This seemed the most appropriate issue to follow my last article on abortion, obviously the two are linked because both involve the destruction of a proto-human. Taking a humanist viewpoint, this is actually an easier issue to deal with than abortion. I realize from a religious viewpoint they are indistinguishable and I will touch on that herein.

The Problem

The basic problem here again is one of human rights. An embryo is a human life-form, very early in the continuum of human existence. It is less than a fetus, and certainly less than a fully fledged human. In this instance however we are no longer talking about the rights of the proto-human versus the rights of it's mother. The embryo exists outside of the womb, and therefore there is no longer an issue of the mother's rights trumping the rights of the embryo. Therefore there is no moral justification for the destruction of this embryo... simple, right?

However, as usual, there is more to the equation... things are never that simple. Embryos cannot survive outside the womb unless frozen, as the embryos we are talking about are. These embryos are created in assisted fertility procedures... people who have trouble conceiving for whatever reason, are often able to have children if the fertilization process takes place outside the womb and the fertilized embryo is then implanted back into the womb. In-vitro fertilization processes necessarily create more than one fertilized embryo for each couple that wants to have children. Once the couple has as many children as they want, there are likely multiple embryos belonging to them which have been stored in a frozen state.

The process of harvesting a mother's egg is invasive... it's not something that should be done one egg at a time. Particularly since not every egg harvested will actually fertilize--humans sometimes make defective eggs and sperm just like other creatures. Further even of the eggs which do fertilize, a significant portion do not develop into viable embryos, and of the viable embryos not all survive the implantation process or survive the full term of gestation. In theory the trip to the egg tends to weed out all but the strongest of sperm, leading to a sort of "survival of the fittest" contest in the creation of an embryo. This culling doesn't happen outside the womb. As a result, many eggs are harvested at once, and multiple embryos are created, often more embryos than a mother can realistically carry to birth.

With no womb willing to host them, these proto-humans are frozen in the embryonic state. Currently there are estimated to be 400,000 of them frozen, and over a million which have been destroyed. (In their agreement with the agency assisting in fertilization, many couples authorize the destruction of their left over embryos after a certain amount of time has elapsed.) But sometimes the company which is in possession of the frozen embryos loses contact with the couple. The couple may move away, split up, die, whatever... leaving these frozen proto-humans in an indefinite limbo.

Thawed, the embryos will simply die without immediate implantation, and the mother does not wish to (basically can't) host them all. What to do? Presently the only answer is keep them frozen, but that's not a real solution.

Enter embryonic stem cell research. Human embryos contain a very special variety of cells which are called "undifferentiated human stem cells". These are cells which, given the right signals, can change into any other sort of cell--nerve, bone, skin, muscle, whatever. If scientists could learn how to culture and grow these cells in the laboratory, there is great promise for new discoveries which could result in therapies to treat or cure a number of diseases and injuries for which we presently have no answers. Humans can't grow new nerve cells, for example. But embryos can. A treatment may be developed which uses stem cells to grow new spinal tissue in a person who has suffered paralysis. Alzheimer's sufferers may one day have a way to halt the degeneration of brain tissue, or even reverse it.

In order to learn how to culture and grow embryonic stem cells in the laboratory, scientists need embryonic stem cells to experiment with. The only place to get them is from embryos, and in the process of harvesting the stem cells, the embryo is destroyed.

These unwanted and unclaimed embryos, which in all likelihood will never be implanted, could benefit the greater good in a way that affects millions of suffering people. Does this trump the rights of the embryo to not be destroyed? I think it does, and people who are against embryonic stem cell research think it doesn't.

New Lines vs. Existing Lines

Some folks like to point out that there are already stem cell lines being studied that were created from other embryos. When it comes to George Bush, this is where the line is drawn. Mr. Bush feels there is nothing that can be done for the embryos that were already destroyed, but he does not condone the destruction of any further embryos to create new lines of stem cells. This would be "destruction of a life" in his words, and he cannot condone it, despite the benefit it may bring mankind.

The problem is many of the earlier stem cell lines are contaminated, and not as useful as fresh new clean lines would be. They're also quite limited. Every good scientist knows that to form a reasonable theory requires a lot of observation from as wide a sample as possible. Like John Kerry, I therefore support the use of these futureless embryos to benefit mankind.

Embryonic Rights and Religion

With respect to the rights of the embryo, and the desire to see them grow into humans, I fully encourage those who wish to save them--carry them to term. There are people who have requested to be implanted with unclaimed embryos (which I think is very noble), but by and in large, those who are protesting the destruction of these embryos are not offering up birth services as an alternative. Some are though, and I laud their efforts.

In the meantime though, millions of fully fledged humans are suffering while these frozen proto-humans remain, largely unwanted, largely without futures. Some couples feel so strongly about the cause of stem cell research, they seek to donate their unused embryos to science and are currently prevented from doing so.

As an Atheist Humanist, I believe the human embryo is sacred, but less sacred than a fully fledged human. I recognize that there is great good that can come from the destruction of these embryos and therefore I support embryonic stem cell research. I understand that the desired end result is to be able to cultivate these cells in the laboratory without having to destroy any more embryos... I think that a worthy end that justifies the means. Likely, in the end, whether or not their stem cells are harvested, these embryos will be destroyed anyway.

For most Christians, there is no clear distinction between the embryo and the human in the divine sense. Both possess "a soul"... the immaterial and immeasurable life essence that is granted by God. Thus destroying an embryo is the equivalent of murder, in that it causes the body that houses the soul to die, releasing the soul before such time as God has deemed that it should be released. I recently heard a person I would describe as a fundamentalist say that life begins before conception, in that we all exist in the mind of God before we exist in reality.

Obviously, I can't ascribe to any of that. To me the soul is an imaginary boojum conjured up as a way to enforce control over people. "You must respect the wishes of the deity, or your soul will suffer after death. By the way, the deity says you should do this, this, and this."

Even if I believed in souls, or God for that matter, I would have trouble accepting the idea that every embryo has a soul. Countless embryos die in the womb without anyone even knowing it has happened. Does each and every one of them have a soul? If God intended an embryo to die in the womb, long before it could become sentient and have an impact in the world, before any human even knows it exists, why bother giving it a soul?

Humans love to extrapolate conclusions, and often they are wrong. Yes the Bible says God knows you before you exist, that He stitches you together in the womb, but it does not follow that every embryo therefore has a soul. How do you know? You don't. A believer must concede that any embryo which grows into a person has a soul because God intended for that embryo to grow into a person. But if God didn't intend a given embryo to grow into a person, perhaps it has no soul? Therefore of the embryos that are fertilized outside the womb, how can you say that the ones which have been allowed to grow into humans are not precisely the ones God has intended to grow into humans?

One of the things a soul grants through the grace of God, according to Christian doctrine, is free will. Embryos have no free will. Perhaps then, they have no souls either. Believers would definitely say that the millions of people suffering from presently untreatable illnesses have souls. Are believers prepared to deny them the cures they need when they can't say for certain that every embryo has a soul?

I sincerely hope that scientists will be allowed to make use of these embryos and can help humanity overcome some of the grave illnesses and injuries that plague our species today. I look forward to the day when such research will no longer require destruction of embryos to continue.