248 
Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
the first place. Given this fact, and given that this fact is no great 
secret even though it has not been discussed very much it appears 
disingenuous to endorse the distinction between "research” and 
"spaire" embryos as a way of demonstrating respect for the early 
embryo while nevertheless encouraging its destruction. 
I have suggested that the fact that so much of the stem cell 
debate has been framed in terms of whether the embryo is a person 
with rights has been unfortunate because it has cast the debate in 
sharply individualistic terms and has led to a preoccupation with 
embryological development narrowly construed. In addition, 
however, framing the debate in terms of embryo status and embryo 
rights tends to exaggerate the differences among commentators in 
contrast to their similarities. Consider, for example, the response of 
conservative Judaism in the United States to this issue. Rabbi Elliot 
Dorff has prepared a responsum on stem cell research for the 
Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, and 
his responsum is instructive.® 
As response are, it is structured in terms of relevant questions: 
in this case, two questions frame Dorff’s discussion. First, "may 
embryonic stem cells from frozen embryos originally created for 
purposes of procreation or embryonic germ cells from aborted fetuses 
be used for research?” (Dorff, 2002, 1). Second, "may embryonic stem 
cells from embryos created specifically for research, either by 
combining donated sperm and eggs in a petri dish or by cloning be 
used for research?" (1) I think it is noteworthy that the very 
questions that frame Dorff s analysis both reflect and perpetuate a 
certain construction of the issue, but at this juncture, my point is 
different: given the way the debate has been framed, what most 
(non- Jewish) readers of Dorff s analysis are likely to focus on is the 
difference between his treatment of the early embryo and that of 
others in the Uterature. Indeed, even where you might expect to find 
and do in fact find on closer inspection similarities between this 
Jewish analysis and Catholic reflection on this issue, the first 
impression will be that of difference. The reason, of course, is that 
our attention is drawn to Dorff’s analysis of the early embryo, euid 
Jewish views are sharply different about embryo status than those of 
the Catholic church and other pro-life opponents of stem cell work. 
For example, Dorff points out that, according to the Talmud, 
during the first forty days of gestation, the embryo and the fetus are 
considered as simply water. From the forty-first day until birth. 
PRE -PUBLICATION VERSION 
