I will try and outline the argument against (for now I am being brief due to being more unwell than usual this week – praise God for laptops). My understanding of this issue comes from studying similar moral problems at Macquarie University, and proof reading my husband’s PhD, which was on this topic.

(some background info) – Stem cells are those cells in the body which have not yet decided what they want to be – eg a heart cell, a brain cell etc. They are therefor useful because scientists are hoping to work out how they are “programmed” to become the specific cells the body needs (eg for the brain, for kidneys etc). This already occurs in nature – the stem cells are created, and then differentiate into specific cells in order to form a foetus, with organs etc.

If they can work out how to switch on these “blank” cells, the hope is that you would be able to programme them to make a kidney, or heart etc. The waiting lists for donor organs is exceptionally long, and the chance of rejection high – a new organ “grown” from stell cells would avoid this (they have already begun artificially growing organs in laboratories already, although not very sucessfully). In lupus the long term hope is that stem cell research might lead to advances in supplementing the immune system so that it is healthy, rather than attacking the body (current lupus treatment is to treat the symptoms, or depress the immune system – what is needed is a way of “fixing” or replacing the immune system so that it does not attack the body in the first place).

We still have these stem cells in our bodies (from when we were born) as adults, however current research into these stem cells have found that they are very difficult to “programme” to make specific organs etc. This seems to be because of their age, rather than their cellular structure. Embryonic stem cells, being young seem (by research so far) to be able to be programmed to be differentiated into specific cells artificially – that is in a lab somewhere.

Whether you accept stem cell research or not depends on your view of the moral status of the embryo or foetus. The Catholic Church and some Fundamentalist Protestant groups believe that from the moment of fertilisation (when the sperm and the egg join up) the embryo is a person. [an interesting side note – fertilisation is not a “moment”, but a process, which takes about 24 hours to complete]. The opposite extreme is someone such as Peter Singer who believes that it is not until a child (post birth)

obtains the beginings of selfawareness that they become a person. Most main stream philosophers and bioethicists hold the position that a child (post birth) is definitely a person, and that an embryo at conception is not, and the rest is a bit grey in between. Where you draw the line is difficult. Obviously a foetus which is about to be born is more of a person than one which is simply an embryo of 16 (stem) cells.

We as a society allow abortions in the first tri-mester, but are wary of abortions in the third trimester. This is because of the potential person developing through those few months.

Opponents to stem cell research do so on the basis that it is an act of killing of a person to “harvest” stem cells. They also oppose abortion, the morning after pill, etc on the same basis – that is it is unatural to stop a life that God has created (euthanasia would fit in here too).

If you oppose stem cell research, but approve of abortion (even if it is in “certain” circumstances), or IVF technologies then it is an inconsistent approach to take. Either an embryo of a few days (or weeks) is a person (and therefor it is potentially wrong to kill them in order to find a cure for Parkinsons, Ms, Lupus etc), and equally wrong to kill them through an abortion, or manipulate them through IVF technology. OR the the embryo of a few days (or weeks) is NOT a person and abortion is allowed, as is taking of the cells for stem cell research (or therapy when the research comes up with the results), and the manipulation of cells etc in the IVF process.

I note with interest that the same political lobby groups in Australia who are against stem cell research, were also against heart transplants in the 1980’s. One very prominent MP in NSW was VERY outspoken against heart transplants in the 1980’s on the basis that it was un-natural, and the taking of another life. That was until he needed a heart transplant himself in the 1990’s, and has since undergone the operation, arguing that the new advance in medicine was actually a gift from God to save his life and therefor be a father to his children longer.

My position is this – an embryo of a few days/weeks is not a person, but a potential person. Therefor it is acceptable to take these embryo’s and use them for stem cell research and therapy. As life created by God, and with the potentiality to become a person they should be treated with dignity and respect in this process.

Stem cell research has the possiblity to blow open medical research in the same way that the discovery of the cell or gene did. I suspect that most of the opposition to stem cell research is a knee jerk reaction which comes from anything new and anything we don’t fully understand – and that is a good thing, it is a way of protecting ourselves – howerver we need to find out about it and make an informed decsion, rather than one based on fear, and the need for a sound bite on the 7 o’clock news.

Side issues which tie into this one are – how we treat animals (are they persons ?), and therefor the whole vegetarian debate, and the euthanasia question – when is it ok to kill?? On the killing side it ties in with what has been written in the past week about military chaplaincy and the armed forces in particular – when is it OK to kill??

Australian Uniting Church author (unknown)