God and Stem Cells

After doing its best to win Congress by running moderate and pro-life Democrats, the leadership of the Democratic Party wasted no time showing its true colors and true priorities by immediately passing legislation in support of federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

BY PAUL KENGOR

March 25-31, 2007 Issue | Posted 3/20/07 at 7:00 AM

After doing its best to win Congress by running moderate and pro-life Democrats, the leadership of the Democratic Party wasted no time showing its true colors and true priorities by immediately passing legislation in support of federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

The bill flew through the House of Representatives within the first 100 hours of the new Congress — literally one of the first bills passed by the new leadership.

In response, President George W. Bush will be grabbing his veto pen. As he does, we will hear charges that the president is “anti-science,” and that faith has once again trumped reason.

This allegation will not be restricted to the pages of The New York Times. I recently read an article by a sympathetic British observer who took issue with President Bush’s “anti-scientific perception that stem-cell research should be deterred.” The author considered whether this alleged unsophisticated attitude was the product of a very “un-European willingness” by Americans “to believe in supernatural forces.”

This unflattering view not only of the American president but also millions of like-minded citizens is hardly uncommon. It also requires some explanation:

First, a crucial distinction: George W. Bush, like many Americans — not to mention the Vatican — opposes federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. No one opposes research on adult stem cells or stem cells acquired through umbilical-cord blood or placenta or bone marrow — the debate is over stem cells acquired through the killing of an embryo. Bush is against the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research.

For the record, Bush indeed invokes his faith in explaining his position. He maintains that all human life is a “precious gift” granted by a “loving God,” “a creation, not a commodity,” and therefore should be protected at all stages of development.

Importantly, there is an equally significant non-religious component to his position. For example, on July 19, 2006, Bush exercised the first veto of his presidency — on embryonic stem-cell research. Holding a press conference surrounded by 18 families with children who had once been frozen embryos, Bush said that if the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act had become law, “for the first time in our history we would have been forced to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos, and I’m not going to allow it. ... We all began our lives as a small collection of cells.” Bush said that Americans “must never abandon our fundamental moral principles in our zeal for new treatments and cures.”

Four years earlier, on April 10, 2002, Bush offered added insight into his thinking: “Advances in biomedical technology must never come at the expense of human conscience. ... Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.” He warned against pursuing medical research “without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.”

The president, like many of us, is appalled at the prospect of “embryo farms” or “parts farms” — the start of a slippery slope into a brave new world in which certain human beings may one day be raised merely for their parts; parts exploited by those lucky enough to have been born and not “harvested” for their parts.

Here, however, is the crucial point, missed by the aforementioned British observer and those who agree with him: One need not be a religious believer to oppose embryonic stem-cell research.

In fact, secular-minded Americans — the vast majority of whom support embryonic research — ought to see the obvious unfairness in creating and then terminating undeveloped human life simply for the benefit of the living; at the very least, this unprecedented technological leap should give pause. Any politician in the stripe of Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Kerry — all staunch backers of embryonic research — who invoke “social justice” to advance economic-class goals, should see the inherent injustice in this technology.

The late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a pro-life Democrat, could not fathom how his fellow Democrats, who preached the rights of the underdog, were so unwilling to protect unborn human life. And Casey did not need his local parish priest to convince him.

Of course, religious reasoning can turn a supporter of embryonic research into an opponent. I have seen pro-abortion Catholics change their positions after open-mindedly and carefully considering the Church’s position, and reading encyclicals like Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae. The latter, of course, was written by Pope John Paul II, who appealed to the “two wings” of faith and reason in his pro-life thinking. The embarrassingly misinformed notion — by people who pride themselves for their self-perceived intellectual superiority — that faith and reason are incompatible violates some 800 years of Church teaching dating back to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Yet, the point is that one need not “believe in supernatural forces” to oppose taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research. Scientific understanding, backed by common sense and compassion, can easily move any rational person in that direction.

The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has argued against embryonic stem-cell research on both religious and non-religious grounds, citing basic human rights. The destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells is “not only devoid of the light of God but is also devoid of humanity,” said the Pope, and “does not truly serve humanity.”

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how anyone cannot see the inherent unfairness in destroying human embryos strictly for our own selfish needs. What is it about the embryo that denies it the most fundamental right of life: its size, its lack of consciousness?

To the contrary, one might conclude that such vulnerabilities — such defenselessness — means that an innocent embryo merits our special protection. Sadly, supporters of embryonic research have concluded that our personal health needs justify this essential denial of life to other members of the human family.

That is not right — regardless of your faith.

Paul Kengor is executive director of the

Center for Vision & Values at

Grove City College. He is author

of God and George W. Bush.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Make a Donation now!

Insightful. Informative. Uncompromisingly faithful. The National Catholic Register is more than a newspaper. It’s a cause. Your support for the Register funds important journalism that helps to build a Culture of Life in our nation, and throughout the world. Help us promote the Church’s New Evangelization by donating to the National Catholic Register right now.

Click here to donate