Religious extremists in the U.S. are at least partly responsible for the homophobia and misogyny that still dominate our culture. The vitriol spouted in weekly sermons across the country leads to real harm, including violent attacks on homosexuals and the high gay suicide rate. But many other forces contribute, and the harm is hard to quantify.
But in one area the link between the religious right and societal harm will ultimately become much clearer: therapies resulting from embryonic stem-cell research. During the Bush Administration, at the behest of religious extremists, federal funding for stem-cell research was limited to existing lines—essentially a ban on federal funding. One of the first things Obama did when he took office was to lift the ban. Despite legal challenges, funding is again flowing into this promising area.
Just last week, a trial began in which embryonic stem cells will be injected into the spinal cord of a partially paralyzed man to try to cure his paralysis. This treatment, and many others like it, may not work. But it is almost certain that embryonic stem cells will ultimately lead to effective treatments for some of the most debilitating medical conditions. It will then be possible to roughly calculate how much misery and suffering resulted from the eight-year ban on federal funding; we’ll be able to approximate how many people, for how many years, went without treatment because religious extremists had brought research to a halt. Blocking stem-cell research is hardly equivalent to shooting abortion doctors, but it imposes real costs on real people.
It’s also worth reminding ourselves how morally bankrupt the case is for opposing stem-cell research. An embryo with no consciousness or identity, which is going to be destroyed anyway, is placed off limits to scientists. At the same time, researchers can inflict horrific pain and suffering on sentient animals. You don’t have to believe that animals are in any way morally equivalent to humans to realize that torturing them is worse than destroying microscopic embryos.
In addition, the religious extremists who oppose stem-cell research are hypocrites. Robert Edwards just won the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work on in vitro fertilization, which allows infertile couples to have babies. His medical breakthroughs produce millions of embryos, unused and ultimately discarded, that are sought for stem-cell research. Nobody on the religious right pickets fertility clinics or expresses moral outrage at producing extra embryos so that couples can have their own children. The religious right opposes stem-cell research that may one day ease human suffering, but not the destruction of embryos to produce more humans. This is morally inconsistent.
But moral consistency has never been a hallmark of religion.
I look forward to the day when breakthroughs from embryonic stem-cell research help ease some of the worst human diseases and injuries. In addition to celebrating the benefits to humanity, it’ll make it easier to clearly see how much harm has been caused in the meantime, and represent one more case against religion.
P.S. If you have any topics you would like covered in VoR send me an email at: voicesofreasonblog@gmail.com.
Jason Scorse