2 of 2

Of course, a few of us—including CT—do object. Joni Eareckson Tada, left a quadriplegic from a diving accident, is another one. "IVF is not morally squeaky clean," she told me. "Christian couples need to understand the inherent moral problems connected with that procedure as it is presently performed."

Is the embryo really a precious human life made in God's image? Or is it simply marvelously complex raw material to be exploited for the greater good? Eareckson Tada is unwilling to cross that moral line, even in her wheelchair. How about the rest of us?

Unless ACT's disputed technique surmounts ethical objections (not likely, given that none of the embryos in its research survived), we should not expect any quick and easy solutions. Defending human dignity may be the work of years, even decades. Amid much opposition, in 1791 William Wilberforce presented his first bill to abolish the British slave trade. Finally the odious practice was outlawed 16 years later, and British slavery not until 1831.

We need the conviction and endurance of Wilberforce. Even when they call us medieval barbers.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

NIH explains how stem cells work as well as the current laws regarding research.

Here is Deborah Blum's essay on ethical objections to stem cell research.

One of the articles saying that stem cells had been extracted without harming embryos before it was admitted that all the embryos had, in fact been destroyed and the results were theoretical.

Snowflakes is one organization that facilitates embryo adoption.

A bioethicist analyzes embryo adoption on CNN's site.

NPR has a report (audio) on one couple who decided to adopt through Snowflakes and another on a February 2005 ruling on whether a fertilized egg was human.

Here is President Bush's speech on embryonic stem cell research.

The Washington Post has more information on the problem of frozen embryos.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

November 2006, Vol. 50, No. 11