Abstract
Common arguments from the abortion debate have set the stage for the debate on stem cell research. Unfortunately, those arguments demonstrate flawed reasoning—jumping to unfounded conclusions, using value laden language rather than careful argument, and ignoring morally relevant aspects of the situation. The influence of flawed abortion arguments on the stem cell debate results in failures of moral reasoning and in lack of attention to important morally relevant differences between abortion and human embryonic stem cells. Among those differences are whose interests are at stake and the difference between an embryo in and out of the womb. Stem cell research differs from abortion in morally relevant ways and should be freed from the abortion debate and its flawed reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is true not only in the United States, but also in Europe; see [2].
“To say that the foetus is (or is not) a person gives by itself no moral reason for or against killing it…,” says Hare in [7, p. 152]. Hare calls the question of the moral status of the embryo an “unhelpful” approach and declares that disputes about this “allegedly crucial question” will be “a waste of time” [7, p. 169].
This is in fact precisely the point that McMahon makes in [6].
For example, Michael Novak objected to President Bush’s support for using stem cell lines that had already been developed because “it is not enough to say … that the embryos have already been killed” [9, p. 103]. Robertson [10, p. 129] uses slightly different language: “because the embryo is alive at the time that ES cells are removed…, [this research] raises questions about the permissibility of destroying embryos….”
For example, she ignores a woman’s possible responsibility for the consequences of voluntarily engaging in sexual intercourse.
Certainly, in Jewish tradition, destruction of an embryo prior to 40 days is not equated with “murder” [4].
Noonan’s reading of history has been challenged by Beverly Harrison; see [15, ch. 5].
In the same volume as Noonan’s essay, James Gustafson pointed out that the Roman Catholic position outlined by Noonan suffered from a lack of attention to the real life circumstances and decisions that had to be made by women facing unwanted pregnancy. The juridical model, Gustafson proposed, sees acts as right or wrong based on rules; it leaves little room for moral ambiguity. Individual struggles are reduced to abstract cases; any compassion for suffering is dissolved. Using a case of a woman who was gang-raped, Gustafson suggests that compassion for her suffering and appreciation for the full circumstances in which she finds herself might permit an abortion. Beginning with a perspective that human life is sinful and limited, he suggests, we might focus less on God’s will to preserve creation and more on God’s will to redeem it [16, p. 106].
Choosing the time at which a fetus becomes a protectable person is itself a moral decision, he points out. We must have moral reasons for the time chosen. It is not sufficient to depend on intuitions, as they are based on our upbringing.
References
Juster, Norton. 1964. The phantom tollbooth. New York: Random House.
Østnor, Lars, ed. 2008. Stem cells, human embryos, and ethics: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
Zoloth, Laurie. 2001. The ethics of the eighth day: Jewish bioethics and research on human embryonic stem cells. In The human embryonic stem cell debate: Science, ethics, public policy, ed. Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz and Laurie Zoloth, 95–112. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dorff, Elliot N. 2003. Matters of life and death: A Jewish approach to modern medical ethics. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Shannon, Thomas A., and Allan B. Wolter. 1993. Reflections on the moral status of the pre-embryo. In Bioethics, 4th ed., ed. Thomas A. Shannon, 36–60. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
McMahon, Jeff. 2002. The ethics of killing: Problems at the margins of life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R.M. 1993. Essays on bioethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wheeler, Sondra. 2003. Talking like believers: Christians and Jews in the embryonic stem cell debate. In God and the embryo: Religious voices on stem cells and cloning, ed. Brent Waters and Ronald Cole-Turner, 152–160. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Novak, Michael. 2003. The stem cell slide: Be alert to the beginnings of evil. In The stem cell controversy: Debating the issues, ed. Michael Ruse and Christopher A. Pynes, 101–105. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Robertson, John A. 2003. Ethics and policy in embryonic stem cell research. In The stem cell controversy: Debating the issues, ed. Michael Ruse and Christopher A. Pynes, 121–150. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Lebacqz, Karen. 2003. Stem cell ethics: Lessons from the context. In Stem cell research: New frontiers in science, ethics, ed. Nancy E. Snow, 85–99. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.
Outka, Gene. 2003. The ethics of stem cell research. In God and the embryo: Religious voices on stem cells and cloning, ed. Brent Waters and Ronald Cole-Turner, 29–64. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
McGee, Glenn, and Arthur Caplan. 2003. The ethics and politics of small sacrifices in stem cell research. In The stem cell controversy: Debating the issues, ed. Michael Ruse and Christopher A. Pynes, 151–158. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Noonan, John T. 1970. An almost absolute value in history. In The morality of abortion: Legal and historical perspectives, ed. John T. Noonan, 1–59. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harrison, Beverly Wildung. 1985. Our right to choose: Toward a new ethics of abortion. Boston: Beacon Press.
Gustafson, James M. 1970. A protestant ethical approach. In The morality of abortion: Legal and historical perspectives, ed. John T. Noonan, 101–122. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1976. Report and recommendations: Research involving prisoners. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 76-131. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Haring, Bernard. 1970. A theological evaluation. In The morality of abortion, ed. John T. Noonan, 123–145. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peters, Ted, Karen Lebacqz, and Gaymon Bennett. 2008. Sacred cells: Why Christians should support stem cell research. New York: Roman and Littlefield.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lebacqz, K. Stumbling on status: Abortion, stem cells, and faulty reasoning. Theor Med Bioeth 33, 75–82 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9205-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9205-x