Monday, March 9, 2009

Stem-Cell Research and Religion

Obama's overturning of Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research has had an interesting religious response according to AP. The interesting aspect of it is its complexity and ambivalence.

Firstly, the divide is largely between killing innocent life and the importance of alleviating suffering (all quotations from AP):

The embryonic stem cell research debate is steeped with religious arguments, with some faith traditions convinced the research amounts to killing innocent life, others citing the moral imperative to alleviate suffering, and plenty of religious believers caught somewhere in between.


The expected Catholic response of opposition came from Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia:

Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, called Obama's move "a sad victory of politics over science and ethics."

"This action is morally wrong because it encourages the destruction of innocent human life, treating vulnerable human beings as mere products to be harvested," Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia, said in a statement.


Justin Rigali before becoming archbishop of Philadelphia had that same position in St. Louis (before he became Cardinal). This is one of those places where Catholics and the Southern Baptist Convention agree:

Some religious traditions teach that because life begins at conception, any research that destroys a human embryo, as this research does, is tantamount to murder and is never justified. The Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are among those that oppose the research.


Nonetheless, this is not the ONLY Catholic position--different Catholics fall on different sides of the innocent life/alleviating suffering divide:

Catholic bishops have been outspoken in opposing embryonic stem cell research. Other Catholics, though, are more open to lifting the Bush-era restrictions, with caveats. The Rev. Tom Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, said restrictions should be put on embryonic stem cell research — including prohibition on their buying and selling, and using only embryos that otherwise would be destroyed.

"I'm trying to make an argument for some middle ground here," Reese said. "Hopefully down the line we can reach a point where we don't have to use embryonic stem cell research."

Polls show some believers are willing to buck their leaders on the issue. Fifty-nine percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics and 58 percent of white mainline Protestants favor embryonic stem cell research, according to a poll released in July 2008 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Only 31 percent of white evangelical Protestants, however, favored the research.


The interest in the poll of "white" mainline versus "evangelical" Protestants might suggest different results for other Protestant ethnicities. Nonetheless, the Evangelical Protestant position is not so simple. 1/3 of all evangelicals is a huge chunk of evangelicals even if not the majority, suggesting a significant mixture within the Evangelical camp--it is not so monolithic. For example...

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Orlando, Fla., who serves on an Obama White House advisory panel, said he was encouraged by Monday's developments.

"The principle is still that it's not only understandable but in some ways moral to use embryonic stem cells that are destined for destruction for research for helping people," he said. "I think we have to tread very lightly and very carefully, and I think we have to be vigilant for years to come."

But most evangelicals criticized Obama's move. Gilbert Meilaender, a Christian ethicist at Valparaiso University and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics, created by President George W. Bush, said Obama's decision was especially disappointing because scientists are advancing toward being able to produce cells that act like embryonic stem cells without destroying any human embryos.


So, so far, while the official or general positions of Catholics and Evangelicals is in opposition, this is not monolithic; many Catholics and Evangelicals support Obama's position. Perhaps the least complex, most unified in this way are the mainline Protestants and Jews:

On the other side is the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a United Church of Christ minister and a professor at Chicago Theological Seminary.

"There is an ethical imperative to relieve suffering and promote healing," she said. "This is good policy for a religiously pluralistic society that cares about human suffering and the relief of human suffering."

Obama alluded to religion in announcing the changes, saying, "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly."


Other more liberal traditions, including mainline Protestant and Jewish institutions, believe the promise to relieve suffering is paramount. In 2004, the governing body of the Episcopal Church said it would favor the research as long as it used embryos that otherwise would have been destroyed, that embryos were not created for research purposes, or were not bought and sold.

Under Jewish law, an embryo is genetic material that does not have the status of a person. According to the Talmud, the embryo is "simply water" in the first 40 days of gestation. Healing and preserving human life takes precedence over all the other commandments in Judaism.


Then Muslims are divided down the middle and the Church of Latter Day Saints has not taken a position:

Some groups and faiths are divided on the issue. Muslims disagree over — among other things — whether an embryo in the early stage of development has a soul. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon church, has not taken a position.


So, what have we learned? Obama's overturning of Bush's policies on stem-cell research has demonstrated a religious divide in this country. But this divide is NOT between religions: there are Jews, Muslims, and Christians on both sides. This divide is not even between Catholics/Evangelicals on one side and Mainline on the other side (in the Christian world), although they still tend toward one side or the other, since there is such a large number of Catholics and Evangelicals on each side of the issue. The divide is between those who want to save innocent life and those who want to alleviate suffering--both religious positions within each religion.

2 comments:

Voicedup said...

Let's think of how many Americans are suffering from ailments and what this research can do for them. I'm sure everyone reading this knows someone important to them that is affected by one of these maladies.Research in the U.S.has not progressed since earlier this decade, cures are a very long time away and lets not even discuss the approval requirement by the FDA. At least this can be seen as a huge step forward to join the rest of the world at bringing about cures that could help millions of people including you and I some day.

phyl said...

As we age, the number and quality of stem cells that circulate in our body gradually decrease, leaving our body more susceptible to injury and other age-related health challenges. StemTech Health Science's Stem Enhance is the alternative to the controversial stem cells we hear about in the news. Patented Product StemEnhance supports the natural release of stem cells to promote optimal healing and stem cell physiology.

Officials at StemTech Health Sciences were aiming for Stem Enhance sales of $100,000 in the first month. Which was a hearty goal in itself. Imagine their astonishment when the 1st month's sales totaled over $1,000,000 and it just keeps rising.http://www.phyl247.biz office 970-985-4076