Abortion and Stem-cell Research
by Antonia Florio
What is life? There is no clear distinction on how to categorize such a generalized topic. Life is any emotion you feel, any gesture made, or any breath exhaled. Life can come in the form of the smallest cell performing ordinary functions or can be displayed in a young child’s smile. Often the most suitable definitions, the ones that work to explain the topic most fully, are those that describe what it is not. Explaining non-life can work well to complement a derived definition of life. However, as with everything in nature, there are set boundaries between contrasting ideas or situations. These borders are often blurry because much of their existence is due in part to individual interpretation. It would be impossible to have everyone in the world agree upon certain ideals. Part of what makes us human is debate, and if we lost conflicting opinions, we’d lose our human quality.
A major question that therefore arises is what separates life from non-life? How can we combine our individual interpretations to create one large generalized statement that could retort this seemingly unanswerable question? Unfortunately, herein lies the problem with stem cell research. No one can agree.
Stem cell research is the process of taking undifferentiated cells from a source and using those cells to find cures for fatal diseases such as cancer or diabetes. Undifferentiated cells are those that have not become specialized in forming a specific part of the body. For example, an early form of a stem cell could be treated to become virtually any type of cell varying from those that make up cardiac tissue, brain tissue, or skin. The applications of these unspecialized cells are numerous, especially with more research. Therefore, many people praise the use of stem cells as a form of therapy that will one day be able to eradicate most previously incurable diseases. These individuals fight for the allowance of scientists to continue research on cell manipulation.
The boundary between good and bad arises from the source of stem cells. No one can argue that stem cells are indeed beneficial to society. Already they have allowed doctors to treat cancer patients through bone marrow transplants and to treat burn patients by re-growing skin cells. There are three main sources for stem cells: surplus frozen embryo byproducts of in vitro fertilization, combining donated sperm and eggs to form an embryo, and from the tissue of aborted babies. Stem cells can also be derived from adults, but these cells are more differentiated and less pliable as those extracted from embryos and young babies, and they are therefore less favorable. The use of fetal stem cells is a major debate within society because each source of these cells comes with its own moral implication. Is it just to create life from donated sex cells or frozen embryos? Should abortions be made “good” by use of the embryos as sources of stem cells?
The use of stem cells inevitably joins forces with a heated topic of debate- abortion. Stem cells further this controversy by adding to the question of whether or not abortions should be made legal. If abortions are legal, as it is in the United States, should we allow for the stem cells of these young embryos to be used for scientific research? The repercussions of this are endless. Many worry that allowing stem cell research will cause mothers to decide to have abortions rather than keep their child, by saying to themselves, “Well, at least my baby’s life will not be in vain. His cells will be used to help cure horrible diseases.”
Everyone has varying opinions on abortions and if they should be allowed. Most of this debate goes back to the question that was poised in the beginning of this essay. When is that developing fetus a life? Is there a difference if a mother aborts her developing two-week year old or her developing four-month year old fetus? The question lies in what moment of time distinguishes life from non-life. It is possible only to answer this question based upon personal opinion.
I identify cells as the smallest living parts of a body. When a sperm cell joins with an egg cell, there is a formation of a larger cell with twice as many chromosomes as in each component piece. Since this new cell is formed from parts that are already living, I therefore consider this cell to be a new life. The moment that sperm joins with egg is the instance that a new life is formed. That life is unable to live on its own, but that does not detract from its potential of life. Therefore, it would be wrong and immoral to extract a life from its parent without it being fully developed.
However, I do not feel that the moral implications of stem cell research should in any way hinder its advancement. Stem cells can be extracted from umbilical cords of babies, and this a perfectly moral way of obtaining them. This writer does not believe that it would be wrong to use stem cells from fetuses that have already been aborted. This in no way would justify the death of an innocent life, but the damage has been done. Using these cells for medical advancements that can save the lives of others would be just.
Receiving stem cells, whether they are adult or infant, should never be rewarded in payment. This would cause possible encouragement to use the stem cells as a source of financial gain and not for the betterment of society. Abortions should never be encouraged as they are the termination of a person who has a body that should never have been murdered and a soul that demands respect.
I don’t like to side myself with either pro-choice or
pro-life. I suppose I could place myself in the pro-choice category
because I personally feel that abortions can be avoided. I would like
to believe that I would be able to choose against the killing of my
baby if I was ever in the situation. However, I’ve never been in that
circumstance. I wouldn’t know how it feels to have to make that choice,
and it would be foolish for me to anticipate my answer. You don’t know
unless you’ve been there. I think that the focus in the abortion issue
should shift from demanding pro-life activities to working towards eliminating
the feeling that abortions are the only option. Forcing someone to believe
that your opinion is right is futile. It is instead necessary to educate
the person on why your viewpoint is correct. Telling someone to be pro-life
is a lot different from guiding that person on the way to the more proper
decision. Working towards preventing abortions from occurring would
alleviate any stress there is on terminating stem cell research advances
because the source of the cells would stray away from heated debates.
Using this tactic, the use of abortions would lessen while stem cell
advancements could multiply. Progression of stem cell research should
be a major focus of society, but should never cause us to lose morality.
