One of the objections to aborted fetal tissue being used is actually pragmatically realistic-- the recognition that some people will actually breed fetal tissue to abort and sell.

It's based on a recognition that as a species, too many of us (human beings) are often all too comfortable on slippery slopes. Would anyone we know here do that-- of course not. "Should" anyone legislate against your highest motives? Maybe-- none of us would do other atrocities that have been publicized and grieved among us in many a thread. But there are people who DO do these things-- sell babies.

Take kiddie porn as an example. Is it wrong to take a picture of my really cute toddler, naked, from the back, about to step into the bath? No. But-- if the picture can be sold to a kid porn dealer, is it wrong to post the picture online to share with friends and family? Maybe it is-- maybe my online album is too accessible to others, to post that picture. See what I mean?

This is one reason ehtics questions often wrestle with the lowest-common-denominator factor. It's the best of society trying to think about the good of the whole society, keeping in mind what can be known about the worst of society.

In our denomination (Episcopal), we think of ethics as a range of perspectives with moral theology ("morals") on one end and ethical theology on the other. We recognize that determining what is the right thing to do, in any situation, depends on looking at a moral imperative based in our faith tradition, but applied in the specific situation as ethically as the realities will permit, for the greatest good. It often involves balancing a number of tragic choices, and looking at them square on. It invloves recognizing that it might not be possible to determine, in a specific sitation, what is "right," and that the best one can do, sometimes, is determine the least tragic choice.

It's a complicated field. We use that way of thinking to tease out as many of the complexities as possible, and to think about them fully, to guide our own behavior, not to judge others. We use it to have conversation with others about their thinking, not to control them.

I have not personally finished thinking about the issues around stem cells, not organ transplant for that matter. I'm not in a hurry to rush through it. It's worth thinking about with great care, and taking all the time needed till I do know what my position is. Until I do-- neither side has my vote.

Sometimes, societally, it's too soon to make a decision, and the tragic choices remain tragic. A lot of life is like that, but we humans tend to try to force others to agree when we ourselves feel urgent about this or that particular "cause" because that happens to be the one that has captured our attention. For those who feel that way about stem cells, I would ask them what other tragic realities they are ignoring, that I might care about. I would ask them, does it really help anything for either of us to try to force agreement upon the other?

We delegate some of this decision-making about Big Issues, to people we have elected. (I didn't elect GWB.) I look forward to electing people who think about these issues on a larger moral compass than the present administration.

~Susan