In-Vitro makes for In-Soluble dilemmas

The editorial this weekend in the Des Moines Register, railing against the move to block state funding for stem-cell research on human embryos, exposed what Catholic theo-logic long ago argued was the root-problem with creating human life outside the womb: in-vitro technology, even though it possesses the potential to overcome infertility and bring a new life to birth, also possesses equal potential to create human lives destined for destruction. The latter fact in particular is what makes in-vitro ethically wrong.

As the Register so clearly states: "The embryos used by researchers were never going to become babies. They are left over from in vitro fertilization and slated for destruction anyway."

Linguistic Slight of Hand

Here we see a linguistic slight of hand: what in-vitro disallows is that embryos "become babies." The language sidesteps the more important questions: when do embryos "become human" or "become persons"?

The same slight of hand lurks at the core of abortion legislation: because we cannot agree on when "personhood" appears in utero, we should presume non-personhood until birth...or 3rd trimester...or when the the fetus can feel pain...or can breathe on his/her own, or...choose your arbitrary personhood marker.

But the facts are quite clear: once conception occurs and our genetic stamp is complete, there is no sudden moment in development when we become someone wholly other. Our identity at and after conception is a continuum of development; or in the language of personhood, the unfolding of an "I" and not of an "It-to-an-I."

Elsewhere in the article, the the editorial opines: "Opponents argue destroying a microscopic clump of cells is analogous to taking a life. It's not."

Sed contra: First of all, regardless of what you judge the zygote/embryo to be, the zygote/embryo is a life; and destroying the zygote destroys life. Slight of hand: destroys life = destroys human life = destroys a person's life.

Science Has Revealed the Complex Microcosm of the Human Embryo

In addition, the unborn human person's full-humanity can be empirically perceived in the extraordinary and elegant biological beauty of who they are: a wholly new, genetically unique and 'personal' identity that comes into being at conception and does not cease to become until death. Science has opened to us a beauty we could never have imagined in the design of life in its inception. Indeed, no biologist gazing on the delicate and complex microcosm of the embryo could employ the analogy of a 'clump of cells.' Rather, the newly conceived human person is a micro-icon of all that we, the already-born, are.

But weighed down by politically charged ideology, some wish to render the transparent beauty and humanity of life's origin opaque, de-personalized and dehumanized to justify the license we have given to our society to destroy the unborn of any stage at will. The will, and voice, of the unborn is lost in this ideology and linguistic obfuscation: unseen means unprotected; voiceless means defenseless.

The analogy to the injustices wreaked on other classes and races of people in times past and present is, to me, crystal clear.

The Church must always stand up as the champion of those who are rendered invisible, inaudible or de-humanized by individuals, societies, institutions, cultures.

Promise for Cures is in Adult Stem Cell Research

Lastly, the article mentions this: "[Embryonic stem cell research] holds promise for developing treatments for debilitating diseases." Really? Where is that data? On the other hand, see the ever-growing data regarding embryonic vs. adult stem cells.

Let us speak the truth in love.