gets all sorts of crazy.

First writes the following in an op/ed:

As a doctor, however, I recognize that human life begins at conception. Embryonic stem cell research should only proceed in an environment of strict safeguards, public accountability and complete transparency. Thus, Congress should also pass legislation that would ban scientists from implanting human fetuses for the purpose of aborting them for experimentation. While I don't know of any evidence that this has happened, even the possibility of such a "fetal farm" ought to give everyone pause.

You would think that if you believed that human life started at conception, then not only would this person be against abortion but stem cell research. Hey, they are taking conceived embryos -let's call them persons- and killing them in the name of science. If fetuses are as Bush and Frist think, then we shouldn't consider them any different from you 6 month old cousin. We would never allow the killing of cousin Bobby because we're tired of taking them and this is why we don't allow for abortion. But it seems that as far as these guys think, it would be ok to kill the 6 month old cousin as long as we could use his body to cure others.

Now, I understand that some of you might claim that there is a difference in that the 6 month old is born, and is no longer a part of the woman any longer. This is not true of the fetus. But who cares about that? This is a living human being that we're talking about. We can't just kill some because their "born" and others because their not. Fetuses get the same rights to life as babies do right?

Frist and Bush are condoning murder. Bush is slightly better by not paying for this murder with public funds. But this is only a slight difference. These two have both defined the killing of a fetus as murder, and now both of them are permitting it.

I think that a more plausible line of reasoning is claim that abortion is permissible and stem cell research is immoral. What? Patience, my followers, let me explain.

One of the things that I have always hated about both sides of the abortion debate is how simplistic each side makes this very complex issue. The left claims that the fetus is just a bundle of cells. No more, no less. The right claims that the fetus is a full human being with all the rights of you and me. Both of these understandings are way to basic.

The fetus is more than just a bundle of cells. It is more than just a mass that has not rights. It has the potential to become a being that has all of these rights, privileges, etc. However, these rights do not necessarily outweigh the rights of the mother's body in which it's inhabiting. There are times that the rights of the mother can triumph over the rights of the fetus.

This is how I view abortion. Certainly, the fetus has some amount of right to life. But, as a fetus, something with no abilities, reasoning, self-motivation,etc. its rights cannot override the rights of the woman to not have the fetus within her. The fetus is an intrusion in her body. If the woman accepts this intruder, then all is well. However, if the woman doesn't want this invader, this fetus, in her body, then her rights to her body can allow for the removal of the life.

None of this comes into play when it comes to stem cell research. With stem cell research we are taking conceived embryos and destroying them for the benefit of science and man. While I will grant that fetuses cannot infringe on the rights of its host (the mother) I will not say that they can simply discarded if they are not doing so. Right now, these fetuses are frozen, doing no one any harm. These same fetuses (feti?) have the potential, even if it is extremely small, to become full fledged members of our society. This potential allows them the privilege of having a right to life (even if it is very small). And this is why I think that stem cell research might be immoral.

Followers...questions, disagreements?

I think that some of you out there in 411-land might say something like this: "Leader, I, as your follower, mean you no disrespect, but I think that you have forgotten what will happen to embryos if they aren't used for research. They will not be used to create a baby. They will be destroyed. Please forgive my insolence."

This is the argument that Frist uses. These embryos will be destroyed. So why not use them to further our understanding of medicine. The reason, simply, is that it is still wrong. If it is wrong to kill a fetus that is not infringing on the rights of any, then it is wrong if a good outcome is a result. Imagine a mob boss is about to kill an innocent man (to prove how tough he, the boss, is). He has him tied up and he tells both you and the man that he is going to torture him to death. This is obviously a horrible act. Now, the boss says to both you and the victim that he has to go make a quick phone call. You, as a witness could kill the innocent man causing him no pain if you wanted. You'd be bringing about a better outcome than would be had (death with no pain vs. death with torture). But this outcome doesn't make the action moral. It is still wrong. The same holds true for using the embryos as lab rats. Sure, the results of doing testing on these fetuses might be great, but it still comes about from an immoral act.

For these reasons, I think that instead of being pro-life and pro-privately (or publicly) funding stem cell research, I think that it is preferable to be pro-choice and anti-stem cell research. This line of reasoning seems to me to be much less hypocritical than those of Bush and Frist.

Am I wrong? Did I leave something out? Email me and let me know.


As a final note...I am not one to "pimp." As a friend of a feminist, I know that when writers use this word, they are just bowing down to the oppressive, patriarchal society that thinks of women as things to be sold (or more appropriately, rented). I will however advertise.

Sweet God, finally someone brings a little more reasonability to the 411 lib-fest. Read Dan Martin's column for some moderation. And once you become a Martinian moderate, then follow me to full fledged anti-liberal. Thank you Dan for the help!

If you want to read an article on stem cell research that is in complete contrast to mine read Mark Radulich's column. I don't think that President Bush believes that a fetus is as valuable (overall) as Mark's wife and I don't think that Bush is pandering to the right, I do think that it is important to know the other side of the argument. You can't know what you beileve fully until you know what you don't believe.

And finally, I demand that you, my loyal followers read Everett Palmer's latest column. This boy has been doing some serious thinking since last week. His section on the middle east is really good and I loved his little rant about evacuations (though I find it sad that he had to apologize, most likely out of fear, for his joke). Go. Read. Learn.

Until next time…believe nothing unless you read it here.