George Evans Blogs Part 2

Outside Reading, Pontifical Academy on Stem Cells

This debate, like many we have seen, centers around the fundamental question, what constitutes a life? There is a divide, an impasse that centers around this question, because no matter how philosophical or how scientific arguments may be for or against a particular viewpoint, in the end it doesn’t matter. This is not a question of science; it is a question of religion, of dogmatic ideology. Nothing an individual can say to another individual will make them think discarding human life is ok, regardless of how many lives it may save, (using embryonic stem cells as an example). And if one has a more liberal view of when life begins, then the entire ordeal is less about the whether or not we are destroying a life, and more about the potential benefits that terminating a fetus or using stem cells from embryos can bring about. Where one side sees perverse genocide, the other sees medical opportunity and rights over a woman’s body. This is what makes the debate controversial and not very likely to go away any time soon.

With that context in mind we begin our debate. The Pontifical Academy, a religious entity asks the question “Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells?” (p314). Their answer –quite characteristically is no. They have a bevy of reasons for their stance but the first and most immovable is just as I described above. They write: “On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.” (p 315) From that bedrock their argument is fairly cut and dry. Because they view the union of gametes as producing a full fledged human being –who merely hadn’t the opportunity to develop into something more by terminating or using the stem cells for any other purpose than to allow them to mature into full humans is wrong and to do so in their view it to deny them their right to life. They write, regarding the stem cells, “it has the right to its own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the embryo is an act which violates that right.”

They disagree with cloning for the same reason: “Every type of therapeutic cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative.” (p 316).

This is in stark contrast to Michael Sandel’s point of view. He argues that “to regard an embryo as a mere thing, open to any use we may desire or devise, is, it seems to me, to miss its significance as nascent human life. One need not regard an embryo as a full human person in order to believe that it is due a certain respect. Personhood is not the only warrant for respect: we consider it a failure of respect when a thoughtless hiker carves his initials in an ancient sequoia, not because we regard the sequoia as a person, but because we consider it a natural wonder worthy of appreciation and awe—modes of regard inconsistent with treating it as a billboard or defacing it for the sake of petty vanity.” While he doesn’t come right out and say it, Sandel is arguing for a middle ground. The embryos are not just ‘things’ but they aren’t quite full humans either. This quite a moderate stance, but in this debate it might be easy to be mischaracterized as ‘’wish-y washy.” Instead Sandel provides a more nuanced view that while there is ultimately some respect that must be given to embryonic stem cells, it is not a black or white distinction that most people try to make. He writes: “The way to combat the instrumentalizing impulse of modern technology and commerce is not to insist on an all-or-nothing ethic of respect for persons that consigns the rest of life to a utilitarian calculus.” (p319) And while Sandel denounces the hubris of reproductive cloning he makes a utilitarian argument for biomedical research.

In the end regardless of how nuanced either side is, it does boil down to those who think stem cells are life and should be treated as such, and those who think that they aren’t. Sandel thinks they aren’t, though he would probably not like to be characterized so bluntly, and the Pontifical Academy thinks they are. This is an immovable differentiation that is the base of every other argument there is. The utilitarian concept that there are stem cells that will be thrown away regardless of whether or not they are life is the most middle ground that can be made. And probably one that even in its moderateness won’t be accepted by those who think life starts when gametes connect.

Miscellaneous Blog -Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin’s polticalization of schools in regards to teaching creationism along side evolution is not only scary, it is just plain illegal. Creationism in the sense that Governor Palin espouses is predominately a fundamental Christian ideology, relying on faith rather than actual scientific evidence. It would be unconstitutional for the state to sponsor such doctrine, as it would be clearly violating the first amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Governor Palin’s suggestion to teach creationism with evolution establishes a tacit sponsorship of the institution that proclaims creationism as truth, in this case Christianity. This tacit sponsorship is completely at odds with the preceding part of the first amendment in that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The doctrine of separation of church and state would be broken, a fundamental constitutional foundation. Furthermore, this is not even touching the ludicrousness of teaching a faith-based ideology in a scientific classroom, where evidence is the prerequisite for serious inquiry. To teach creationism along side of evolution is farce not only constitutionally, but scientifically as well.


Miscellaneous Blog -Musings on Religion

In every religion, there lies an inherent dichotomy in regards to the traditions and dogmas practiced, and those that actually end up in canonical law. The space between these two is often accrued via backroom political dealings, monetary influence, and what is considered acceptable behavior of the citizenry. Because religion then acts as a pillar for what is and what is not socially acceptable, what will and what will not bring eternal salvation, and which practices elevate men to holiness or cast them into condemnation –there lies an exceptional amount of power in the hands of those that can manipulate what is included and what is simply discarded from canonical texts.

Take then for example this passage : : Jesus said to them, If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves. And if you pray, you will be condemned. And if you give alms, you will injure your spirits. When you enter any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal those who are sick among them. For what goes into your mouth does not defile you; what comes out of your mouth will." It would seem that this passage is hypocritical with the rest of scripture, such advice would be completely at odds with ideas of Kosher, eating meat or Friday, etc.