Why some "pro-life" people support Embryonic Stem Cell Reasearch

by Richard Stith J.D

In December of 2005 an op-ed piece by sociologist Dalton Conley appeared in the New York Times, stating that “most Americans... see a fetus as an individual under construction.” This widespread vision of the embryo and fetus as “under construction” is the key to understanding why good people may find pro-life arguments to be absurd or otherwise non-rational, e.g., religious, particularly with regard to embryonic stem cell research.

The construction idea also may explain how Republican presidential candidate John McCain has been able to support both the right to life from the moment of conception and embryonic stem cell research.

Just think of something being constructed, such as a house, or a scholarly article – or take a car on an assembly line. When is a car first there? At what point in the assembly line would we first say, “There’s a car”? Some of us would no doubt go with appearance, saying that there is a car as soon as the body is fairly complete (in analogy to the fetus at 10 weeks or so). I suppose that most of us would look for something functional. We would say that there is a car only after a motor is in place (in analogy to quickening). Others might wait for the wheels (in analogy to viability) or even the windshield wipers (so that it’s viable even in the rain). And a few might say, “It’s not a car until it rolls out onto the street” (in analogy to birth). There would be many differing opinions.

However, one thing upon which we’ll probably all agree is this: Nobody is going to say that the car is there at the very beginning of the assembly line, when the first screw or rivet is put in or when two pieces of metal are first welded together. (You can see how little I know about car manufacturing.) Two pieces of metal fastened together don’t match up to anybody’s idea of a car.

I think that this is exactly the way that many people see the embryo, like the car-to-be at the very beginning of the construction process. In the first stages of construction you don’t have a house, you don’t have a car, you don’t have a human individual yet. You don’t ever have what you’re making when you’ve just started making it. This does not mean that our “constructionist” friends are anti-life. They may believe that a baby should have absolute protection once it has been fully fabricated. But until that point, for them, abortion just isn’t murder.

What happens when a constructionist hears a pro-lifer argue that a human embryo has the same right to life as any other human being? Journalist Michael Kinsley, writing in the Washington Post, expressed his utter bewilderment: “I cannot share, or even fathom, [the pro-life] conviction that a microscopic dot – as oblivious as a rock, more primitive than a worm – has the same rights as anyone reading this article.”

There’s a deep truth at the base of Kinsley's puzzlement. Nothing can be a certain kind of thing until it possesses the form of that kind of thing, and the form of a thing under construction just plain isn’t there at the beginning of the construction process. It isn’t there because that form is being gradually imposed from the outside and the persons or forces doing the construction have not yet been able to shape the raw material into what it will eventually be.

There is a special relevance of the construction idea to the embryonic stem cell debate. Conley admits there can be a peculiar, lesser sort of dignity even in a work-in-progress. For example, if we thought God were engaged in fabricating a new Eve, out of a bone and a breath, we wouldn't want to destroy His work-in-progress, simply out of respect for Him. Again, many of us would think a Corvette-To-Be pretty special even on the assembly line, something not lightly to be destroyed, because it's on the way to becoming something that we really care about. But if the auto factory shuts down early on, those two pieces of joined metal on the assembly line are not "to be" anything; they're just recyclable waste. Likewise, an embryo conceived outside the womb – with no plans to implant it so that it could be born – is not on its way "to be" anything. Thus it has little or no work-in-progress dignity, and work-in-progress type dignity is all that it can ever have for Conley and those who agree with his construction model of gestation.

So there is a reason that people like John McCain, and some others who are strongly opposed to abortion, even in early pregnancy, could feel free to vote for embryonic stem cell research funding. They could think that an intrauterine fetus or embryo is a great divine or human work in progress, and thus shouldn’t be aborted, even when just recently conceived, but only because it is under construction. Since the thousands of frozen, test-tube-generated embryos that scientists want to use for experiments are not under construction, are just scrap left over from IVF treatments, they can be recycled without a qualm.

Development as an alternative to construction

Despite the great explanatory power of Conley’s construction metaphor for an understanding of contemporary life-issue debates, it is radically misleading concerning the nature of gestation. It is in fact not true that the bodies of living creatures are constructed, by God or by anyone else. There is no outside builder or maker. Life is not made. Life develops.

In construction, the form defining the entity being built arrives only slowly, as it is added from the outside. In development, the form defining the growing life (that which a major Christian tradition calls its “soul”) is within it from the beginning. If Corvette production is cancelled, the initial two pieces of metal stuck together can become the starting point for something else, perhaps another kind of car, or maybe a washing machine. But even if you take a human embryo out of the womb, you can never get it to develop into a puppy or a guppy.

Living organisms are not formed or defined from the outside. They define and form themselves. The form or nature of a living being is already there from the beginning, in its activated genes, and that form begins to manifest itself from the very first moment of its existence, in self-directed epigenetic interaction with its environment. Embryos don’t need to be molded into a type of being. They already are a definite kind of being.

This idea of development – as the continual presence but gradual appearance of a being – lies deep within us. Here is a non-biological example of development. Suppose that we are back in the pre-digital photo days and you have a Polaroid camera and you have taken a picture that you think is unique and valuable – let’s say a picture of a jaguar darting out from a Mexican jungle. The jaguar has now disappeared, and so you are never going to get that picture again in your life, and you really care about it. (I am trying to make this example parallel to a human being, for we say that every human being is uniquely valuable.) You pull the tab out and as you are waiting for it to develop, I grab it away from you and rip it open, thus destroying it. When you get really angry at me, I just say blithely, “You’re crazy. That was just a brown smudge. I cannot fathom why anyone would care about brown smudges.” Wouldn’t you think that I was the insane one? Your photo was already there. We just couldn’t see it yet.

Why do we sometimes find the constructionist view plausible, while at other times the more accurate developmental view seems to make more sense? The constructionist view is intuitively appealing, I think, whenever the future is shut out of our minds, even if we are using the scientifically correct term “development.” Whenever the embryo or fetus is described in terms simply of its current appearance, it is easy to fall into constructionism. For example, if a snapshot is taken in which an embryo looks like just a ball of cells, its dynamic self-direction is obscured. It seems inert. Since an entity that had merely embryonic characteristics as its natural end state would indeed not qualify as a human being, it is easy to imagine that the entity in the snapshot is not human. Scientific knowledge of its inner activity may not be enough to overcome this impression, for it is hard to recognize a form still hidden from view.

However, when we look backwards in time or otherwise have in mind a living entity’s final concrete form, development becomes intuitively compelling. Knowing that the developing Polaroid picture would have been of a jaguar helped us to see that calling it a “brown smudge” was inadequate. If we somehow had an old photo taken of our friend Jim just after he had been conceived, and was thus just a little ball, we'd have no trouble saying, "Look, Jim. That's you!" Thus the most arresting way to put the developmental case against embryo-destructive research would be something like this: “Each of your friends was once an embryo. Each embryo destroyed could one day have been your friend.”

Deconstruction and the disabled

The construction vs. development clash may also help us to clarify our mutual misunderstandings regarding euthanasia. If a Corvette is gradually deconstructed (dismantled), it eventually ceases to merit the appellation “car”. If you were given a disassembled Corvette body, without the motor or wheels, would you feel that you had been given a “car”? What if you got only a chunk of the frame? True, Corvette-lovers might still have a certain reverence for that body, or even for a piece of the frame, because of what it used to be part of, so that wantonly trashing it (for no good purpose) could still seem to them wrong. But it wouldn’t seem nearly as bad as destroying a whole car. (Remember, there’s nothing wrong with this thinking with regard to artificial creations like cars. Once the pieces necessary to form a car are gone, that form itself is gone and so the car is truly gone.)

Life, however, is different. The form (nature, design) of a living creature both precedes and perdures independently of its appearance and function. That activated form is imbedded within a living being’s every part and every cell (in its active DNA). As long as a disabled creature remains anything – that is, as long as it holds itself together in some way, rather than just becoming a collection of non-integrated objects – that is, as long as it remains alive – it remains what it always was from the beginning of its development.

Indeed, our photo analogy fails fully to capture the nature of life. A photo does not hold itself together. If you scratch it after it has been developed, it won’t even try to repair itself. Like a constructed entity, it is merely an assemblage of parts, without a continuing inner force maintaining its form. Since a living creature is not only an assemblage of parts, it actually cannot be merely constructed. Both ancient and modern constructionists switch (and have to switch) to the developmental understanding at some point during gestation, or soon thereafter, in order to account for the fact that living human beings do have this active inner unifying form, until the day they die.

A deconstructionist might forget this truth and claim misleadingly that someone in a so-called “persistent vegetative state” is no longer a human being, having lost forever what we think special about our species. But in point of fact such a person never loses the unifying force that strives to express her humanity, until the moment she dies. Every part of her wasted body, even her very genes, actively, though in vain, strives to repair her injuries and to express her natural reason, will, and connection to those whom she has loved. She never becomes something else, such as a vegetable. That’s why her condition is tragic, because she has a human nature that is utterly frustrated. We don’t find real vegetables tragic (“Poor little heads of lettuce. Look how they’re just vegetating!”) because they are able to exhibit their inner design or nature.

As a result of accident or of age, many of us will become no longer capable (in this world) of expressing well, or expressing at all, the speech, reason, choice, and love for which we remain formed. Our humanity will have once more become partially hidden, as it was when we had just been conceived, but it will still be there.

The Problem of Pro-Life

Being pro-Life. It is almost corny to mention for those Catholics who think of their faith as more than just what your mom and dad's Sunday practices. Its a tag line that defines the rhetoric of the modern day republican conventions. Among conservatives, its the rallying call used to bring the southern bible belt to bear.

But what does his mean? Does it mean anti-abortion?

No. Being pro-life is more than being against abortion. It includes being agaisnt the death penalty, being against war, being against Embryonic stem cell research. But this is not what the modern pro-life movement espouses. It is solely focused on he prevention and illegalization of abortion.

Do not get me wrong. I support the movement. But it has been corrupted by the ideals of the Republican party, especially in terms of the death penalty and war. This is the problem.

Until the movement pushes itself into those issues, organizations like NARAL and Planned Parenthood will undermine the popular opinions on the issue.

Protestants and their Silly Videos

SO I have been watching James the preacher lately to see what these evangelicals do hile they are not yelling at a bunch of sheep. And lo and behold, they....Yell at people on the street and all over the internet. James the Preacher is an offensive, self styled "preacher". He uses offensive imagery to justify his often baseless thoughts as to why he thinks Catholics are wrong. He even goes to say that Catholics were founded by the Devil! An extreme position and one that he offers no backing.

I always find it strange to see this claim. I mean was it not Jesus who founded the Church? Was it not Peter who became the first pope? Did not Peter nominate another? When the Church grew larger, was it not one of the popes that called for an election? Do not the greatest Christian thinkers support the pope up until the schism and then the reformation?

More to come ....

Chivalry

What is chivalry? Immediately, most people think of the middle ages or a knight in shining armor saving the damsel in distress. For me, I see a system by which men can relate to women. This system is what is supposed to be proper for a man's conduct to women but also to everyone else. How does this practice translate into today's society?

On the Papal Visit

Here I am, going back home. I am coming back home to see the Pope visit the United States. I cannot say how excited I am, I am buying a new memory card for my camera and am trying o prepare myself for the ordeal. Until very recently, I had no way of entering the stadium, but now, because of my dear mother's help, I have acquired a ticket at the low cost of handing out newspapers. I really good deal if you ask me.

So what is the catch to all this? I am missing a week of classes. Not the best option but I'll take it. I will be striving hard this week to stay on top of homework. I really want to well.

Why I am Pro-Life

Most people like to call themselves pro-life for a whole slew of reasons. My reasons are my own and for most people, I do try to keep religion out of this even though I am a devout Catholic.

I am of the opinion that a cell is alive. What makes it human, I think, is its capacity to grow normally into a mature human being. That is why skin cells are not human life, because they will not grow into a mature human being. But what does this say about the embryo? This means that I do consider it to be alive because aside from its age, it is the same as you or me.

A lot of people like to think of it as just a mass of tissue connected to the Woman's body. Some even think that to be pregnant is punishment. Both of these views are irrational. Becoming pregnant in any way is not a punishment: it is a biological function for reproduction. Yes yes, it is a beautiful gift from God, but we are not looking at this from a religious perspective. As a biological function it makes sense that to propagate the species, the child must be allowed to live. Survival of the fittest and all that. It is observable that no animal willingly kills its unborn unless it is forced to (pregnant monkey on hot plate experiments). In fact its first instinct is to protect that still unborn at its own risk. Therefore it is against all biological reasons to have an abortion or even contraception.

On Bad Bishops

Why is it there are bishops who allow liturgical abuse and even heresy to go on in their dioceses? The answer my friends is simple: because they do not know that it is wrong. We have a number of bishops out there in the world who have no idea that what they are teaching is heretical. Take the bishop of northern Florida who instead of celebrating a mass at Ave Maria so that they could have mass in their chapel, he decides to go to "Circus Day" at a his cathedral, a day in which to honor those in the circus, the priest dresses up not in his traditional garments but in Clown uniform, the bishop decided to include himself in this practice.

Such things cannot go on ignored much longer. I see a steady decline in the church as people will begin to see thet their church no longer is the truth, they will seek out a church that does but upon failure they will despair.