The concept of “inalienable human rights,” while noble in essence, does not draw sync with reality. This is why so many break their backs defending endless crusades like the “pro-life” campaign, to stand up for those humans that cannot speak for themselves and whose rights- they believe- are violated. Unfortunately, “inalienable” means “unable to be forfeited,” and this is quite a different subject, because everyone knows these rights certainly are forfeited and have been for centuries, sometimes daresay for the betterment of mankind. It is the philosophy defending war or sacrifice or even physician-assisted suicide, if that is considered a right. Utopias are not created on the basis of “black and white” rules such as: every person has a right to life. Instead, they are approached through the rational consideration that perhaps each situation has its time and purpose.
Current stem cell research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Kyoto University reported that somatic stem cells are now being created from normal adult skin cells. It was anticipated, and too quickly on my part, that this new information would at least put a stint into the stem cell research debates due to the lesser need for embryonic cells. Wrong. They seem to be anticipating the introduction of information that will once again stimulate the war. One opponent of embryonic stem cell research was quoted as saying, “The question that comes to mind is: why is all this money being poured into an area that is so experimental?” My guess would be so that alternatives to embryos can be found. As it is, skin cells are a tremendous breakthrough, but there is worry that their ability to change cell type like other somatic cells is limited. If skin cells are only adept at turning into blood cells, they can’t cure Parkinson’s or heart disease. This is why further research is needed yet in the idyllic embryonic cells to compare, contrast and discover such cures with the use of other cells in the body. Somehow I question whether even this goal will be able to satisfy the “pro-life” operation.
Furthermore, if every person has a right to life, how do we justify the sacrifice of the modern soldier? Does this willingness imply that it is a person’s right to choose whether to live or die? And if that is the case, why not make an equal argument on behalf of an embryo’s right to death or lack of suffering? Certainly the forfeiture of life is a foundation for our country’s very existence, yet we oppose it for the lowest form of being, a clump of cells, and not for our living, breathing neighbors? Is it not just as noble to die to save several disease-stricken lives as it is to save a healthy American or Iraqi stranger’s?
There is certainly a paradox thriving underneath the conviction of “pro-life,” unless they are willing to take up the alternative “anti-quality of life” or “anti- medical advancement”. As living beings, we often disillusion ourselves by assuming that life itself is the most important value to uphold. When, in the greater hierarchy, there are other virtuous concepts that take the ultimate reign, ideas that “love” and “quality of life” can only begin to imitate. There is a time and place for every step in the development of the human race, and there may come a day when, regardless of the ethics, no life need be sacrificed. Today, however, this haven is not upon us. We would do well then, particularly those who are Christian, to remember what the giving of life has done for us and what it may continue to do if we gracefully allow it.