Musings On Stem Cell Research, Artificial Fertility, And Artificial Contraception

As I begin writing this, I am listening to one of my old Steubenville professors, Dr. Patrick Lee, talk to Raymond Arroyo on EWTN's The World Over. The topic of discussion deals, among other things, with new Obama administration guidelines concerning embryonic stem cell research. In keeping with his anti-Catholic moral views, one of Barack Obama's first executive orders as President was to overturn George W. Bush's ban of government funding for researching new lines of embryonic stem cells, which are acquired through a variety of ways, including the purchase of eggs from women (to fertilize in a lab) and the acquisition of "leftover" fertilized eggs that resulted from in vitro fertilization and other artificial fertility methods.

Something Raymond Arroyo joked about in passing was the Obama administration's tendency to release to the public details about morally controversial administration decisions on Friday evenings and how this always results in Arroyo having all the latest news during the Friday night broadcasts of The World Over. Of course, "the most transparent administration in U.S. history" hardly does this to accommodate EWTN. The timing is usually in anticipation of the weekend news cycle, when such stories are most likely to pass unnoticed (and during which time they can be more easily buried by an obliging media). I thought I'd pass that detail along to those who like to keep up with the President's morally dubious policies, as it does indeed seem that Friday evenings are the time to learn about them.

It defies all logic for researchers to continue to insist on pursuing embryonic stem cell research as a way of curing diseases. To date, not one single cure has ever been derived from such research, which always requires the destruction of the embryo involved (and thus the destruction of a human life), whereas dozens of cures have been derived from the much more fruitful - and much more morally sound - adult line of stem cell research. And it cannot be argued that lack of progress in embryonic stem cell research can be blamed on Bush, as a) he made the unfortunate decision to allow government funding of lines of embryonic stem cell research already in existence at the time of his announcement in 2001, and b) Bush's funding ban applied to government funds only, and not to private funding, which is how most scientific breakthroughs are achieved. And make no mistake about it: private funds continued to be poured into what many scientists assured us was the most promising line of medical research for the cures of many horrible diseases. However, as Bush's term progressed, those private lines of funding slowly began to dry up, which was indicative of the fact that the research was not bearing any worthwhile fruit for investors.

It begs the question, then, of why the culture of death seems so hell-bent on pursuing stem cell research that destroys human life when a non-lethal and much more fruitful method of research (with adult stem cells) is readily available and constantly in need of funding?

Many scientists make the claim that embryonic stem cells are non-differentiated, meaning that in the embryonic phase these cells have not yet grown into the specialized cells that characterized the various organs and vital systems of the human body. As such, these embryonic stem cells are supposed to contain more "potential" for a wider variety of cures, whereas adult stem cells are already specialized and are therefore limited in the types of afflictions they can help cure. This is a disturbing line of thought, as it completely disregards the humanity of the embryo and is born of a "Brave New World" mentality. Far too many scientists are unconcerned with the ethical ramifications of their work, and to paraphrase the late Michael Crichton's fictional mathematician Ian Malcolm, such scientists spend so much time wondering if they can do something that they rarely if ever stop to think about whether or not they should.

While embryonic stem cells are a more unpredictable and less known commodity - and thus a more "appealing" subject of research for ethically oblivious scientists - adult stem cells are readily more available, as they can be obtained from living human beings. Our bodies constantly create these cells, providing a virtually unlimited supply. Embryonic stem cells, of course, destroy their source, making the need for new embryos constant. One has to be completely ignorant of the humanity of these embryos - or else truly intending to do evil - to go to great lengths to harvest mass quantities of them when adult stem cells can be so easily obtained.

While specific kinds of adult stem cells are more limited in the types of diseases they can cure, the variety of adult stem cells easily covers all fields of medicine. This fact all but negates the "potential" argument that supposedly favors embryonic stem cells. One is thus left to wonder if scientists who clamor for funding for embryonic stem cell research are more concerned with the research itself - the proverbial thrill of discovery - than they are with the practical applications of their research.

Nor can it be overlooked that advocacy of embryonic stem cell research tends to overlap quite nicely with advocacy of the evil of abortion. Now to be fair, there are many who as a policy oppose abortion but support embryonic stem cell research - John McCain and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are two very prominent examples - but this is more a testament to their moral confusion than it is to the merits of embryonic stem cell research. If you recognize that life begins at conception, there is no logical basis for you to support embryonic stem cell research (a contradiction John McCain has repeatedly made in public - have I mentioned how unfortunate I think it is that he of all people was chosen to oppose Barack Obama?).

Nor does the argument that "these embryos will never be born, so why not put them to good use serving others?" hold water. That opens up a whole new line of immoral reasoning, whereby individuals will deliberately create embryos that will never be born with the intention of using that very argument to proceed with their destruction for scientific research purposes. This is the harvesting of human beings - plain and simple.

One often-overlooked aspect of the Church's teaching of the sanctity and inviolability of human life deals with the relationship between the gift of life and the gift of human sexuality. The sexual gift serves the twofold purpose of being love giving - and therefore is to be restricted to a man and a woman who have made the public, lifelong commitment and complete gift of self to one another that is sanctified through the sacrament of holy matrimony - as well as life-giving. An important aspect of this teaching is that the conception of new life is reserved to the conjugal act alone.

In view of this teaching, it is no coincidence that the Church opposes artificial contraception, as it is the deliberate suppression of the life giving aspect of the sexual gift and reduces the sexual gift to a mere recreational tool for gratification (need I elaborate on how the secular world has proven this point, with extreme prejudice?).

It also follows that the Church opposes any kind of sexual gratification that exists outside the sexual act, including adultery, fornication, pornography, homosexual acts, and masturbation, as these undermine the love-giving aspect of the sexual gift (again, need I elaborate how these acts lead to a warped view of human sexuality among their practitioners?).

Moreover, it follows that the Church also opposes sexual acts between married couples that result in the individuals involved climaxing outside of the conjugal act. Indeed, such acts have been condemned by the Judeo-Christian tradition since Old Testament times, and even warrants mention in the Bible. They are given the name of coitus interruptus. It is the sin that is committed by Onan in Genesis 38:9-10. This act manifests itself in various ways that need not be described here, but it is important to understand that coitus interruptus is a necessary action in allowing artificial fertility methods to take place. However much people try to justify the "good" that can come about from this, one simply cannot commit evil in order to bring about a good, even if that good happens to be the creation of new life.

The Church teachings previously described have become well-known to Catholics, especially in light of events in the last few decades. What is less known but just as relevant to Catholic teaching on human sexuality and the gift of life is the Church's constant teaching that children are a gift from God, and never a right (as mentioned in a previous post, pregnancy is not a thing that man can fully control or fully separate from sexual activity, despite the dogged determination of many who seek to do just that). In vitro fertilization and other fertility methods are a perversion not only because they result in the conception of children outside the conjugal act - the conception of children being reserved by God for the conjugal act alone - but also because it is an example of man trying to take control of the creation of new life that is properly the domain of God.

The evidence that such actions are contrary to the will of God are legion. Not only are these methods directly linked to the harvesting of embryos for later use in life-destroying research, but they also lead to the practice of selective breeding. More and more, would-be parents are given the options for which kinds of genes they want from donors (in cases where one or the other spouse is incapable of conception) or from the petri dish (as the lab process of fertilizing eggs becomes more advanced, the suppression of certain genes inevitably gains momentum). This leads to a natural erosion of the appreciation of the intrinsic worth of individuals with "less desirable" traits - especially those born with physical and mental disabilities. It is precisely this depreciation of the intrinsic worth of the human person that is the end envisioned by the eugenics movement; and there are no words to describe what an egregious affront this is to the dignity of the human person. Artificial fertility methods are but another tool in realizing the demonic eugenicist ideal envisioned by the likes of Friedrich Nietzche, Margaret Sanger, and Adolf Hitler.

The ramifications of artificial contraception and artificial fertility - along with other artificial perversions of human sexuality, the inviolability of the gift of human life, and the dignity of the human person - lead to extremes even far more ominous than I have described. By understanding how these different issues relate to one another, we gain a much deeper understanding of why the Church opposes them. There are those in the world - many among them unwittingly - who are trying to involuntarily drag us into a reality reminiscent of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or Ayn Rand's Anthem. There are limits to what science can accomplish as far as perverting the gifts of life and sexuality bestowed upon us by God, but that does not mean that we are not in danger of losing sight of our place relative to God. Let us, then, continue to remember who the real Author of creation is, and abide by the rules He has set forth to keep that creation going. To do otherwise is to lose sight not only of His divinity, but also of our own humanity. God bless!



In Jesus and Mary,
Gerald