Addressing the United Nations recently, President Bush called for a “comprehensive ban on human cloning,” a policy that he has upheld for the past three years in the United States.
But, Bush’s new policy is more than just a ban on human cloning. He’s asking for an end to cloning embryos for stem cell research.
This policy has voters wondering how a group of stem cells will affect the country’s future. For Kerry supporters, the ban stands for forbidden medical miracles. To conservatives, it stands for an ethical respect for life.
Cloning and stem cell research make for an ethically complex issue. Neither candidate supports human cloning. Yet, Kerry does support therapeutic cloning, creating embryos for the sole purpose of extracting stem cells.
Supporters of stem cell research and cloning claim that embryonic stem cells appear to have the most promise of curing diseases. However, there are other stem cell sources that do not destroy the embryo as therapeutic cloning does. The President is currently funding research on adult stem cells and on 21 embryonic stem cell lines that were already derived before August 2001.
But, the scientific community is growing anxious to lift the ban on therapeutic cloning and steadily advance stem cell research, in hopes of finding a cure to Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, or spinal cord injuries.
Americans are left with a dilemma: turn a blind eye to morality and champion science for the sake of progress or impose ethical boundaries on science, thereby preserving the sanctity of human life at the cost of an expedient cure.
Kerry said in his weekly radio address to the nation this summer that, “Here in America, we don’t sacrifice science for ideology,” and he would choose “scientific research over politics.” Kerry’s statement raises a chilling question: if this nation is willing to create life with the intent to destroy it, then is there anything that the U.S. wouldn’t sacrifice for science?
The world is preparing itself to move forward scientifically without ever stopping to consider the costs. Some means are not worth their ends. Certainly, scientific advancements are important, but what is scientifically possible is not necessarily inherently good in itself.
The President said before the Senate, “Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics—that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another.” The President’s corrective falls on many deaf ears, though. To many, the embryo has just become another step along the way to the greater development of scientific research instead of a step along the way to the greater development of a human person.
Scientists claim that an embryo is just a tiny clump of cells. However, they wouldn’t be earnestly pursuing these embryos if they were just a clump of cells. Director of the Biotechnology and American Democracy Program, Eric Cohen, said, “The unique biological power of an embryo is inseparable from the kind of organism it is: an integrated, developing, genetically whole human creature in the earliest days of life.” This lack of respect for human existence is sure to continue as long as science is America’s guiding light.
Kerry advised the nation in a recent speech on stem-cell research to “pursue the limitless potential of science—and trust that we can use it wisely. I have full faith that our scientists will go forward with a moral compass. We must look to the future not with fear but with the hope and the faith that advances in medicine will advance our best values.” Kerry professes “hope” and “faith” that ethical concerns will be resolved. However, he does not seem to make any sort of justification for the ethics of cloning embryos.
Furthermore, scientists should not police their own work. The American people should set the ethical limits on science. This way, America does not have to blindly “trust” that scientists will make ethical advances, as Kerry suggests. Prevention of ethical blunders is as easy as restricting scientists’ “limitless potential.” Because scientific understanding and ability have increased so rapidly, we have become desensitized to the advancements we make. In a recent article, Cohen said, “Three decades ago, scientists gained the power to initiate life in the laboratory; now they destroy it routinely, without fear and trembling.”
As we progress scientifically, we must remember to approach human life with respect and humility because the dignity of human life is at stake.
Comments
Post new comment