Holy crap, I’ve been Cloned!

The title of this blog is “Quo Vadis?” and comes from a tradtional Roman Catholic story about the life of the Apostle Peter. In this story, which is set during a particularly difficult period of persecution for the early church in Rome, Peter has been arrested along with several other members of the Christian community, but has somehow been released or escaped from prison and is fleeing the city. On his way out of the city Peter sees Jesus coming toward him. . . “Quo Vadis, Domini?” Where are you going, Lord? I am going to Rome to be crucified again. I will go with you. . .So Peter returned to Rome and was crucified, upside down.

The reason I chose this as a title for my blog is because I believe this is one of the questions that God is eternally asking us… by his presense Jesus was asking Peter “Where are you going?” even though it was Peter who said quo vadis Domani. I like to remember this question at the begining of my prayers–Quo vadis, Jody? Where are YOU going? Where are we going…?

This question takes on dramatic significance in our era, although it’s been significant since our first parents ate the fruit. But in our time, as the pace of science quickens and the majority of people can no longer reach the level of understanding or investment that made visions of a participatory scientific polis, such as that discussed by John Dewey, possible. Not only has the speed of development and the intricacy of scientific knowledge made the vision of broad scientific understanding more difficult and perhaps naieve, the dependance of scientific experiementation upon corporate and governmental funding has tainted the myth of scientific objectivity, even for those who once accepted it.

Which brings us to the issue at hand; Rhys, a blogger commenting on the Terri Schiavo situation at Deepsoil raised the issue of stem cell research:

If we keep Terri alive long enough – stem cell research will provide a cure but US conservatives then have to decide whose hopes for life are of higher value: a woman who was in the prime of her life when she was struck down by brain damage, or a group of cells forming part of an embryo of four or 5 days existance.

Ms Schiavo’s case may be treated by the right as a black and white moral issue butcomplex consequences will have to be resteled with for years to come.

Stem cell issues are indeed very important and have not, amid the cultural conflicts of our time, recieved the attention or public debate I believe they deserve. News coverage and public debate/discussion are two separate things.

But before we discuss the intricacies and ethics of stem cell research, why don’t we consider some of the assumptions implicit in Rhys’ comments. Consider {punctuation added}:

“If we keep Terri alive long enough – stem cell research will provide a cure but US conservatives then have to decide whose hopes for life are of higher value: a woman who was in the prime of her life when she was struck down by brain damage, or a group of cells forming part of an embryo of four or 5 days existance.”

The dichotomy presented by Rhys will bear some unpacking. I believe it to be a false dichotomy; the idea that there is a need to evaluate the intrinsic value of two individual lives, indeed even the possibility of such a calculus from the perspective of a Christian world-view is simply a non-starter.

Who has more value, “a woman who was in the prime of her life. . .” or “a group of cells forming part of an embryo”? Who has more value… neither…

{get ready, more coming when I have more time}