Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Father,
I am a high school student at Bishop McGuinness. Recently in one of my classes we got into a discussion on whether or not stem cell research is right or wrong. I know that the Church teaches that this is degrading to the dignity of the human person, but the counter argument is that the research, if allowed, could save lives. How do you counter that? Also, why is this an important issue when there is do much other disrespect given to life that already exists? Thank you for any help you can give
Sincerely,
Sarah Rosencrans, Edmond

Thank you for your very interesting and relevant question. I will address your question in a later column because it is so much in the news and will continue to be. Please permit this short answer to suffice.

Question #1: "I know that the Church teaches that "stem cell research" is degrading to the dignity of the human person, but the counter argument is that the research, if allowed, could save lives. How do you counter that?"
Answer: Scientific research of any kind cannot use a person as a means to an end. For example, I cannot force someone to take an experimental medication without first advising them of all the known and suspected risks of such a procedure. In stem cell research, the central problem rests with embryonic stem cells being used. The embryo is a human person. Life begins at conception. This is not just the teaching of the Church but also the assessment of modern science. To obtain stem cells from an embryo means its destruction. The stem cells are what the embryo fashions its tissues, organs, and systems from. It would be no different if I walk up to you, and discovering that you and I share the same blood and tissue types, took your kidney because I might need it later or it might save my life. Using stem cells, with proper consent, from an adult is not a problem and the research seems to suggest that this works better in a therapeutic sense.
The logical flaw rests on the "ends justifying the means." When we will something, both end we are shooting for and the means we use to get there must be good (CCC #1789). As a good counter, try this. Remember the movie, Jurassic Park. The crazy old rich guy knew that using technology could recreate dinosaurs and make major bucks, etc. The mathematician guy (Jeff Goldblum) reminds him, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something." Then the dinosaurs go on a rampage. Just because research using embryonic stem cells could result in something good doesn't necessarily mean that it is good to do this research.
Question #2: "Also, why is this an important issue when there is do much other disrespect given to life that already exists?"
Answer: Ever play with dominoes? I love watching those elaborate designs and shows. But which domino is most important? Granted that all of them are necessary to make the design take shape and the effect to go off, which one matters the most? The first one matters most. If the first one doesn't set anything off, then the rest is left in the lurch.
So with matters of life and respect for life in its most vulnerable state. Who is going to speak for an embryo if not his big brothers and sisters? If life is not respected when it is most vulnerable, I guarantee that life will not be respected in any other venue. One example. It is curious to me that the frequency of reported cases of domestic abuse has increased in proportion to the prevalence of abortion in our society. The argument isn't that these other attacks on the dignity of life aren't evil or aren't important. It is a matter that if life is not defended in the womb, it won't be defended anywhere.
Keep up the good work and the good thinking. Pray to God that He would show you your vocation.