I have an observation that seems to go largely unnoticed by those who use moral (which is really just a euphamism for religious) arguments to oppose scientific procedures like stem-cell research. It is a simple fact of medicine that in any trial of prescription medicines, there is a statistical chance that one or more of the human subjects could die. Often times their deaths can be directly attributed to whichever drug that is being tested. I think it would be fair to say that in these cases, were a test subject dies due to an adverse reaction with the tested medicine, that they were killed by (however indirectly) the medicine. While an effect of any successful trial is the well-being of the test subjects, it's purpose is to develop a medicine that can benefit the population as a whole. Therefore when we say that a subject was killed by the medicine, we can infer that they were "sacrificed" for the greater good.
Check your cabinets. Then look up the studies done during the testing phase of that drug. Was the mortality rate of the test subjects greater than 0.0000000000? Yes. Congradulations, you killed someone in order to increase your own chance of remaining healthy. You can't really argue your way around it. If anyone, anywhere died testing a drug that you have or currently take, then your own health has been subsidized by their death. It doesn't matter how long the chain is, eventually there is a link between you, the medicine, and the dead subject. In fact if you have ever been vaccinated for anything, phew. You're standing on a mountain of dead bodies. How does God feel about that?
Let's step away from medicine, and acts of "murder" by direct commission. Look at your everyday life. Do you drive a car? Guess what, you just contirbuted to someone's lung cancer. Do you throw trash away? Guess what, you just poisoned some fish who in turn just poisoned some infant. Do you wash your hands after you go to the bathroom? Everytime? Guess what, you just gave some old woman sepsis. Have you ever not given a homeless person change? Guess what, they were diabetic, and went into hypoglyemic shock. They wandered into the street, causing a 5 car pile up. 7 people died.
Sounds pretty rediculous, but if we are claiming using stemcells is immoral because they end a human life, aren't all the above situations just as immoral? Or is it different because you can't pass a law that says people need to wash their hands or give money to homeless people? Does distance absolve you? Is there no passage in the Bible that decries contributing to the systemic factors of disease? God wasn't smart enough to make that a commandment? Where do we draw the line? Where does responsibility begin? Where does it end? When does the greater good become more important than moral convictions?
I don't have the answers, but the moral posturing is at best irritating, and at worst hypocritical. Face it, whether it's babies or geezers or blastocysts, we have all at one time or another, directly or indirectly contributed to the death of another human being. The high horses and soapboxes of the moral majority do not provide absolution. Everyone's hands are dirty. Call me parsimonious, call me utilitarian, but I would rather save thousands of lives and prevent thousands of others from becoming diseased in the first place than save jumbles of cells that wind up in the landfill anyway. I'll sleep just fine at night, and I suspect that most of this country would as well.
