In debates about the morality of stem cell research and abortion, and other issues as well, we hear repeated references to "human life." Some Christians would like to resolve dilemmas with the claim that human life must always be protected. Regrettably, such appeals are unhelpful.

        Human life exists wherever human cellular activity occurs, even in the sperm (a single cell) or the unfertilized ovum or "egg" (another single cell). Understandably, we do not hear calls to protect these forms of human life. However, when we are convinced that a form of human life has acquired the status of the personal, a someone rather than a something, the debate rightly begins. Not everyone is convinced that the potential of becoming personal (as is the case with fertilized human life) qualifies a form of human life as a someone.

        A pivotal question surfaces: has the individual human life become personal at conception, when brain waves are detected, when the fetus moves, at some other stage during pregnancy, or when the individual is born? Christian theologians, philosophers, and scientists sharply disagree. And, there is no method on which they can agree to resolve the matter. Each might believe fervently in his/her position.

        One might appeal to the Ten Commandments in such moral dilemmas. But that doesn't work, either. The Commandment in Hebrew does not say, "You shall not kill," but "You shall do no murder" (correctly recorded in the Prayer Book). Killing can be moral (e.g., self-defense), but murder is by definition the wrongful killing of an innocent person.

        Whether stem cell research (involving the killing of an embryo) or abortion (the killing of an embryo or fetus) is killing or murder depends on whether or not one believes that the form of human life has acquired personal status. To call an embryo a person, a baby, or something similar is a matter of faith, not necessarily religious faith.

        Additional questions include: What is the value of life? What is meant by "the right to life?" What is an acceptable quality of life? To what extent does humanity share with God and/or nature the responsibility to begin, shape, and end lives? If a practice or procedure has the possibility of abuse, should it be forbidden?

        These are extremely difficult issues for the government or religious institutions to resolve with laws or precepts. We do not have direct access to God's mind, and people faithfully interpreting the Bible differ as to "what the Bible says" on these and many other concerns. Clearly laws are needed in a civilized society, but to what extent should the Law regulate and fund (or not fund) such irresolvable matters?

        Perhaps the chapter "Medical Ethics" in the online book Living Issues in Ethics might be helpful, including its section "Pluralism Again." (See www.philosophy-religion.org. Click on the Textbooks subsite and in the index on the title. - PDF files.)

        Although some of us forget, there will always be more than one informed, faithful understanding of living issues. Agreeing to differ is a wonderful quality of civilized people.