Several months ago, Pope Benedict XVI voiced opposition to embryonic stem cell research. As a basis for his position, he cited the language of Psalm 39 establishing the embryo as equivalent to a natural born human being.[i] However, this contention is not universally accepted by the many who practice one of the various Judeo-Christian faiths—including a clear majority of American Catholics.

I am one of those Church-going Roman Catholics who cannot accept such an interpretation. Those who know me personally but disagree with my conclusion may say this is merely a matter of convenience. Yes, I have muscular dystrophy and yes, experts who engage in neuromuscular research have expressed a belief that both embryonic stem cell and SCNT research my one day get me--or someone like me in years to come--out of my wheelchair. But it is not out of selfishness that I loyally dissent, but through a quiet introspection of my religious beliefs.

Scripture alone would appear to refute the Pontiff’s interpretation, particularly, Jeremiah, 1:15 which states: "Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." This would imply that an individual first needs to be a fetus, not merely an embryo before personhood exists. And by any way biology is approached, a womb is still needed to transform an embryo into a fetus: it is an irrefutable requirement.

It is what happens to an embryo before implantation that defines the difference between the blueprint of human life with the potential to become a human being from actual being a human being. One embryo can split into several embryos, can merge with another to form a single embryo and has a significantly lower chance of survival than either a zygote (an embryo that begun to divide itself) or a fetus. Furthermore, the survivability rate of zygotes is approximately one in three.[ii]

This effectively refutes the socially conservative member of President Bush’s Bioethics Council, Robert P. George, an embryonic stem cell research opponent and ultra-orthodox in his Catholicism. Dr. George may counter that once the embryo from which I eventually developed from was conceived “I” then existed as an individual human being. But there could have been no “I” as an individual at the moment of conception if “I” resulted from the splitting of or the twinning of two embryos to form the embryo that finally attached itself to my mother’s uterine wall. Jeremiah appears to be more on point than my own Church’s hierarchy as to when individuality occurs; being formed as a fetus in the womb.

But these apparent contradictions have not deterred opponents of the research too use loaded and often, downright inaccurate language. In his article The Moral Status of the Human Embryo,[iii] co-authored with Alfonso Gómez-Lobo, Robert George severely dissembles in his first footnote by inaccurately claiming, “A human embryo (like a human being in the fetal, infant, child, or adolescent stage) is not properly classified as a “prehuman” organism with the mere potential to become a human being. No human embryologist or textbook in embryology known to us presents, accepts, or remotely contemplates such a view. The testimony of all leading embryology is that a human embryo is--already and not merely potentially—a human being.”[iv]  

But Robert George is incorrect. In fact there is no scientific consensus of when a human being is present; that belongs to the more subjective realms of metaphysics and religion.

What Robert George is doing is equating human life with a natural born human being. But such a grant of equivalence is no more accurate than equating an acorn with an oak tree. Sure, the acorn has the potential to become an oak tree, but first it must be planted in the ground, nurtured with substance and finally emerge from the soil in which it was implanted.

As William Neaves of the Stowers Institute observed, “Other religious traditions acknowledge the product not fertilization to be a life but do not accord it the status of a human being.  For example, both Judaism and Islam hold that full human status is acquired progressively during embryonic development, not at fertilization.[v]  Until 40 days after conception, Judaism considers the developing embryo to be “mere fluid.”  The early embryo is respected as a potential human being, but it is not yet a person.  Accordingly, both Judaism and Islam permit the use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic and research purposes.”[vi]

Beyond that, all four branches of Judaism support embryonic stem cell research pursuant to the halakic doctrine of pekuach nefesh—the preeminence of saving a life in being. Under Jewish Law a fourteen day embryo has the same status as water. And it most be remembered that it was the forbearers of our Jewish brethren who in fact authored the passages. It would follow that a Jewish interpretation would be the most accurate of either passage.

But as William Neaves has noted, support for the status of the non-implanted embryo as a form of human life, but not a complete human being exists even within Catholic doctrine. To this end he cites the work of Father Norman Ford, a Catholic theologian who served as President of the Melbourne College of Divinity:

“Ford started with the commonly held opinion that a unique human life begins with the fusion of nuclei from sperm and egg.  The resulting single-cell embryo has a genetic individuality and uniqueness that persists throughout normal development.  However, Ford cautioned against assuming that genetic individuality makes the single- cell embryo a human individual.  He stressed that human genetic individuality should not be confused with human ontological individuality, and he cites the capacity of the single cell embryo to undergo twinning and develop into two persons as evidence that it does not yet qualify as a human being.”[vii]

Then there is the matter of the placenta, a problematic issue that many embryonic stem cell research opponents ignore, including Robert George.

An embryo, as well as a zygote, besides containing stem cells also contains the basic material that what will become the placenta. No religion, even mine offers it any sacred standing. The placenta develops from the outer layer of cells in a blastocyst, while the inner cell mass goes on to become the fetus.  Although it expresses very different genes and may lack certain HLA markers, the placenta has the same genetic makeup as the fetus yet no expert,--whether scientific, metaphysical or theological—equates it with being a human being. Again, as William Neaves observes drawing on Ford:

“Ford also cites the undermined fate of individual cells in the early human embryo as evidence that these cell aggregates cannot yet constitute a human being.  In the morula stage (16+ cells), the cells have not differentiated sufficiently to tell which ones will become the placenta and which ones will become the embryo proper.  Even in the blastocyst stage (100+ cells), when the inner cell mass that will form the embryo has separated from the cells that will form the placenta, not all the cells of the inner cell mass will become part of the definitive embryo.

Ford concludes that the traditional view articulated by Aquinas is still valid: there can be no person before the actual formation of a human individual with an ongoing, distinct, individual, embryonic human body.  His reasoning leads him to believe that an implantation of the embryo in the uterus.”[viii]

Aquinas, it should be pointed out took the view that there is no ensoulment until “quickening,” a position closer to Jewish, Anglican and Islamic thought. And Thomas Aquinas carries much weight in Church doctrine. But this raises a further question: if current interpretations of Thomistic doctrines can be read to prevent embryonic stem cell research from going forward then what prevents future Church leaders to use the very same doctrine to eventually approve of the research?

But for me as Catholic, I find myself seeking the position Jesus would take. The Gospels consistently detail His adherence to Pekuach nefesh through His many acts of healing. And as a Catholic who has read the Gospels, I cannot recall Jesus directly refuting pekuach nefesh. It logically follows that a Jesus who lived by Jewish law raises a presumption that He would not oppose this vital medical research. If anything, His healing the infirmed and disabled along with raising the dead for me is what contradicts the Pontiff’s position.