For President Bush and for so many others, the stem cell research dispute is an extension of the argument over reproductive rights, an ongoing debate--between politicians, scholars, scientists, religious leaders and bio-ethicists (not necessarily mutually exclusive categories)--over when human life begins, and at what stage of development does life—or potential life—first have rights that must be protected.

I explored the issue of Stem Cell Research during an adult education class this past weekend at Congregation Beth El in Saginaw, Michigan. (After my flight was cancelled, it took me four days to hitchhike home. Never a good idea. Thank you Paul Simon!) There was little debate as we discussed the issue (everyone was in favor of advancing stem cell research), but nevertheless we engaged in healthy conversation, exploring the nuances of the Central Conference of American Rabbis' Responsa on the question of stem cell research permissibility and morality in the Jewish tradition. As we prepare to push anew for fresh legislation, it seems appropriate to review the interpretation of Jewish law that not only allows for Stem Cell research but compels us to push for and engage in that research.

The primary Jewish legal principle to consider here is pikuach nefesh, a legal exemption that allows us to violate nearly any Jewish law in order to save a life. In the greater scheme of Judaism and Reform Judaism specifically, pikuach nefesh is of particular importance because it enables and requires a reconsideration of tradition in light of modern advances in science, medicine, and technology. It is this notion of pikuach nefesh that has inspired reform (with a little "r") in the Jewish tradition and served as justification or rationalization of change in the Reform movements.

As the Responsa Committee of the CCAR points out, we should not only support stem cell research as concerned citizens, but we are legally compelled (as much as one may—as a Reform Jew--feel the pull of Jewish law) to push for additional research because of the potential to save lives and livelihoods. Stem cell research may not exist within our hallowed tradition in the exact form it occupies today, but conceptually we are obligated to use any means necessary in order to save a life. The only limitation placed by the interpretation of law by the Responsa committee is the creation of embryos expressly for the purpose of research, but this limitation may be overruled if it becomes known that the creation of embryos will definitely aid in the cure of detrimental diseases.

For the rabbis of the Committee, their understanding of law and tradition hinges on a liberal interpretation of the Hebrew word nefesh, which I won't even try to define here (even after we spent a month in my Midrash class trying to understand that word as it appears in Leviticus 2:1). The rabbis describe a hierarchy of nefashot, that human life has different rights and entitlements at different stages of development, an argument rooted in Jewish law. For example, one may violate the Sabbath to save a fetus, but a fetus in the earliest stages of development (i.e. before the first forty days of gestation), is considered "maya b'alma"--or "mere water"—which one may not violate the Sabbath to save. At the same time, however, while the post forty-day fetus has more legal rights and entitlements than the pre-forty day fetus, the older fetus still does not have as many rights as a child or any person that has been born. A pregnancy must be terminated in order to protect the life of the mother; this much is unequivocally clear. What remains open to interpretation are the limits of that protection: the Responsa committee offers a slightly more liberal interpretation, recognizing that "life" of the mother can incorporate mental status in addition of physical condition, but ultimately stating, "We do not encourage abortion, nor favor it for trivial reasons, or sanction it 'on demand.'" Similarly, as Maurice Lamm, a highly regarded expert on Jewish law accepted by Jews from most every style of practice, points out, babies born prematurely that die are not considered full people and are not mourned in the same way as a normal person.

I see now that I'm getting off topic, so it's time to rein it in and wrap it up. Christian evangelical leader Pat Robertson's endorsement (just this past week) of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani suggests a softening of views by some Christian conservatives, a willingness to negotiate on the issues of reproductive rights, on which Giuliani and Robertson were seemingly diametrically opposed. Perhaps this is a harbinger of potentially positive advances on the stem cell debate in the next new administration, regardless of who is elected.