Analyzing the President's Stem-Cell Decree

One of the greatest myths on the subject of stem-cell research is that there are people or groups who are "opposed to stem-cell research." Nobody -- I repeat, nobody -- is "opposed to stem-cell research."

There are two kinds of stem-cells: embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem-cells are taken from pre-born infants. The babies are killed to get their stem-cells. Adult stem-cells are taken from adults, but no adults are killed to get their stem-cells. All -- I repeat, all -- progress in stem-cell research has come from adult stem cells. No cures -- do I need to repeat myself? NONE -- have resulted from embryonic stem cell research.

Millions of Americans believe it is immoral -- murder -- to intentionally kill a pre-born infant. Certainly killing an unborn human being for "scientific research" is appalling to many Americans.

Not one American out of 300 million believes it is immoral to engage in adult stem-cell research. (I'm guessing. The guy who believes the earth is flat may also oppose adult stem-cell research; I really don't know.) No human beings are killed during adult stem-cell research. All the cures are coming from adult stem-cell research. None are coming from embryonic stem-cell research. Who could oppose adult stem cell research? Nobody does.

So-called "pro-life" Presidents have denied federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research, believing that it is immoral to forcibly confiscate money from people who believe it is immoral to kill babies, and use their money to kill babies.

Obama is not a "pro-life" President. Obama does not tolerate the views of people who are opposed to killing babies. He has removed previous barriers to using the money of pro-life Americans for pro-death research.

Why would a nice person initiate force and threaten violence against people who do not wish to pay for baby-killing, when baby-killing has produced no measurable benefits? Why not at least use their money only for the most productive forms of research: adult stem-cell research? (Of course, it would be better for the government not to take money from anybody for any purpose, but we're not arguing for utopia. Just "representation." Obama represents the pro-death, pro-abortion lobby, but not pro-life Americans.)

Obama is FORCING people who believe killing babies is murder to have their tax-dollars used to kill babies. Totally unnecessary; ideologically driven.

---

On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order "Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells." That order is found on the left-hand side. On the right-hand side is a re-writing of that order, substituting "Jewish" for "embryonic," and carrying with it the assumption that "Jewish stem cell research," like "embryonic stem cell research," results in the death of the Jew whose stem cells are removed for research.

Some people may be opposed to killing Jews to get their stem cells. These people are obviously against "scientific progress" and just don't care about Michael J. Fox.

History News Network
Comparing Stem-Cell Research to Nazi Experments [sic]	Vine & Fig Tree Response
David Gelernter, in the WSJ (8-10-05):
Last week, James Dobson of Focus on the Family proved that he lacks sufficient control to be pitching in the major leagues of public discussion and ought to be sent back to the minors. He compared embryonic stem cell research to Nazi death-camp experiments. I too (and millions of others) oppose broadened federal funding for stem-cell research, but Dr. Dobson has damaged rather than helped this cause. He has made conservatives look bad by suggesting that some are just as incapable of moral distinctions as the Howard Dean left--and just as unable to treat their opponents like human beings and not wicked moral dwarfs.	The left-leaning "Media Matters" criticized Dobson for not treating Nazis like wicked moral dwarves, but as "morally serious" human beings:
	On the August 3 broadcast of the Focus on the Family radio show -- devoted to a discussion of stem cell research -- James C. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, compared embryonic stem cell research with Nazi experiments conducted on live human patients during and prior to the Holocaust. Dobson also likened proponents of embryonic stem cell research to Nazi doctors while suggesting that the Nazis' experimentation likely resulted in discoveries that "benefited mankind": DOBSON: You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here. —M.B. [emphasis in original; twisted spin on Dobson's remarks also in original]
Meanwhile, those who popped up on cue to demand an immediate Dobson apology--such Jewish groups as the Anti-Defamation League, political groups like ProgressNow.org and many individuals--look silly and childish. Rarely has one wild pitch knocked so many people on the head. Thank you, Dr. Dobson; you can sit down now.
Dr. Dobson's analogy is grotesque. It's not just that embryos (as he himself noted later) feel no pain when they are destroyed. Not just that they leave no grief-stricken survivors in the sense that full-fledged human beings do, and rip no comparable hole in the community and the universe when they are murdered.	I think it's a fitting analogy. So if you use the "date-rape" drug and they don't feel it, you can kill them? So if the victim is alone, isolated, abandoned, a widow or orphan, and nobody cares about her, she can be killed? Isn't it precisely the case that genocide begins with the social ostracization of the intended victims? Babies are inconvenient; they hurt our careers. Jews are behind our economic woes. No analogy?
Just as important is the gaping difference in the actors' motives. • Stem-cell researchers want to help "mankind," defined to exclude embryos. • Nazi experimenters wanted to help "mankind," defined to exclude Jews. If the first definition is wrong, it might nonetheless be proposed by morally serious persons. No morally serious person would go anywhere near the second, which epitomizes Nazi evil.	Motives or self-deception? Virtually all sides considered Germany to be "morally serious" in the 1930's. If Germany had won the war, all "morally serious" people would be commending the Nazi doctors. In light of the fact that NO cures have come from killing infants for their stem cells, while ALL the cures have come from ADULT stem cells which require nobody to be killed, why should we consider advocates of embryonic stem cell research "morally serious?"
In arguing for the rightness of our war in Iraq, I often encounter left-wingers who insist that Saddam killed Iraqis and America's war does so, too--so what's the difference? It's tragic when any part of a national community grows incapable of moral distinctions. Drawing moral distinctions is what human beings are for. But Dr. Dobson's analogy is far more simple-minded than the pacifist position on Iraq.	Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983. The United States has killed more Iraqis than Saddam did. But neither Saddam nor Bush did the killings single-handedly, or even with their own hands. Their orders were obediently carried out by those who thought they were acting in the interests of "national security" or some such illusion. The pacifist position on Iraq is not "morally serious?"
Another Focus on the Family spokesman has said (after the first round of the Dobson-on-stem-cells affair) that "if anyone should be sensitive to the types of atrocities that are going on" in stem-cell research, "it should be the Jewish people." But maybe "the Jewish people" are exactly as sensitive as Dr. Dobson and his colleagues to the fate of embryos, and more sensitive to the suffering of human beings. Some Americans support expanded stem-cell research because they are frantic for science to find new cures for desperately ill friends or family members. Is Dr. Dobson so small-hearted that he can't cut such people a little slack? Can't concede that they are acting out of love, even if their conclusions are wrong?	are human embryos not human? What species are they? Support for embryonic stem cell research rather than the more fruitful research being done without killing unborn human beings is based on a desire to legitimize abortion or to rake in federal tax dollars. It is not "morally serious." Nazi doctors acted out of love for the Fatherland. Love for other Germans who might be assisted by their "research."

The Moral Issue:

• Is it moral to kill Jews in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill 2-year old children in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill 1-year old children in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill 1-day old children in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill children 1 day before they are scheduled for birth in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill children 1 month before they are scheduled for birth in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
• Is it moral to kill children 9 months before they are scheduled for birth in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"

The moral principle involved in these questions is this:

• Is it immoral to kill strong and independent people, but moral to kill small and dependent people?
• If human beings derive value from their level of development, personhood could be expressed by a bell curve in which human beings move toward full personhood in their early years, reach full personhood during their middle years (when they reach their intellectual peaks), then gradually lose personhood as they age. Presumably, your rights as a person would increase, stabilize, and then decrease in the process.
  • Is it moral to kill the senile elderly in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
  • Is it moral to kill the elderly 1 day before they become completely "senile" in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"
  • Is it moral to kill the elderly 1 month before they become completely "senile" in order to harvest their body parts for "scientific research?"

• Stand to Reason: Embryonic Stem Cell Research: Means and Ends
• Letter to President Bush Opposing Embryo Stem Cell Research [pdf]
• Can Embryos be Human even if Pro-lifers are Inconsistent?
• Harvesting the Unborn: the Ethics of Embryo Stem Cell Research [pdf]
• Scott Klusendorf:
       After you study the introductory material above, I suggest that you review a debate featuring Ronald Bailey (pro-ESCR) against Robert George and Patrick Lee (anti-ESCR). Lee and George very successfully handle the objections that you will likely hear from your critics and, in my view, destroy Bailey's case for ESCR. Review the debate, in the following order, at the links below:
  • Are Stem Cells Babies? (Ronald Bailey opens the exchange) http://www.reason.com/rb/rb071101.html
  • Reason, Science, and Stem Cells (Lee and George reply to Bailey) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george072001.shtml
  • My Critics are Wrong (Bailey replies to Lee and George) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bailey072501.shtml
  • The Stubborn Facts of Science (Lee and George reply to Bailey) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-george073001.shtml
  • More Stubborn Facts of Science (Bailey responds to Lee and George) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bailey080601.shtml
  • Embryology, Philosophy, and Human Dignity: Ronald Bailey is still Wrong (Lee and George reply to Bailey) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lee080901.shtml
  • Cellular Truths (Lee and George, continued) http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-leeprint091001.html
• http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/publicat/lifeissues/31502.htm)

Summary of Patrick Lee and Robert P. George’s argument against embryonic stem cell research (ESCR):

The morality of the issue comes down to just one question: Are embryos human beings? Opponents of ESCR do not argue that stem cells are babies (and hence killing them is wrong), but that one form of stem cell research--ESCR--is immoral because you must kill an embryonic human being to harvest the cells. This embryo is a living (though immature) member of the human family.

Critics argue that each of our cells has as much potential for development as any human embryo. Hence, there is no difference in kind between normal somatic cells and human embryos. For example, cloning shows that each of our cells has the genetic information needed to produce an entire human embryo, provided genetic information from the donor is placed inside a vacated human ovum and placed in the right environment. Hence, proponents of ESCR argue, each of our cells is no different in kind from a living, growing human embryo.

However, the argument that there is no difference in kind between human embryos and each of our cells is seriously flawed for the following reasons:

1. First, proponents of ESCR fail to distinguish between "parts" and "wholes." Unlike the embryo, which is already a whole human organism, each of our cells is merely part of a larger human organism. The capacity of each of our cells is restricted to fulfilling a given purpose within the larger context of a human body. For this reason, it differs radically from the capacity of the human embryo. The human embryo already is a whole human organism. It is a self-unified, distinct individual with the inherent capacity to develop into a fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, and adult. This capacity to develop into all stages of human existence is not something external to the embryo, but inherent in its nature. In the case of our individual cells, each has the capacity to become a human embryo only if something external is done to it--in this case, combining its DNA with a vacated ovum, chemicals, and electricity in hopes it can be jolted into becoming a whole human embryo. In other words, each of our cells has the capacity to become a whole human being only if acted upon externally through a cloning process. They are unable to produce a whole human embryo by themselves, but must work together with an enucleated ovum; unlike the embryo, it needs more than just the right environment in order to develop into mature stages of a human being. The embryo, meanwhile, already is a whole human being with the inherent (though yet to be actualized) ability to become a more mature human being. True, it is an immature human, as is an infant, but it’s a whole human being nonetheless.
2. With cloning, there is more than a change in environment. Instead, there is an internal change in the kind of thing present. In this case, adult cells are combined with a vacated egg and chemicals and jolted into a new human organism. Thus, the relevant capacity of the adult cell is merely that its genetic material can be used, in conjunction with a female ovum, to generate a new human being. In that sense, each of our cells is analogous to sperm/egg, not a whole human embryo. Just as sperm and egg contribute genetic material that becomes a human being, so adult cells, through cloning, can contribute material used to form a new human. However, it’s unreasonable to conclude that the genetic material contributed by the adult cell is the same as a whole human embryo. Just as a person who comes into being from the union of sperm and egg was never a sperm or egg, so a person who is brought into being by cloning was never a somatic cell.
3. The fact that the embryo, like the somatic cell, has a complete genetic code, is part of the proof that he or she is a distinct human, but only part. The other proof is that it is a self-integrated, whole human being (not functionally part of a larger organism) with a genetic code distinct from its mother. Unlike the somatic cell, it has the inherent ability to grow into a mature human organism.
4. Cloning shows only that human beings can be reproduced asexually--something we already knew from twinning. The facts of science, however, are clear: Human embryos are not mere clumps of cells but are living distinct human organisms, the same as you and I at earlier stages of our lives. The new organism directs its own growth, coordinating from within all of its activities.
5. To sum up, somatic cells, like sperm and egg, can only contribute "parts" to a process that results in a human being. Embryos already are human beings. They have the epigenetic primordia for internally directed development maturation as distinct, whole, self-integrated human organisms; somatic cells do not.
6. Proponents of ESCR, unable to refute the scientific facts, resort to philosophy. They make assertions about the moral status of embryos rather then demonstrate scientifically who is and is not a distinct human being. They argue that although the embryo is a human being, it is not a person. But why should anyone accept the claim that there is such a thing as a human that is not a person? Notice that ESCR proponents are no longer answering the scientific case for the humanity of the embryo, but are dehumanizing it with highly subjective appeals to philosophy.
7. It will not do to assert that embryos are human beings but not persons because you and I are essentially human, physical organisms. Human person/human being dualism fails to account for the fact that a human person is a bodily entity, not a mere consciousness using a body. We are intrinsically valuable, not mere carriers of what is truly valuable (consciousness). If we are merely carriers of what is intrinsically valuable--in this case consciousness--it would be morally permissible to kill one child who carries consciousness in order to replace it with two new carriers of consciousness. However, if we are not mere carriers of what is valuable, but are intrinsically valuable ourselves, then we are so from the moment we begin to exist. It makes no sense to say that we came to be at one point, but became valuable only at a later point.
8. Proponents of ESCR reply with an analogy to brain death. Just as it is morally acceptable to extract organs from brain-dead individuals because (we are told) they are human organisms but not persons, so we can legitimately dismember human embryos for research. To be a "person" (they assert) one must have a brain that can sustain memories and intentions. Since human embryos do not have brains capable of sustaining these functions, they are not "persons" and may be killed for research. In short, those espousing this view propose brain function as the criterion for life, just as collapse of the brain is the criterion for death. However, this argument fails for several reasons. First, under prevailing law and accepted medical practice, the rationale for "brain death" is not that a brain-dead body is a living human organism but not a "person." Rather, brain death is accepted because the irreversible collapse (cessation) of the entire brain destroys the capacity for self-directed integral functioning of human beings who have matured to a stage where brain activity is needed to integrate the organism. What is left is no longer a unitary organism at all. True, the embryo has not yet developed a brain, but an embryo does not need a brain to integrate its systems so it can live. Other bodily functions take care of that task during its early days. More mature human beings, unlike the embryo, need a brain to live. At their more mature age, the brain is takes over the task of integrating their bodily systems. Hence, there is no parallel between a brain dead person and an embryo. The embryo is not dead, but is growing a maturing. The brain dead individual has suffered an irreversible loss of all functions of the entire brain. Put differently, there is difference between "no more" and "not yet." Just because the brain dead person is in the category of "no more" having irreversibly lost the capacity to integrate its systems so it can live, it does not follow from this that embryos that have not yet developed brain function are not living human beings. Unlike the brain dead individual, human embryos have the inherent capacity for brain function. All they lack is merely the current capacity for brain function. Unlike a corpse--which is merely the remains of what was once a human organism but is now dead--an embryo is a unified, self-integrating human organism.
9. When defenders of ESCR say that human embryos or fetuses are human beings (individuals) but not "persons," they could mean one of two things. First, they could mean that a human person is not a physical organism and thus did not come to be when the physical organism associated with that person came to be. On this view, a "person" is not a bodily entity, but a purely spiritual (immaterial) one. It is merely a subject inhabiting a body the way that water inhabits a glass, or perhaps a sequence of experiences somehow associated with a biological organism. However, this view fails to acknowledge that every living thing (including human embryos) that performs bodily actions is an organism, a bodily entity. In the case of the human individual, it is clear that "it" is the same thing that perceives, walks, and talks (which are bodily actions), as well as makes choices and understands complex problems. Thus, the "I" that I now am is identical to the bodily organism that can to be at conception. To sum up, "I" am identical to the embryo, fetus, newborn, and toddler I once was. Therefore, since you and I are essentially bodily organisms (with spiritual, non-material capacities), we came to be when our physical bodies came to beat conception.
10. Second, when defenders of ESCR say that the embryos are human but not persons they could mean that although you and I were once human embryos, we did not become persons and hence intrinsically valuable until a later stage in our lives. However, this view assumes that human beings are merely carriers of what is intrinsically valuable--in this case, intelligence and self-consciousness--rather than intrinsically valuable themselves. However, human individuals are valuable for what they are, not what they can do. They are intrinsically valuable, not mere carriers of what is valuable. If we are mere carriers of what is valuable, then it would be permissible to kill one’s own child if that would allow us to replace one carrier of what is intrinsically valuable (consciousness) with two. But clearly human individuals are not valuable in that way. Hence, human beings (as bodily entities) are intrinsically valuable, not the mental properties they possess. In short, the substantive claim we must reject is that you or I came to be at one point, but became intrinsically valuable only at a later point after we acquired certain functional abilities. If human beings are intrinsically valuable, they must be so from the moment they begin to exist. Nothing can be added to make them so. We are valuable for what we are, not because we are mere carriers of what is truly valuable.
11. The embryo is intrinsically valuable not because it carries what is valuable, but because it has a rational nature, having the natural inherent capacity for reason and free choice. By virtue of it, he possesses dignity and rights. Clearly, when adults sleep or in a reversible coma, they are persons though they cannot currently function as such. The same is true with fetuses and infants. Because they are human beings, they have radical natural capacities to exercise mental functions. It will take them some time to actualize those capacities, but embryos are nonetheless identical to the mature beings they will someday become.
12. If proponents of ESCR deny this truth by asserting that embryos cannot have memories or form intentions, it follows (as Peter Singer and Michael Tooley point out) that newborns are not persons and that infanticide is morally permissible. Like the embryo and fetus, newborns do not have the immediate capacity to function this way. Comatose patients would also fail to qualify as persons.
13. The claim that embryos cannot be persons because they lack the brain development necessary to sustain a mind is not a scientific claim. It is a subjective, philosophic assertion. There is nothing scientific about it.
14. Nonetheless, proponents of ESCR continue to assert that each of our cells is no different in kind from a living, whole human embryo. But if that were true, it would mean that each of our cells is already a distinct human organism, which is absurd. Clearly, something external must be done to generate from a somatic cell a distinct human organism that is no longer merely part of a larger entity (i.e., change the somatic cell from a "part" of a human organism to a whole, complete organism). The difference in kind is clear: The somatic cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo is already a whole human entity. Somatic cells are functionally part of a larger human being.

Scott Klusendorf challenges the theological case for ESCR as put forth by Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett in their article, "Theological Support of Stem Cell Research." The article by Peters and Bennett appeared in The Scientist, September 3, 2001.

Note: The authors’ original statements are in black. Scott Klusendorf’s responses are in bold.

Pope John Paul II has stated that support of embryonic stem cell research evidences moral corruption. Opponents of embryonic stem cell research have cast the debate surrounding this research as nothing but the next chapter in the abortion controversy. The ethical issues involved with this research, however, are far too complex to be reduced to such a simple assessment. Portraying the stem cell debate as the abortion controversy is at best intellectually misleading, at worst ethically negligent.

The stem cell debate has been framed by the wrong basic question: its moral heart lies not with abortion, but in its potential good. Stem cell research is morally significant first because it promises healing.

[So if Nazis conduct medical experiments on Jews for the potential good of others, does that make it right?]

Implanted stem cells, it appears, teach the body to heal itself, rejuvenating failing tissues, from organs to nerves. These therapies promise to ease the suffering of millions inflicted with such debilitating diseases as Parkinson's, heart and liver failure, juvenile diabetes, Alzheimer's, and cancer.

It is our considered judgment that not only is this research morally permissible, there is an ethical and theological mandate to actively support it. To not support stem cell research, we have concluded, is unethical.

The principal grounding of our support is beneficence, a bioethical variant of the Christian understanding of agape love. Theological and ethical reflection are at their best when framed by beneficence--a selfless love of one's neighbor that inspires struggle against suffering and death.

[Is the embryo my neighbor? Does ESCR further his well-being? The authors beg the question here by assuming the embryo is not a human being. But this ignores the core issue in the debate over ESCR, "What is the embryo?"]

Beneficence asks: Does stem cell research further or hinder the betterment and well being of humanity?

[You cannot appeal to the fact that ESCR benefits humanity, as the authors argue, when the very question of who is part of the human family--that is, does it include embryos--is itself under dispute. Again, the authors beg the question. Are embryos members of the human family? If so, killing them to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.]

The answer is yes; this form of scientific research promises enormous leaps in the quality of health care.

For those who follow Jesus of Nazareth, decisive here is the Nazarene's ministry of healing. The Christian doctrine of salvation includes healing of body and soul. We human beings emulate God when we engage in our own ministry of healing. Medical research, in its own way, contributes to God's healing work on Earth.

The destruction of embryos for this research is not irrelevant to our ethical considerations. We must ask a question: when does life begin? Or better, when does morally relevant personhood begin?

In Donum Vitae in 1987 the Vatican declared that at conception three components make a full human being: sperm, egg, and a divinely implanted soul. However, with advances in embryology such as nuclear transfer, scientific understanding of what it takes to make a human individual is changing.

[The authors are confusing "parts" and ‘wholes." The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. Objection: "Sperm and egg, as well as body cells, contain human DNA and are human life. Do I commit mass murder if I kill cells from my hand?" Reply: Again, this objection confuses "parts" with "wholes." Unlike bodily cells and sperm cells, which are merely parts of a larger human organism, the embryo is already a distinct, whole, self-integrating human being. True, it is small and has yet to fully develop, but it is a whole human being nonetheless. It makes no sense to say that you and I were once a sperm cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you and I were once human embryos. In short, somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating human organisms.

Before ethical conclusions on the status of the embryo are drawn, theologians and ethicists must study this rapidly advancing science.

The embryo is a potential human being, to be sure; respect for the early embryo shows our respect for God's intended future destiny. As such we do not support research that would lead to the wholesale fabrication of embryos for research purposes.

[Why not? If the embryos in question are not human beings, why not create them solely for destructive research? If they are not human, killing them for research requires no more justification than pulling a tooth.]

Rather, we support research that uses stem cell lines derived from embryos taken from fertilization labs. In the deep freezes of these clinics are thousands of embryos slated for destruction.

[This worn out argument, "These embryos are going to die anyway so let’s put them to good use" is vacuous. All of us die sometime. Do those of us who are going to die later have the right to kill and exploit those who will die sooner? My we kill death row inmates to harvest their organs?]

Society has decided to engage in reproductive technology. Excess embryos exist in large numbers. These surplus embryos will never find connection to a mother's womb, never become a human being.

Is it ethically licit to take surplus embryos and press them into the service of life-saving medical research?

Armed with the principle of beneficence we want to answer, yes.

So ethically central is the principle of beneficence that those who ignore its invocation in the stem cell debate owe it to the public to justify opposition to the advance of medical research. We might recall Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan. In this story a robbed and beaten man is left on the side of the road to die. Priests pass by on the other side of the road, avoiding offering aid. A Samaritan happens along the road, carries the suffering one to the next town and pays for his health care. Confronted by suffering, the Samaritan chooses agape in the form of beneficence. Reducing the stem cell debate to the abortion controversy, we allow the unnamed suffering man--suffering from heart disease, Alzheimer's, or cancer--to die without aid.

Stand to Reason: Embryo Stem-Cell Research Help