I took a class on human biology in college and loved it. It was a combination anthropology, biology, and psychology class. One day the professor walked in and his first question to the class was, "At what point, in the gestation of a human, does human life actually begin?" He proceeded to ask us to raise our hand if we thought a human baby was a human life. Of course, the whole class raised their hands. Then he asked if we thought a 39-week old fetus was a human life. Only one person in the class did not raise his hand. I remember thinking, "Wow. I can't believe that that guy thinks that a baby about to be born is not a human life!" The questions continued , each time the number of weeks getting smaller. What about a 7 month old fetus? Is it a human life? It was interesting to see people's responses. As the number of weeks in the question decreased so did the number of hands going up. He got to two months. Is that human life? Several hands were still up in the air. Finally, he got to conception. Are a blob of cells human life? Only one person had his hand up in the air and it wasn't me.
I think back on that day frequently. It made a big impression on me that there were such varied opinions on this matter within my own classmates, whom I regarded as being very progressive. A few months ago, when the Obama administration announced that it would reverse the policy on stem cell research that the Bush administration had sponsored, I started thinking about those questions again. This time, however, with very many years of life experience behind me. Now I think I would be one of the people whose hand would be up when asked about human life beginning at conception. Not because of religious beliefs, but simply because biology dictates it.
The stem cell research ban that Obama just lifted allows scientists to conduct research on leftover human embryos that were created in vitro for fertilization purposes. The research is usually conducted when the embryo is five days old. At that point, a human embryo consists of 120-150 cells. In the past, the embryo was destroyed as part of the research process. However, now researchers have figured out how to not harm the embryo. If you look at the picture above, it in no way resembles a human, but still I feel very, very queasy about the idea that we are tinkering with a human life. Again, not because it has anything to do with religious beliefs, but because to me it seems that there is no question that biologically-speaking, human life begins at conception.
How do scientists define something as being "alive?" Kids, in Texas, learn that in kindergarten. For something to be alive, it needs to 1) grow and change, 2) reproduce (have offspring), 3) require energy (eat, breathe, etc.), 4) be composed of 1 cell or more (have a highly organized structure), and 5) respond to stimuli (e.g., move). Based on this definition, a human embryo is definitely alive then.
I understand the plethora of benefits that can be achieved by studying stem cells. Stem cells are the cells that help us heal. It is possible that scientists might find cures for many debilitating illnesses because of this research. But how can one ethically justify using a human life to experiment? What happens to the embryos after the research? Are they allowed to develop into fetuses and eventually full-blown babies? Do the ends really justify the means? Can anyone ever really answer that question?
TTYL.
No comments:
Post a Comment