Batman's stem cells

In the new Dark Knight movie, we see a theme revisited that we have seen a few times already with Michael Keaton, and if you're a comic-book reader, countless times before that. Vengeance is the Lord's.

It's certainly not stated that way by the Batman. His refusal to terminate a homicidal maniac like the Joker is always framed as a moral line that he refuses to cross, one that would "make him like his enemies" and so cannot be touched. The issue is not presented as a right/wrong decision concerning the Joker... in a way, it's almost assumed that it would be alright for him to be killed. It's just presented as the wrong move for the Batman, one that would have consequences for him that would not justify the action.

But if WERE framed as a question of whether the Batman has the right to play judge and jury, whether he has the right to hold the Joker's life in his hands and decide what will happen to him... that's the question I think about today.

I bring it up because I've been thinking lately about my feelings on stem cell research, and by extension, the death penalty. How are the two related? Let me explain.

I'm going to assume that my readers are familiar with the basic science of embryonic stem cell research. Not because you're scientists like me, but because it's been a hot issue for a few years now and it would be hard for you to have escaped a story about it somewhere. It's been somewhat stamped down since Bush II discontinued the use of federal money for its research, which has severely hindered its progress. But the issue is sure to resurface, and will most definitely come up if Barack Obama is our next president. He will likely allow federal funding on the research once again.

What little data we have from embryonic stem cell injections into living beings, that performed on rats and rabbits, shows that it is actually working. The stem cells are replicating whatever adult cells are needed in the body, and issues like blindness and spinal injuries are being healed. There is a very real case to be made that this treatment can be successful in all manner of diseases, including terminal ones like MS, Parkinson's, and the big one, cancer. No human treatments for any of these diseases has been tried yet because the money isn't there for the testing.

Back to the Batman. Here's my question, and I want to look at it from the Christian viewpoint. By allowing the Joker to live, and by allowing the Lord's vengeance to be the only factor in the equation of when he lives or dies, the Batman makes a choice. He chooses NOT to be the one to apply that type of justice. But in a backwards way, doesn't he make that choice by also allowing the Joker to live? Isn't he then making a decision on lives that will be affected later, that the Joker will interfere with?

I'm generalizing the Christian's perspective here, because everyone of course has their opinion, but we believe that every life is valuable, and so the use of embryonic stem cells, the harvesting of those cells from a human embryo, violates that embryo's life. Regardless of whether that embryo was going to develop into a human being (because most of them aren't), we refuse to play the decision-maker on what happens with that life.

But while it is admittedly much more indirect, do we not also pronounce a decision on many of our fellow fully-grown human beings, those who have terminal diseases that could be cured with stem cells? At it's most simple presentation, we make a decision between lives that are not yet and may never be, and ones that have already developed, and matured, and loved, and experienced, and have so much yet to do.

I was asked to be a part of a delegation last year that was trying to raise more money, and especially voter support, for this type of research. Specifically, I was asked if I would like to be a part of a group that met with churches and church leaders to discuss their feelings on it. The group wanted some persons of faith on both sides of the table so that they might be able to better communicate. I declined, for two reasons. One, I'm not sure how good I would be at trying to convince someone to reverse their moral beliefs for political purposes. But two, I wasn't absolutely sure what I thought about it. I still don't. These are just the questions that ran through my head this morning, and now I put them to you, the Taproom readers.

What do you think?