I read an article today from Focus on the Family relating to the stem cell research issue. The main objection seems to be that there is the danger of a slippery slope towards justifying abortion. Some have even mentioned the possibility of women being paid to get pregnant and have an abortion so that the research could take place.
In my opinion, there is a huge degree of separation between the act of the abortion and the benefits that the research could provide. I think organ donation is a perfect example. I don’t think anyone would argue that you should not allow organ transplants to be taken from a murder victim. The beneficial act of organ donation is completely separated from the circumstances of the death of the donor. Of course, there is no slippery slope regarding people being murdered for their organs, since there are rightfully laws in place to prevent the sale of organs, etc. and also the act of murder itself. In my opinion, the same should be true for fetal stem cell research. If the act of abortion is wrong, then battle against that, not against trying to make some good come from it after the fact.
Slippery slopes can be avoided by proper planning and legislation, and the whole “slippery slope” theory is applied way to often in my opinion, to a variety of issues. Anything taken to the extreme can be used as an argument, but it usually isn’t a very good one. For example, should we allow people to own guns, since it will eventually lead to someone being shot? Should we allow people to drive cars or drink alcohol since some will combine the two and drive drunk? Or how about my favorite slippery slope model: “gateway drugs”; many people argue that marijuana should be illegal, since a high percentage of people who use harder drugs started with marijuana first. Well, I would bet that an even higher percentage also started with alcohol first. Should it be banned?
Getting back to the issue of the morality of benefiting from an unjust act, there are more questions to consider. Other countries will pursue this research, and may eventually develop a cure for fatal diseases. Would you refuse this cure for yourself or a family member, if it was already developed, on the basis of knowing how it was obtained? If your parents had murdered you as a child, would you be opposed to scientists using your remains for medical research that could eventually save lives? Finally, if you are a follower of Christ, would you reject his ultimate gift to you, since it came as a direct benefit of the murder of an innocent person?
10 Comments
this is why i feel that the president did make the right decision (possibly his only right decision) on this issue. fund the research where the damage is done, but don’t give funding for further acts.
for me, the bottom line is this: the government should never fund something that a huge percentage of the population finds morally objectionable. even if the percentage is in the minority, the majority should respect the moral objection of that minority by funding the research privately. just as abortions are done privately.
I guess that’s why we have ballot initiatives, so that people can vote directly on issues like this. I do wonder, though, whether the people who oppose this type of research would refuse cures based on it.
Also, the socialist in me thinks that there are some issues that should not be up for public debate. These include things such as civil rights issues and possibly medical research such as this. If there was a large enough “moral majority” crowd in the U.S. that opposed AIDS research, believing that it was some sort of “judgment from God”, etc. I think that the government should still fund research to prevent or cure it, even if people disagreed.
Here’s a copy of the original e-mail conversation that started this (with permission from the author, who I will keep anonymous unless they want to comment). This blog entry was my reply, then another message from the original sender, then my email response:
My reply:
Original poster’s next e-mail reply:
My next e-mail response:
Original poster P.S.
My reply to the P.S.
Most recent reply from original poster:
The stem-cell debate is very complicated–even people of faith who claim to be against do not know every side of the argument (at least those that I have come across). A great book that has helped my understanding of all sides of the debate is ‘Love Your Neighbor: Thinking Wisely About Right and Wrong.’ It’s a very informative read on ethics.
http://www.amazon.com/Love-Your-Neighbor-Thinking-Wisely/dp/1581349459/ref=sr_1_1/102-2085712-9684969?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188485260&sr=8-1