The recent donation of $4.2 million to UCLA for the study of embryonic stem cells left me saddened.
I’m upset not because I wanted more money, but because that money could have been used to fund other avenues of stem cell extraction that aren’t morally questionable.
Here’s a quick refresher: Embryonic stem cells are cells that are important in the beginning stages of human development in the womb and are able to differentiate themselves into various types of cells, such as heart, liver and lung cells.
UCLA scientists and grad students are interested in these cells because they can be grown indefinitely in a lab and may also be used to cure a number of diseases.
Sounds good.
The problem is that in the process of removing embryonic stem cells, human embryos are destroyed, something to which I’m morally opposed.
Before discussing the arguments of stem cell advocates, I think it’s important to mention that there are numerous other ways to get stem cells without harming the embryo.
Stem cells can be extracted from the umbilical cord after the birth of a baby. Stem cells can also be grown from the bodies of the recently deceased.
More recently, scientists have discovered that stem cells can be harmlessly removed from the amniotic fluid that surrounds a baby in the womb.
Additionally, scientists can extract stem cells from adults.
While it is true that these adult stem cells cannot be grown indefinitely in a lab and have some different properties than embryonic stem cells, their potential has just barely been explored .
Of course, the embryonic stem cell research advocate argues that there is a huge range of diseases that could be cured by embryonic stem cell research.
There are two problems with this argument.
One, it assumes that embryonic stem cell research is the only avenue of study, and considering the other options listed, it is apparent that it is not.
Two, the argument uses the rhetoric of pragmatism, the philosophy that holds that the ends justify the means. Pragmatism leads scientists down a very slippery slope.
This is the reason for the existence of strict guidelines on any type of human experimentation.
In the end, scientists should extract stem cells through the other four options before even considering venturing onto shaky moral ground.
Embryonic stem cell advocates also argue that the embryo life is not “viable” life because it is never going to be implanted into a womb and thus will never reach maturity.
That’s where the argument gets muddled ““ when stem cell advocates bring up topics like viability and forget the fact that human life should not be created merely to be destroyed.
Regardless if it is used for stem cell research or if it sits in a laboratory refrigerator until it falls apart, an embryo is a human life.
The embryo should always be implanted. Otherwise a living human has been brought into this world only to be taken out of it.
It’s important to mention that life at conception is a fact.
And this fact demands opposition to embryonic stem cell research.
After all, there is no difference between an 1-hour-old embryo and a 1-month-old baby, except that the baby has had time to grow.
To argue that a human embryo is not alive is like arguing that an infant is not alive because it is not an adult. Both an embryo and an infant will grow into an adult with time.
Anything that stops that growth is killing human life, whether it’s embryonic stem cell research or using embryos for any other type of study, regardless of the concept of “viability.”
It’s time for UCLA and the California government to stop funding research that ends life.
Instead they should look into other options.
If you’d like, write to Crandall at jcrandall@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.