Ted Carnahan

In case you haven’t heard the news, there is a new approach to creating stem cells for research, one that does not involve human cloning or the destruction of human embryos. First Things’ Joseph Bottum had this to say about the development:

If the news of major breakthroughs in cell research should turn out to be correct, we are about to witness something like victory in the fight over embryonic stem cells.

And that will open a nest of interesting questions, beginning with this one: All those editorialists and columnists who have, over the past ten years, howled and howled about Luddites and religious fanatics thwarting science and frustrating medicine—were they really interested in technology and health, or were they just using all that as a handy stick with which to whack their political opponents?

You may remember back in the last election I opposed Missouri Amendment 2 because it authorized human cloning and destroyed embryos. Supporters even put Michael J. Fox on television, declaring that embryonic stem cells were the only hope to cure his Parkinson’s disease. But as the First Things article above suggests, support for embryonic stem cell research was not pro-science, it was pro-abortion.

With 2,000,000+ votes cast in 2006, Missouri Amendment 2 passed by less than 50,000 votes. With new science under our belts, perhaps now is a good time to begin efforts to repeal it.

The definition of human life is not without controversy, and especially with the arguments surrounding the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 in Missouri, it’s important to examine.

Definitions of human life or personhood proposed in this debate can be categorized into particular deadlines (e.g. implantation, a certain fetal age, fetal viability outside the womb), collectively Time, particular circumstances (e.g. actually living outside the womb or not), collectively Location, or particular abilities (e.g. ability to breath without assistance, ability to have a heart beat), collectively Abilities. All of these definitions suffer from one fallacy: arbitrariness.

First, time. Impassioned arguments can be made for personhood beginning at conception, beginning within a few weeks with the beginning of embryonic heart or brain activity, at the point where the fetus is viable, at the moment of birth). But if personhood is based upon (always someone else’s) standard of time, what abuses do we see? We see late term abortion, where healthy, viable babies are delivered halfway, then murdered with scissors before they take their first breath. We see euthanasia, where families sue each other to decide whether an elderly family member should live or die. Time is an arbitrary standard, always defined chiefly in terms of someone else’s convenience.

Next, circumstances. What can be more arbitrary than the location of the baby? If a baby is partly in the womb when it is killed, it is legal abortion, but if the baby is completely out of the womb, it is illegal murder. Mere inches - and absolutely nothing else - span the gap between one and the other.

Finally, and most sinister, is the standard of abilities. What abilities make a person? Who gets to decide? What happens when someone grows old and doesn’t have the same abilities - whether that is being able to clean their house or being able to breath without assistance? One of the first eugenics programs run by the Nazis used this standard to justify killing the insane, the chronically ill, and the elderly. Unfortunately this story isn’t often told. For more information, I recommend the book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by former President Ronald Reagan (interestingly, this book is the only book ever published by a US President while in office).

I am strongly pro-life based upon two standards. First, the Christian view of life is that all human life is created in God’s image, and therefore all human life is to be protected. Second, I think the most responsible response to the arbitrariness of the foregoing standards is to err on the side of the protection of life (the “principle of maximal life”). If there is any doubt as to the reliability of any standard, be it Time, Location, Ability, or anything else, then the most responsible choice is to choose the version of each standard which protects life the most. Therefore, we should treat human life as sacred, no matter how young or old, no matter where it is (in uterus or in hospice), no matter what it can do (breath or cry or feed itself).

The greatest risk that arbitrary standards for personhood run is that there will be a time when human life deserving personhood will not be given dignity and justice. Whether or not you agree that human life is created imago Dei (in the image of God), the priniciple of maximal life is still the principle most likely to grant personhood to everything which is actually a person, and therefore it is the most just standard we can ever apply.

Why is Michael J. Fox going on TV in Missouri supporting Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 2 when he hasn’t even read it?

Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.

Maybe if he read it, he’d realize that even though the ballot summary says it bans human cloning, the actual amendment makes it legal (it authorizes “somatic cell nuclear transfer” which is cloning). And it doesn’t even define “clone” in a scientifically accurate way (see section 6-2)

What business does Fox have supporting an amendment that he admits he hasn’t even read?

Important information on Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2

Unfortunately, three facts have gone unacknowledged in the debate over Missouri’s proposed constitutional amendment 2 in the upcoming midterm elections.

1. There is no established scientific reason why any therapy possible with embryonic stem cells would be impossible with adult stem cells. A stem cell is an undifferentiated cell - a cell that could become any other cell.
2. While there are over 50 proven treatments which use adult stem cells, there are no treatments using embryonic stem cells which have been approved by the FDA. Moreover, the big problem is that embryonic stem cells cause cancer.
3. No matter where the embryo comes from - whether the product of a sperm or an egg or the result of somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka “cloning”), an embryo is a genetically unique organism, capable of developing into a human being. Such a thing is, like you and me, created in the image of God, and ought to be respected and protected.

This debate isn’t just about embryonic stem cells, of course. I oppose the amendment because it is only designed to give up the right of Missouri to choose for itself different policies than the rest of the country. This is an issue of states’ rights - should we be allowed in the future to make decisions about stem cell treatments, or do we choose now to let the federal government impose a policy upon us in the future?

Proponents of this amendment are like those who are afraid of what will happen when Roe v. Wade is reversed. Reversing Roe v. Wade won’t immediately illegalize abortion across the United States. It will give the states the right to choose their own policies. Why is it that people who say they are in favor of “choices” oppose this one? What are they afraid of?

For another Christian perspective on Missouri Amendment 2, visit this site.