I remember reading in history class about Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur. I do not know if their research was considered unethical at one point or not, but they saved the lives of millions. Many of us would never be reading this right now if science had not stepped in and discovered these vaccines. While I have my concerns about the applications of genetic research, I think it should move forward.
“I am sorry, you have Parkinson's disease, we can't help you because it's genetic,” is not a good answer. “Well, that is some bad luck that you got hit by a drunk driver and got paralyzed from the neck down as a teenager,” is not a good enough answer either. It does not cut it for muscular dystrophy, Hodgkin's, heart disease, and many others, especially when we may be so close to helping these people.
Although embryonic stem cell research is a charged topic, it has many humane possibilities. I will forever associate it with hope for sufferers of spinal cord injuries because of Christopher Reeve's efforts. Michael J. Fox was also a strong supporter of the technology, as is presidential candidate John Kerry.
The idea of essentially committing abortions and harvesting embryos for the sake of scientific research is repulsive. But I don't think that any of the advocates for stem cell research would approve of such action. It is not necessary. Kerry mentioned that there were many frozen embryos already available. While he may not support harvesting embryos, there are already many available. Simply disposing of them is of no benefit to anyone, but using them may be a great benefit to science.
I remember sitting down with a friend a couple of years ago and talking about taking life. He said under no circumstances would he ever take a life. It was an ultimatum. Not in self defense, not to save his family - never. He had even talked about it with his parents and they supported it. He loves to debate and is very intelligent. I was amazed that he was taking such a stubborn position on it, but he did. After a bit more discussion, it occurred to me that he valued his moral code and innocence more than human life. If he was not willing to compromise his morals to save a life, his valuation of them over life was an unstated truth. When I view embryonic stem cell research in this light, I think that it is acceptable. More than that, I feel that it would be tragic not to take advantage of it.
Don't misunderstand me. There are situations where I think it should be acceptable to terminate a pregnancy. And, as tragic as it may be that a pregnancy was ended, I think we should consider making the best of the situation (with the mother's approval). In the event that an unborn child will cause serious danger or death to the mother, though it is disturbing, I think it should be acceptable to consider abortion. In the case that a girl is raped, I think she should have a choice whether she carries the child to term or not. In these cases and perhaps a few others (if I excluded any good reasons), I think that embryonic stem cell research should be acceptable.
I saw “Blade Runner” and I've heard many fears about the future of DNA research. What if it only becomes available to the wealthy? What if we start genetically engineering children? I hope that as our abilities improve, so will our laws. But I see many possibilities too. I think good health should be available to everyone. My best friend from high school was paralyzed through no fault of his own, at the age of 21. When the tools to relieve the suffering of people like this and many others are in our hands, I think it would be tragic to look the other way. While I see abortion as a tragedy, I also see the millions of people with terminal illnesses and paralysis suffering. Embryonic stem cell research may be dependent on tragedy, but it may also be a source of opportunity and hope for millions.
David Wade