Orphaned Embryos: Humans or Spare Parts?
By Wendy Wright
September/October 2001 Family Voice

Jon and Marlene Strege adopted Hannah, now 28 months old, before she was born. Created by in vitro fertilization, Hannah was one of the tens of thousands of embryos considered “excess.” Rather than have her destroyed or used for experimentation, her biological parents lovingly decided to find a couple who would welcome her into their family. So, while still an embryo, Hannah was implanted in her adopted mother’s womb.

On July 17, Marlene testified before a congressional subcommittee on whether tax dollars should pay for research that destroys children like Hannah.

“Jon and I never intended to disclose Hannah’s origin to people other than our immediate family and friends,” Marlene stated. “We adopted her long before we knew about any public controversy involving embryo stem-cell research. Mary Tyler Moore and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) changed our plans. The most difficult two days that my husband and I have endured involved watching Ms. Moore compare my daughter to a goldfish, and Sen. Harkin liken her to a dot on a piece of paper and refer to her as expendable. Obviously, she is none of these.

“No mere ‘dot,’” Marlene continued, “she contained within her the entire blueprint for human life, including all of her human organs and tissues. She required a place to grow, nutrients and love—her same basic needs today—but Hannah did the rest [emphasis added].”

These tiniest humans, the ones forming before they are in their mother’s wombs, are at the center of one of the most contentious political, scientific and human-rights dilemmas in our country.

“Looking into Hannah’s eyes, I weep for the roughly 188,000 frozen human embryos like her placed in frozen embryo orphanages, who could be adopted, rather than terminated with assistance from my federal tax dollars,” said Marlene. “We plead with Congress not to force millions of Americans like me to violate our consciences and participate in another form of genocide, especially when the advances possible with other stem cells are not nearly exhausted.”

Stem cells are obtainable from “adults” (which actually means newborns and anyone older), umbilical cord blood or embryos. While extracting stem cells from adults or cord blood does not harm the donor, taking stem cells from embryos kills the little person.

Stem cells from adults and umbilical-cord blood are already being successfully used to treat cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus, cartilage defects, and to restore sight to the blind. Stem cells from bone marrow can regenerate muscle tissue, and have been directed to form cartilage, bone tissue and fat. One immense benefit is that these methods enable a patient to use his or her own stem cells, avoiding the serious risk of donor rejection.

On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are unstable and may not become the kinds of tissue that scientists expect. No humans have been treated or even experimented upon with embryonic stem cells. While adult stem-cell treatment is successful, embryonic stem-cell treatment is merely a hope.

In a carefully controlled study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, fetal tissue taken from aborted babies (more developed than embryos), was implanted in the brains of Parkinson’s patients. The cells grew too well, producing a chemical that controls movement and causing the patients to writhe, jerk their heads, and fling their arms. The results were “absolutely devastating,” Dr. Paul Greene, a neurologist and researcher, reported in the Omaha World-Herald. “It was tragic, catastrophic. It’s a real nightmare. And we can’t selectively turn it off.” The cells cannot be removed.

Adding to these horrors is the realization that many people in those cultures went along. The arguments are familiar: they don’t look or act like us; it’s for the greater good of all people; they’re going to die anyway.

The principle that all people are created equal, and there are no partial humans, originated in the Biblical understanding that God created us in His image. Science substantiates this, confirming that all humans are in the same biological class. Yet researchers protest that their subjects are something other than you and I, devising euphemisms to lessen their humanity.

In response, ethical standards have been established to protect the vulnerable. After World War II ended and Nazi experiments came to light, authorities established the Nuremberg Code to govern research that uses humans.

The first principle of the Nuremburg Code states that “voluntary consent is absolutely essential.” To consent to research, the individual must first be fully informed about the expected risks and hazards, which necessitates that he is capable of understanding and agreeing. It is understood that children and the mentally disabled are not capable of giving informed consent. The Nuremberg Code also prohibits human experimentation that causes injury, disability or a person’s death.

How You Can Help

Pray that the biotech industry will treat all humans with respect, including embryos.  Praise God for parents, biological and adoptive, who choose life for embryo orphans.  Act This fall the Dickey Amendment, which withholds federal funds from embryonic stem-cell research, is up for reauthorization. Urge your congressmen to uphold the Dickey Amendment (U.S. Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121.)

Embryonic stem-cell research violates the Nuremberg Code. Regrettably, it seems that when these standards are most relevant is the very time they are ignored.

Therein lies our challenge. Most of us believe we would not have mistreated Blacks or Jews if we had lived in the days of slavery or in the Nazi terror. Will we, then, treat embryos—like Hannah—as an act of God, or as a source of spare parts?

More from September/October 2001 Family Voice