There was a time when I could not hold back, for good or for ill. There was a time when I could not simply listen to a conversation involving issues upon which I had deep opinions and keep silent. I had to let my opinions be known, both, wrongly, because I so valued my individual voice, I so believed I could bring clarity to the debate (my visions of being E. F. Hutton) and, rightly, because I really did want people to hear what I perceived to be the truth for their edification, political, physical, spiritual or otherwise.
It has been many years since that has been the case. And now, I generally remain silent, for good or for ill. Why? Perhaps it was one too many debates in the library in which I was the sole conservative, one time being brought to tears by a group of gently, though persistently, mocking friends, and they were friends. In other areas, I became far less confident of my opinions. And so now I have more or less acquiesced to the postmodern wisdom that if you want to get along you should not discuss religion or politics. Now I keep my discussions limited to the likeminded, or, if I am brutally honest, to people I think may be easy marks for a philosophical mugging.
Yeah, it really is pathetic. Not, simply the seeking of easy targets, but the result of what the silence does to my relationships with people, what it does to me.
Silence=writing off. In increments of apathy, I write off my friends and colleagues with whom I disagree, not willing to expend the emotional energy to engage in thoughful, listening, processing, responding dialog. Not willing to share what, in many cases, I believe to be eternal truths, just because it will very likely cause me emotional bother or potentially pain. And it harms me as I sit silent, suffering the silting of my internal reservoir of thoughts and feelings.
But there are stirrings. Last night listening to Charlie Rose, there was a stirring as I listened to a biologist and political scientist discuss Bill Frist’s restatement of his position on stem cell research. There was annoyance, there was churning, there was a desire to speak. But today, I did not immediately rush to blog or discuss, I actually took the time to read what Senator Frist had to say. I hope it marks the beginning of engagement on my part of a completely different order.
First, I appreciate the tenor of Senator Frist’s speech. I believe that he genuinely does want to help people by furthering the science of embryonic stem cell research. And I believe that he is making what he feels is a genuine compromise by finding a use for embryos that would be discarded anyway, those that are the byproduct of fertility treatments. Yet, this seems nconsistent with the dignity he accords the embryo:
I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete — yes, immature — but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. ItÕs genetically distinct. And itÕs biologically human. ItÕs living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isnÕt just a matter of faith. ItÕs a fact of science.
Our development is a continuous process — gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported.
But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect — the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.
It seems a more consistent pro-life position would not be to find a use for these embryos but rather to address the reason for their existence in the first place. As good of a desire as it is to want to have children of one’s own, even this noble desire should not lead to the setting aside of a consistently pro-life ethic. Embryos should not be created that are not going to be implanted. Even the procedure of using multiple embryos to see which will be implanted seems highly suspect. A more basic question is to what extremes people, particularly Christians, should go to have a child of their own when there are so many children that need to be adopted and cared for.
I know that one of the responses to my arguments will be that I do not know either the pain of childlessnes (never having attempted the requisite procedures to give it a whirl) nor the pain of seeing a relative suffer from a debilitating disease that might be lessened through stem cell derived treatments (however far down the pike they may actually be). And both these contentions are largely true. But this type of reasoning is surely some type of logical fallacy (appeal to emotion, I believe). I am not devoid of emotion, though, and I can imagine what it must feel like. I know what it feels like to have a niece who has suffered through numerous surgeries and a great deal of pain in her young life. Even so, though I might indeed feel strongly a certain way, there must be other considerations that constrain my feelings.
If Frist believes embryos to be nascent life, to be humans (and he consistently refers to the gamete suppliers of such embryos as parents), I do not see how he can, even temporarily, allow for conditions in which they are used and discarded, no matter how noble the end. It would be better to morn the embryos already so created and abandoned and take steps to see that more do not join their orphaned ranks.