I have lived on both sides of the abortion debate. I have read countless books, from both a science perspective and a cultural/personal perspective. I protested in front of clinics that I later visited. I know how complex the issue is, and after all these years, I realize that the debate over embryonic personhood is nearly impossible to answer from a merely biological perspective, because just as our actor-network model shows: all of science (or life) is intertwined by complex feelings, beliefs and information. Robertson, in Assisting Reproduction, writes, “It has long been apparent that this problem is not resolved by rational argument” (p.1495). He cites a text on religious conflict resolution as proof that embryonic research is, for many people, sacred no matter what the science says. For this reason, the debate continues in circles.
M. Flower does a good job of detailing the early “life” of an embryo. He shows that a moment of life is impossible to single out because of the continuum of change. As explained in lecture there are no massive markers that denote a new step in the development of life, rather a gradual, even hourly change in embryo development exists. Flower even points out that conception is not a “moment” as most people think of it, but a process lasting 24 hours (p. 438). Timing is the key in embryo research, and people are scared of the implications of experimenting on something that is alive, and yet it’s very difficult, or controversial to decide if dividing cells is indeed life.
To a scientist looking for a cure to disease the hope and promise of embryonic stem cells is necessary, and to the patient looking for a cure for cancer the promise of stem cell research is a last hope. To the person looking to protect the life of the unborn, the process seems to teeter on injustice for the little one who’s life is ending before it had a chance to breath. The issue is so complicated and I sympathize for both sides but it’s hard for me, having read Flower’s piece, to believe that multiplying cells that have not yet differentiated in the preembryo stage are feeling, sensing beings. But, once the neural capacity is present, I do feel it is inappropriate to experiment on the embryo.
I still have some questions: This might be in the readings, I just can find it: at what stage or weeks from conception does stem cell research occur? And if the fertilization is happening in a Petri dish how long do you wait for it to develop before stem cells can be cultivated?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You are not alone in having a foot on more than one side of the complex debate that has spilled over from the abortion controversy into the stem cell debates. And clearly a number of those in the class don't have to be told that this is a complex issue. I am hoping the loop model simply encourages us to tease out even more of the arguments, not so much in the hope of a clear decision but in the interest of better understanding the fine points of both disagreement and agreement. For example, "deciding of dividing cells are indeed life". We'd all agree I think that "life" is present; however, we'd disagree whether early life stages are sufficiently complex that we ought to leave them alone. And when you raise the issue of "neural capacity" the likely response from some (or from me) will be: WHAT capacity? Simple neural circuitry? Simple movement? A functioning spinal cord? Or a functioning neocortex? The more complex capacities only originate in mid-to-late stages of FETAL development. And on your last question: most stem cell researchers would remove the inner cell mass (ICM) from embryos that are only 4-6 days old. Same answer holds if you were to start with egg and sperm in a petri dish. It's only a matter of days.
ReplyDelete