Stem Cell Research and Abortion
Politically allied issues, but with different ethical dimensions
Many opponents of abortion and stem cell research believe that both procedures involve taking life. Yet, the two procedures have differing ethical rationales.
On Tuesday’s election in the United States, Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill narrowly defeated incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent in one of the many nationally watched close Senate races. One of the key issues in this race was the ethics of stem cell research because of a ballot amendment, which passed, that allowed federally-approved research on stem cells to take place in Missouri, guaranteed that Missourians could benefit from medical breakthroughs based on stem cell research, and outlined ethical procedures by which such research should be conducted.
In the campaign, Talent opposed the amendment for the same reason that his supporters, religious conservatives, did; for them, both abortion and stem cell research constituted the unethical taking of human life. For former Missouri Republican Senator and Episcopal minister John C. Danforth, by contrast, the two issues could not be conflated: “I’m pro-life. During my entire career, I voted pro-life. I strongly support the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative because it will save lives and because it respects the sanctity of life.” Given that, more often than not, opponents of abortion and stem cell research tend to be political allies, how can these contradictory views emerge?
The answer lies in the fact that, although opposition to both abortion and stem cell research turn on the same issue (when does life begin?), the two issues have been framed within American political discourse in different ways—with differing underlying ethical rationales. Abortion is often framed as a “rights” issue—that is, does a pregnant woman have a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and, if so, under what circumstances? In general, rights tend to be held by individuals and an individual has complete freedom to exercise the right—provided that this does not impinge on the rights of others. In other words, rights are about individual choices rather than socially collective action. Stem cell research, by contrast, has often been framed by its supporters in terms of the idea of the collective good. As Donn Rubin, the chair of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures (the organization responsible for the ballot amendment) observed after the amendment was passed, “it is now time to come together and to find common ground in fighting disease” and that “All Missourians care about our fellow human beings.”
Clearly, for religious opponents of both practices, the view that life begins at conception trumps the political differences between framing issues in terms of individual rights or the collective good. Religious language and arguments will always be a part of the abortion and stem cell issues when they are debated in the political arena; however, beneath the surface of these religious concerns, the differing political and ethical dynamics that shape the two debates should also be acknowledged.
