Stem cell debates and the culture of life

A few days ago, Public Brewery discussed the recent polls conducted to ascertain public views about stem cell research. Although how the polls were worded influenced how people responded, the majority of those polled support this research.

(Hello, are you listening Bush et al? If not, let me repeat these findings: The majority of the public supports stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.)

Not only that, but many Republican Congressional Members support embryonic stem cell research. In fact, within the Republican party, Congressional Members are debating each other over this issue, as evidenced by this recent exchange of words between Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS).

What I find particularly interesting about these assorted debates is how people are backing up their positions by invoking support for a "culture of life." Yet how each person defines this "culture of life" differs, depending on their beliefs about stem cell research. The exchange between Specter and Brownback illustrates two different meanings given to the "culture of life" concept as it pertains to the stem cell issue.

The two Republicans differed sharply on their views of the status of frozen embryos.

Brownback questioned "what it does to the culture of life" when
government approves performing research on the embryos, which he considers "young human life."

Specter shot back, asking what it does "to the culture of life when you let people die because there are medical research tools which could keep them alive?"

Brownback's notion of the culture of life is in line with how the Bush administration defines the term in relation to the stem cell debate: embryos are persons and thus, destroying them for medical purposes is a form of murder. In contrast, Spector's definition of the culture of life emphasizes the potential lives (born and unborn) that embryonic stem cell research could save. He argues that taking advantage of these life-saving "medical tools" is what promotes a culture of life.

Another rethinking of the culture of life concept that various policymakers and others have invoked--and one that I find especially compelling--is similar to Spector's usage. If embryonic stem cells are not used for medical research, chances are they will at some point be destroyed because they are just sitting around in labs without a clear purpose. From this perspective, the most life-affirming act would be to use the cells for medical research--research that could help save future lives--instead of simply discarding them or letting them sit on shelves. Moreover, if Bush et al truly do believe that using these cells for medical research is akin to murder, I do not understand why they would find simply discarding these cells a more life-promoting option.

Stem cells aside, there is much to be written about the broader culture of life concept. It has been invoked in regards to the debates surrounding not only stem cell research, but also abortion, emergency contraception, the death penalty, among other issues. I personally find it an interesting concept, and am fascinated by the many different ways people have recently been invoking it in order to support their particular ethical, religious, sociocultural and political positions. I hope to write more about this issue later when I get back from the sunny Southwest.