Stem cell research

Postings to a WashingtonPost forum on stem cell research, April 2007

I was reading a Washington Post discussion forum on stem cell research, and posed these questions to a religious zealot on the forum:

When does God make identical twins and chimeras human?

Zygotes don't split into two individual nascent humans for several weeks; likewise several zygotes don't merge to form one human--a chimera--for several weeks. So do those zygotes destined to become identical twins get two souls at the moment of conception? And do zygotes destined to merge into chimeras get--oh, I dunno--half a soul each? Or does one get a soul and the other none? If so would it be OK to abort the one that didn't get one?

And how about zygotes destined to become anencephalic fetusus that have no brain and no ability to live outside the womb? Do they get souls if they have no minds? If so do carrots have souls?
If it does apply to human zygotes whether or not they have any chance of developing into one human being that can live outside the womb, doesn't it also apply to unfertilized eggs and individual sperm cells, making onanism and condoms murder?

And where does the Bible say "the moment of conception is when we're ensouled"? Or do you set yourself above the Bible, and hence above God, in making such definitive pronouncements about things no scripture alludes to?

There is that passage in Luke, but it only implies that humans are ensouled at some unspecified time before birth--in John the Baptist's case Luke says he was about 6 months along. That's the beginning of the third trimester.

So does it make me un-Christian to claim that nobody knows when a fertilized egg becomes ensouled in the course of its develpment? That God hasn't told us when either? That a fertilized egg per se is no more or less a human being than a sperm cell? That we only know fetuses are ensouled some time before birth, and that therefore even for Christians there's no reason to oppose stem cell research--or abortion or in vitro fertilization with all the discarded zygotes that ensue--on anything but a fetus far enough along to be viable outside the womb without modern medical intervention?

Or has God come to you in a vision and told you what the Bible hasn't told the rest of us? If so, are you a new prophet I should know about, with a new Bible I haven't heard about, or perhaps new stone tablets? Bottom line: are we really talking about the basis for opposing stem cell resarch...or one the seven deadly sins--namely pride?

** I added this reply to another poster who agreed with me but doubted I'd get through to the zealot:

Natch. But I'm trying to give readers ammo for when they get into it with anti-abortion people.

Especially I'd like to help with challenging premises, such as "Human life begins at conception."
This whole "human life begins at conception" thing was historically Catholic dogma. Protestants--even the most Bible-believing--didn't believe it, since obviously the Bible is slient on the topic. But the Catholic church succeeded in co-opting conservative Protestants into making this a huge priority. I'm guessing there have been Papal statements on the topic, which Catholics treat same as Scripture. But Protestants don't, so I'm continually amazed at how the Cathoics got this by Protestants' "Catholic stuff filter." At least the Catholics weren't able (so far) to get other Christians to believe that condoms are murder...

I was assuming that readers of this site would know what chimeras are, but maybe not, so I'll explain here. There have been episodes on the TV shows "House" and/or "Grey's Anatomy" about chimeras. Chimeras look and act just like the rest of us. But they come from twins' zygotes fusing into one mosaic zygote long after the "moment of conception."

As a result a Chimera has the DNA of two different people in his or her body. A cheek swab might reveal the DNA of one, while, say, a toenail clipping would appear to be from someone else.

This has led to mothers believing their baby got swapped in the hospital after a DNA test showed the baby didn't share the mother's cheek swab DNA.

If Catholic (and now Fundamentalist) current belief is true, Chimeras must have two souls. I can't wait to hear the intellectual gymnastics that would be required to explain that away.
Ditto identical twins. They-aren't-created-at-the-moment-of-conception. Period. No ifs ands or buts. Happens quite a while later. So does each get half a soul?

Claiming that we're ensouled at the moment of conception is a radical innovation, not a part of any Christian tradition prior to the modern age. A zygote isn't even a potential human being necessarily. Miscarriages are quite common, and it's thought that they represent the body spontaneously aborting a non-viable fetus.

I'm not talking about Mongoloids, or retarded people, or any other kind of person who's handicapped. I'm talking about zygotes and then fetuses that will either inevtiably be stillborn or not be able to survive birthing without massive hi-tech medical intervention, or which will be born without a brain--that's what anencephalic means.

The zygotes that cannot under any circumstances lead to a viable human child--no matter how handicapped--are not "unborn people." They're "never will be born non-people."

In addition there's the issue of in vitro fertilization, which requires externally fertilizing and then discarding a massive number of fertilized embryos. Anyone who opposes abortion based on "human life begins at conception" must oppose in vitro fertilization or be a complete hypocrite.

I sure haven't heard of anti-abortion activists protesting in front of fertility clinics, shoving photos of aborted fetuses in the faces of women desperate to conceive and bear children, screaming "Murderer!" in their faces.

As Big Daddy used to say, "Do ah detect the odah of mendacity in the ai-yah?

** Then the zealot replied with a mix of bible quotes and Catholic pronouncements regarding the timing of ensoulment. You can find the whole thing at
http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpeditorials/messages?msg=6171.614 (my 1st post is #602). I replied:

Readers, if you look at these posts over the last several days, you’ll see a debate between me and “jmjamdggh.” I support stem cell research off all types, while j. opposes stem cell research of all types. Both of us base our assertions on moral and biological grounds.

I posed a series of questions to j. about things like chimeras and identical twins and made some assertions about the Bible. My goal was to show how the opposition to stem cell research isn’t supported either biologically or biblically. J.’s several answers strive to refute these assertions.

IMO what’s most revealed by this dialogue is how people who want nothing more than to act morally are led by certain common human shortcomings to conclusions that are actually immoral. In other words, “the way to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

The j's of the world may think this about folks like me. What may surprise them is that we think likewise about them.

I question j’s conclusions because the complexities of reproduction make it impossible to claim that every fertilized egg is an “unborn baby,” and that consequently the opposition to stem cell research is based on a fallacy known in science as “false precision.” That is, 2x3 doesn’t equal 6.000. It equals 6. The answer can’t be any more precise than the information used to produce that answer.

So while a religious person can plausibly assert that a human being gets a soul some time before birth, it’s hard to get much more specific than that—and the least plausible stance to take is claiming ensoulment at the moment of conception.

But beyond this I question j.'s Christianity. That sounds extreme, but surely we all agree that just claiming something doesn’t make it so. I can claim I’m ten feet tall, or that I have an IQ of 180, but I’m not and I don’t. So bear with me when I challenge j’s Christianity, despite his/her evident fervence.

Most mainstream Christians generally agree that Christ’s mission, at its essence, was to reform a religion that had gotten bogged down in the details--obsessed with symbols of religiosity and with minute study of religious texts. This fixation came at the expense of “living the life I sing about in my song,” as Mahalia Jackson said (well, sung, actually).”

Christ, unlike so many other religious figures, didn’t deliver a set of detailed instructions on how to behave. Instead he gave us principles. When anyone asked Him for specifics He wouldn’t gave them a straight answer--He’d talk in riddles and parables. This was no accident. He was trying to get his followers to listen to that “still, small voice” instead of poring over chapter and verse; to use their minds to—-of all things--think. He wasn’t looking for robotic followers. Or for self-righteous ones. He was looking for those who had a "humble heart and a contrite spirit."

You see the opposite of this in the fundamentalist flavors of all religions, as theologian Karen Armstrong has written. Look at videos of fundamentalist Moslem madrassahs, for example. You’ll see rooms full of little children who should be out playing. Instead they’re bobbing autistically over their Qu’rans, trying to memorize it cover to cover. It’s all about obedience. Free will shmee will.

To me the “Christianity” that tries to ban stem cell research has perverted Christ’s mission. Christ wasn’t talking about zygotes or blastocysts when He called on us to help the least among us. He was talking about the poor and the afflicted—and that’s who stem cell research is all about.

In Christian terms that puts j’s well-intentioned efforts firmly (albeit unintentionally) in the service of the Adversary. If I were to update the “Screwtape Letters” I’d add a chapter in which the senior devil advises his nephew to encourage the nephew’s “client” to campaign against stem cell research as an expression of the client’s superior Christianity.

What’s bizarre in terms of church history is this absolute belief that an ovum acquires a sperm and a soul at the same instant. The Bible existed in roughly its present form for over a millenium before anyone decided that this novel idea could be found somewhere in its pages. Even the Catholic church claimed no such thing until the mid-19th century.

And today “A growing number of Catholic moral theologians do not regard very early human embryos as individualized human entities and would allow research before the development of the 'primitive streak' at 14 days, which marks the point at which some cells are destined to become the embryo and others to become the placenta.” (“Embryo and stem cell research in the United States: history and politics,” D. C. Wertz, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Waltham, MA).

Traditionally Christians thought a fetus wasn’t ensouled until more than a month after conception; Jews, not until the baby had emerged from the mother halfway.And across all advanced countries, your age is determined from the moment of your birth. If fundamentalists are right it should be from moment of conception. I encourage fundamentalists to try to get that legislated.

More anon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
subsequent post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Readers, my set of questions about the moment of ensoulment a few days ago generated a torrent of responses from a Catholic I call j., since the email handle he/she chose is unpronounceable. I’ll address j.’s main points here:

On the Bible & stem cell research involving fertilized ova:
Opponents of this form of research most commonly bring up Isaiah 49:1,5. Here’s an answer to that from the Medical News Today forum at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=5179:
>>…the Bible does not disagree with stem cell research. In Isaiah 49 verse 1 it says "while I was in my mother's womb he named me" and in verse 5 "And now the Lord says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant." Since the blastocysts have never been in a womb, they are not God's children. We also know from science that until they are placed in a womb, they do not form a human even if they are allowed to grow. So they are NOT true embryos, only a mass of unrelated cells --yes they are human cells, but so are blood cells which are transfused every day.

Moreover, to claim that this passage says anything about the exact moment of ensoulment is not supported by Biblical text here or anywhere else in the Bible. All it proves is that the Bible supports the belief that Jeremiah was ensouled before parturition, and that one could plausibly assert that all of us are ensouled before parturition. The text of the Bible says nothing about the moment of conception. Those who wrote the Bible knew nothing about the moment of conception—that only came with the advent of modern science in the 19th century. Those who commented on the Bible knew nothing about the moment of conception, for the same reason. To claim otherwise makes as much sense as the Da Vinci Code nonsense.
You could claim that the Bible supports opposing abortion of fetuses that are recognizable human beings. And indeed you’ll find that across most major religions and denominations there’s agreement that we’re ensouled about a month after conception, after all the complexities of identical twins and chimeras has been sorted out, and when the fetus has a central nervous system and doesn’t look like a fish or a ball of cells. Even the Catholic Church made no claims about ensoulment occurring earlier than this until 1859. That’s when the pope at that time took advantage of the science of his day to perform what in formal logic we’d call a saltus naturae. And his pronouncement has bedeviled the human race ever since.

Research, abortion, in vitro fertilization—all of this involving possibly potential human fetuses less than a month old is not opposed by the Bible, and the Bible’s verses don’t comment on this any more than it comments on human evolution, except in the most metaphorical terms.
When religious figures of the day spoke out against abortion, they mean abortion of what looked like a human being to them. If you’d showed them a blastocyst under a microscope and told them this was a man they’d have been incredulous.

It’s tempting to read things into ancient texts that reflect modern understandings. But this is as phony as those Biblical epics Hollywood used to churn out, in which all the women had modern hairdos…and modern attitudes. You can’t retrofit the ancient world with our ideas in this way.

On Tradition & stem cell research:

This refers primarily to Catholic add-ons to the principles espoused by the Bible. Such commentary is not generally accepted outside the Catholic Church, and I strongly suspect the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches use Tradition but interpret it somewhat differently. Also, when the Bible was settled on in its present form, the early church made a heroic effort to expunge all the other documents with a claim to be scripture. I suspect that would include most of the Tradition now cited by some Catholics as proving various propostions. And Catholic commentary is hardly persuasive to non-Catholics. In fact it isn’t even persuasive to a majority of ‘Catholics, as my next point demonstrates.

On Catholics and stem cell research based on fertilized ova:
>>[Harris/ABC polls show that] in this country, 72% of white Catholics are pro-embryonic stem cell research, and when you ask all Catholics, 53% support it.
(http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/reeve.cnna/index.html)

This doesn’t prove j. is wrong or right—just that even within the Catholic community j.’s arguments represent a minority viewpoint—especially among educated Catholics (not that non-whites are necessarily uneducated or vice-versa—just in this case due to the historical circumstances).

On language:
I notice that j.’s writing becomes larded with more and more adjectives and adverbs when IMO j. becomes agitated. In the interest of civil discourse--and using my background as an editor--I recommend that all posters go over what they write and edit out heavy use of adjectives and adverbs. You’ll find that while such language serves to express how strongly you feel, it isn’t persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. Oh, and there’s no biblical figure named Pilot. Perhaps j. was referring to Pontius Pilate.

On my points being apocryphal:
It’s a common rhtorical ploy to accuse your opponent of the sins you yourself are committing, to put him on his back foot and muddy the waters. In this case I’m the one arguing for a strict, conservative interpretation of the Bible, and of the use of mainstream science. I’m not dredging up outside commentators as having equal scriptural weight as the Bible, contravening the spirit of the Council of Nicea. And I’m not dredging up heterodox scientists and doctors who have subordinated their cause to their professional integrity.

On use of Catholic sources to prove points about stem cell research conducted on fertilized ova:
This is only persuasive to fellow Catholics. Religious assertions based on the subset of the Bible common to most Christian faiths has the best chance of being persuasive to other Christians. And if you want to persuade non-Christians as well you have to look to the beliefs shared by most major religions, which tend to be more general statements.

On scientists speaking in favor of any religious dogma:
Humans are fallible, and history is littered with people who sacrificed their principles for lust (David), for power (Herod), for fear (Peter), and for ideology (scientists whose ideological zealotry overcomes their scientific principles). Moreover, we also find people who compartmentalize their religious from their scientific understandings. That’s how you get a few rogue biologists working for the profoundly misnamed “Discovery” Institute. If Josef Mengele could violete his Hippocratic oath to experiment on concentration camp inmates, surely doctors can violate their scientific knowledge to make dogmatic pronouncements. Hence the sad spectable of Doctor and Senator Frist “diagnosing” the mindless shell of Terry Schiavo, only to have his scientific credibility ruined by the autopsy results (actually long before, but the autopsy put the nails in the coffin).

On the Supreme Court being a Tool of Satan:
I was frankly shocked by j.’s tirade against our Supreme Court. His/her language was so extreme as to make me question j.’s loyalty to the United States of America. The Catholic Church has stated that its laws supercede those of my country as regards illegal immigration. Now j. condemns fundamental institutions like the Supreme Court—including the current Republican Supreme Court, which could have easily overturned the rulings j. doesn’t like, and which has three or four practising Catholics on the court. Evidently j. hasn’t read what Christ said about rendering unto Caesar. More deeply, the old talking point against Catholics in government was that they’d betray our nation on orders from Rome. For a substantial majority of Catholics this is completely false. For example, even though my politics differ greatly from those of Justice Roberts, I certainly have no cause to doubt his loyalty. I do question j.’s loyalty, however. When we give the Pledge of Allegiance we don’t get to say “My first loyalty is with another organization, but when and only when the United States obeys that other organization, I pledge my allegiance. So, when j. says the Pledge of Allegiance—are j.’s fingers crossed behind his/her back? And if j. does represent a foreign power that often sets itself against the United States, its Constitution, and its Laws, should I read what j. writes as coming from a foreign agent bent on overturning my country and its laws, by all means fair and foul?

I don’t raise these issues because j. is Catholic. I raise them because his statements about my government make me raise them.

On other points:
I misspoke when I characterized j. as being against all stem cell research. Of course we’re only talking about stem cell research based on fertilized ova.
I am, however, right about everything else. J --Especially ensoulment.
The most critical religious issue in this debate is when we’re ensouled. That issue lies at the heart of religious discussion about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and abortion.
AND, my point—as yet unrefuted by j. or any other opponent to these practices—is that recent findings about human ontogeny confound the pronouncements of a minority of religious figures about ensoulment having to occur at time of conception. If this is true, then even the most reverent person should have no problem with stem cell research on fertilized ova, with early abortion, and, most significantly, with in vitro fertilization, which requires vastly more “deaths” of fertilized ova than stem cell research does—or will, even with the greatest government support.

To a religious person, science is simply and exactly the study of how He did it. When new scienfitic findings refute established religious belief, all it means is that we fallible humans misinterpreted one or more of the processes God uses to run His universe. And that’s the key. It’s His universe. Not ours. We don’t get to dictate to God how He runs His universe.

And I submit that it’s the deepest sort of blasphemy to do so. Every scientist is trained to submit to truth, just as every religious person is supposed to submit to God—and most religious scientists acknowledge that these are one and the same--even when new scientific findings overturn cherished assumptions. Lately this development has become so rapid that a physics textbook 10 years old isn’t much more than a museum piece. And the same is true for biology beyond the descriptive level.

A fertilized ovum does not have the slightest chance of developing into a human being until or unless it implants in the uterus—and even then it doesn’t have the slightest chance of developing into a human being unless it’s genetically viable, and unless the woman’s reproductive machinery is working correctly. The main cause of “miscarriages” stems from the mother’s body spontaneously aborting nonviable fetuses. Claiming that nonviable fetuses are ensouled by God makes no sense—it’s unspeakably cruel—and isn’t supported by Biblical text—only by relatively recent pronouncements by a minority of Christian church figures. Why would God ensoul something that will never and can never become a living human? Even to call it living in the same way that independent organisms are living is a stretch. Your liver is alive, but it isn’t a human being. Parts of organisms are alive, mostly (your hair and nails aren’t), but they aren’t organisms themselves.
For us that requires the ability to live outside the womb, and the most natural interpretation would make that “being able to live outside the womb independently.”—not inside an incubator with a million bucks’ worth of technology keeping it going. The Bible says nothing about incubators.

Anyone has the right to believe that humans are ensouled at the moment of conception, come hell or high water. But they don’t get to dragoon the Bible and the scientific establishment into their cause. And I submit that those who do so sin again God and try to substitute their universe for His. And of course in all of this I’m not impugning Christians—only small minority of self-professed Christians who seek to overthrow the Bible with their own novel teachings and understandings. Many call such people Christianists to differentiate them from mainstream Christians. It’s Christianists whose prideful absolutism gives other Christians a bad name.