A "Gun" That Heals?

I was amazed when I watched a National Geographic video featuring a device called the “Skin Gun.” The video documents the true story of a police officer whose arm and face were charred with second degree burns during a bonfire accident. While in the emergency room, he is told he qualifies for a stem cell treatment. Within 90 minutes the officer’s stem cells are extracted and sprayed on his burns. Three days later his skin is completely healed and unblemished. You would never guess he was ever burned!

I’ve read about young children who also received treatment using their own stem cells, resulting in a drastic reduction of their cerebral palsy symptoms. Some children diagnosed with Type I diabetes are no longer needing insulin treatments after receiving stem cell treatments. But should all of these stem cell treatments be legal?

My answer is “Yes.” Why? All of these treatments came from adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are derived from specific parts of a born human being’s body in a way that doesn’t kill her. They are derived from bone marrow or umbilical cord blood. Although the potential for these stem cells to develop into any type of cell may be limited, they can do some amazing things in specific areas of the body. Embryonic stem cells, on the other hand, are pluripotent, which means they can theoretically be manipulated to turn into any type of human cell. The ethical problem with embryonic stem cell research is that human embryos are killed in order to harvest these stem cells.

Even though embryos are killed, potentially millions of lives could be bettered from embryonic stem cell treatments. Would this justify embryonic stem cell research? The problem with this argument is that it assumes that embryos are not valuable. Suppose toddlers had pluripotent cells in their bodies that could only be harvested by killing the toddler. We would never kill toddlers, even if it was just a few of them, to harvest their stem cells and produce treatments. Because human life begins at conception, killing humans in the embryonic stage is just as wrong as killing humans in the toddler stage.

The purpose of scientific treatment is to protect and preserve life. It doesn’t make sense to kill tiny humans so we can help larger humans.


Embryonic stem cell research’s problems are not just ethical. Dr. Diane Irving, a biochemist formerly with the National Cancer Institute, says, “I have argued that adult stem cells are better because they are closer to the stage of differentiation than embryonic or fetal cells - therefore they do not have as long a distance to travel differentiation-wise as the younger cells. Therefore there is far less of a chance for genetic errors to be accumulated in the implanted cells and less side effects for the patient to deal with." 1

Dr. Irving is referring to the very high rate of teratomas, or cancerous growths, that occur after a subject is injected with embryonic stem cells. For example, a man in China had embryonic stem cells injected into his brain to treat Parkinson’s disease. Teratomas formed, creating hair and bone in his brain, eventually killing him. 2

As it happens though, adult stem cell research can accomplish many medical treatments, but without killing human beings. There are at least 72 different adult stem cell treatments and therapies currently in use with human patients.3 These treatments are helping humans live better lives and there aren’t ethical problems with using these treatments.




Thank you for partnering with me in my work at Justice For All. I love being able to mentor our staff and volunteers and also grow intellectually on current topics like stem cell research. Your support enables me to help other pro-life advocates better understand these complicated issues.



1 Gallagher, M., “Adult Stem Cell Research May Hold Promise for Diabetes Cure,” www.Lifenews.com (March 26, 2004)

2 Folkerth, R., et al., “Survival and proliferation of nonneural tissues, with obstruction of cerebral ventricles, in a parkinsonian patient treated with fetal allografts.” Neurology, Volume 46, Issue 5. (May 1, 1996)

3 Prentice, D., “Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patients,” Do No Harm Website (April 11, 2007) [http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm]

"But it’s not a person YET…"

Looking at Madeline, I coo and lift my chin. Madeline copies me, lifting her chin and making a coo that sounds almost identical. We do this about ten times together; I change the pitch and she follows, mimicking the direction I move my head while cooing. She is doing all of this and her birth was just weeks ago! I think the unborn are just as precious and innocent as Madeline, but many pro-choice advocates would argue that the unborn differ from Madeline in ways that disqualify them from having a right to life.



It is true that there are differences between unborn children and newborns, and some of those differences exist to a great degree. In his book, The Moral Question of Abortion, Philosopher Stephen Schwartz identified these differences with the handy acronym SLED. The differences are:

• Size
• Level of Development
• Environment and
• Degree of Dependency

It’s obvious that the unborn differ from newborns like Madeline in these ways, but should we conclude that they are “not human yet” or “potential persons?”

At first glance, it might seem like we should. After all, early in development the unborn is only as big as the period at the end of this sentence and doesn’t have a developed nervous system. The unborn are smaller in Size and have a lower Level of Development. But this is also true of newborn children like Madeline. Madeline is less developed and much smaller than we are. (It’s comical how small she is on our bed.) Yet we all agree that Madeline has the same right to life as we do.

When a pro-choice advocate argues that the unborn isn’t a valuable human yet, the reason will probably fall into one of the four SLED categories. To respond, follow these steps:

1. Affirm that the difference does exist.

2. Ask why that difference matters or changes our value.

3. Show that the difference isn’t morally relevant since it also applies to already-born people. We should lovingly point this out.

When I talked with “Michael” at Auraria (Dialogue below Abraham Lincoln Quote) I was able to point out that he was disqualifying the unborn for some of the reasons in the SLED Test. I agreed with him that the unborn are different from us, and I showed that those differences also apply to newborns.


Thank you for partnering with me to help Michael rethink his views about abortion. Hopefully he will continue to think about our conversation and change his mind. After he said he needed some time to think, we talked about our personal lives. I told him Madeline was due to be born in just a few weeks. Michael said he hoped to be a dad one day. Let’s pray that Michael will come to see the same value in unborn children as he sees in newborns like Madeline.









P.S.



THE DANGER OF “PERSONHOOD” ARGUMENTS



The SLED Test helps us respond to pro-choice arguments that disqualify unborn children from the right to life because they are different from us. This is not the first time arguments like these have been used.

Abraham Lincoln responded to similar arguments in his day:

"You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter, having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

"You do not mean color exactly?--You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and, therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own."

“Fragment on Slavery” (July 1, 1854)

My Dialogue with Michael

In April I was at Auraria State in Denver. I was mentoring several volunteers and engaged in a conversation with an Auraria student named “Michael.” I was able to use the SLED Test to show why his reasons for disqualifying the unborn weren’t good ones, and the danger in trying to do so. You can read our conversation below and on the next page.


Michael: I don’t even get you guys and why you waste so much time. You’re getting worked up over something the size of a period!

Me: I agree with you that the unborn are really small, especially when they are compared to adults. But infants are also really small when compared to adults. Humans vary in size. Size doesn’t seem relevant to our value.

Michael: What I mean is that the unborn can’t think or have any emotions when it’s that small. It doesn’t even know it exists, much less that it’s being killed.

Me: I agree with you that the unborn doesn’t have emotions until a certain point, and isn’t self-aware, but why do these things matter?

Michael: Because those are what make us human, man!

Me: The unborn are less developed than we are, but toddlers are less developed than we are too. If our value is based on our level of development, then those who are geniuses would have a greater right to life than those who are not so smart. But that doesn’t make sense.

Michael: Why not?

Me: Because we recognize that all humans have an equal right to life. No one has a greater right to life than another. This must mean that we all share something equally. I think it’s that we have a human nature, and all humans, from conception on, have a human nature.

Michael: But it’s not a person!

Me: But the word person is really problematic. Historically it’s been used to disqualify certain groups of humans so we could abuse or kill them. I’m thinking of Native Americans, African Americans, and women. I’m not saying that those who are pro-choice are like slave owners, just that the same argument was used then too.

Michael: But that’s different. We know a black man is a human being. He’s living and breathing on his own. The unborn isn’t doing any of that. [Level of Development]

Me: True, but my point is that in the past some humans had no rights because they had a different degree of skin color. Could varying degrees of “Level of Development” be an equally bad argument?

*Pause*

Michael: I don’t know. I’ll have to think about that.