| STEM CELL RESEARCH |
Analysis of George W. Bush's embryonic stem cell decisionAmerican Life League provides this careful analysis of President Bush's address on embryonic stem cell research. For your benefit, we present the full text, with our comments inserted in bold print. In summary, through the use of his carefully weighed rhetoric, the president consistently worked to undermine the fundamental, irrefutable scientific fact at the core of this issue: that human life begins at conception / fertilization and that there is never an acceptable reason for intentionally taking an innocent human life. While even supposedly presenting the pro-life perspective in portions of his presentation, he used terms such as "potential life," "cluster of cells," "seeds," "byproduct," and strategically omitted "human" in key places serving to obfuscate these scientific and ethical realities. In addition, funding in research on cell lines already established through the destruction of human embryos imputes an unethical complicity on our government and our country. For the first time in the history of the United States, the federal government will support research which may benefit others relying upon the destruction of innocent, defenseless human persons who were killed. This allows our nation's research to continue to cultivate a disrespect for human life. Furthermore, what will happen if initial research proves to be promising? Virtually all scientists agree that these 60 cell lines will not be sufficient for the research needed. What will President Bush do when researchers may be on the verge of a breakthrough and approach him, asking for more cell lines to complete the task? According to this precedent, he will have to provide more funding. He has opened this door and the slippery slope is indeed intact and functional. We have every reason to believe that he would break his commitment again. Finally, this sad event once again illustrates to the pro-life community that the sole protector of innocent human life is objective truth. When politicians attempt to win our support while compromising objective moral principles, it just sets a precedent for future defeat and the continued destruction of innocent human life. Only when we first require adherence to objective truth from politicians will we be able to protect innocent human life from the moment of conception / fertilization. We have put this analysis together to help all see clearly how the president's decision disqualifies him from describing himself as pro-life. Let us pray for him. Judie Brown Text of President George W. Bush's August 9, 2001 speech: Good evening. I appreciate you giving me a few minutes of your time tonight so I can discuss with you a complex and difficult issue, an issue that is one of the most profound of our time. The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths, even many of the same faith, coming to different conclusions. Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.
"The right ethical and moral conclusions" must always begin from the premise that there is never a reason to intentionally kill an innocent human being. My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.
The "embryos" to whom President Bush refers are embryonic human beings who are persons. In vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable in itself because it violates the child's right to be conceived in a natural way by an act of love between his parents, requires intrinsically evil acts in the process of "production," violates the child's dignity in reducing her to a "byproduct" of a scientist's mechanized laboratory procedure, and produces "excess" embryonic children who will be treated as trash or "scientific material." This is an issue the pro-life movement must never omit when addressing the tragedy of embryonic killing. Once a couple successfully has children or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage, others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born and are today healthy children.
Do parents ever have a legitimate right to "donate" their children to science when they know that the result of such cruel charity is imminent death for the babies? Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.
The president begins here to build his flawed argument in defense of his decision by suggesting that the belief of scientists somehow justifies the destruction of innocent human beings in order to obtain their body parts for research purposes. You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells. However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.
While the benefit of embryonic stem cells over adult stem cells remains unproven, the president defends this scientific "belief" divorced from the personhood of the human embryo. Can such a position accurately be considered pro-life? Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.
Apparently, the "best and brightest scientists" referred to here are those who deny the dignity of the human being at fertilization/conception in order to proceed with human destruction. These are men and women who are already busily engaged in this practice with private funding. "The greatest public good" can never involve the intentional killing of innocent human beings. The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.
How can the United States "improve human life" by murdering human beings or condoning it through complicity? Can "the highest standard of ethics" involve destroying persons who are the most vulnerable among us? Should our nation "expand the limits of science and knowledge" over the bodies of persons condemned to death by the biotech industry? Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life.
"Extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo" and thus destroys the life of an innocent human being. This is usually referred to as homicide. The human embryo does not merely have "potential for life," but is an individual human life with potential! This person in her embryonic stage of development has the same "potential" for full adult development, heroic virtue, love and generosity as any fetal person, toddler or adolescent. They therefore have the same right to pursue that identical God given destiny as any other human being. Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.
Like a snowflake, "each of these embryos is unique." The genetic identity of the human embryo is fixed and will never change throughout her entire life. However, unlike snowflakes that melt away with no consequence, human embryo have a God-given vocation. The snowflake image is attractive on the surface, but fundamentally deceptive at its roots. The president denies the personhood of the youngest of our brothers and sisters by relegating them to "genetic potential." This is nothing more than crass moral relativism and deceptive utilitarian rhetoric. As I thought through this issue I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and therefore something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?
The first question has an answer: each of these frozen human embryos is an individual human being, sharing the exact same dignity as every other human being including the president himself. The second question also has an answer: direct killing of innocent human beings is never justified for any reason. I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer, and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.
A comprehensive process of deliberation does not automatically validate a conclusion. Deliberation should yield truth, not compromise. "Widespread disagreement" does not change the objective fact that it is never morally acceptable to kill an innocent human person, nor does it change the fifth Commandment that reads: "Thou shalt not kill." On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.
President Bush introduces yet another set of unethical bogus words to further confuse his listeners. Why mention the false descriptions of human persons as "cluster of cells" or "pre-embryos"? And if you wish to use such language, why not attack it as part of the reason why this research is always and in every case immoral? Clearly, there is no such thing as a "pre-embryo." At conception/fertilization everything that is needed for this human person's growth and development is already present. This is true, clear, objective, obvious science. An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation."
Here again the president has avoided the key problem, even when presenting the supposedly pro-life side of this argument: an innocent human being will be destroyed. These children are not "seeds of the next generation." They are living human beings. And to the other crucial question -- If these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? -- I also found different answers.
"These"? "These" what, Mr. President? Clearly you must mean, if "these children are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for a good purpose?" And of course, "different answers" do not change the moral gravity of a direct attack on the youngest of innocent persons. Many are these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.
Each of these human embryos is a human being and not a byproduct. The "process" of in vitro fertilization is morally unacceptable, but the resulting human beings are each persons who are very much alive. No process can be deemed acceptable if it necessarily includes the abandonment and death of children. The innate potential each human being has, from fertilization/conception is in his or her ability to grow, develop, play, work, learn and love. These human beings are not commodities to be traded, sold or donated. Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.
Once again, the president failed to authentically represent the pro-life side of the argument. He did not say "living human being." This is another tactic to dehumanize the individual about whom he is speaking. And, of course, no person is ever an "it." At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.
The fundamental question is simply this: can anyone, for any reason, ever justify the intentional killing of one innocent human being for any reason? Clearly, the answer is simple, we can never kill an innocent human being - even for the most laudable purpose. The "moral intersection" provides each of us with an opportunity to exercise free will and do good or do evil. As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.
The "ethical mine fields" are only hazardous to those who avoid or deny the existence of objective truth. As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that brave new world that seemed so distant in 1932 when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.
There are many things which could be done but should never be done, regardless of the alleged beneficial outcome. In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.
If this "create and kill" activity, which has existed for quite some time, were truly "deeply troubling" to the president, he would have condemned all embryonic stem cell research regardless of the source of funding or the manner of killing. Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.
Had president Bush reviewed the paper commissioned by The Linacre Institute of the Catholic Medical Association, he would have known that the question of human cloning is directly involved with the moral and ethical concerns that have been raised regarding embryonic stem cell research. One profound point addressed in that paper is this: "if culture-produced human embryos are formed in the process of the derivation of human embryonic stem cells, then that process would be cloning, and those culture-produced human embryos would be clones." I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.
If "we recoil at the idea" of cloning through "the derivation of human embryonic stem cells," then why do we not put a halt to the practice? And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means. My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures. I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.
And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated. Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.
Here is yet another red flag. The president did not, you will note, describe fetal tissue research as "ghastly," or "unethical." He avoided judgment. By his silence one can surmise his view that the fetal remains, once the killing is done, are also "byproducts." As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.
"As a result of private research," only God knows how many embryonic human beings have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed in the biotechnology industry. The stem cell lines derived from this incredibly callous human destruction must never be used for any reason. To use even one of them requires our complicity in the heinous acts that took the lives of our fellow human beings. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and- death decision has already been made.
What President Bush says here is this: "I have concluded that we should allow your tax dollars to be used for research using stem cell lines derived from the direct killing of human beings exactly like each of you. We will be awarding hundreds of millions of dollars to the scientists who killed these children so they can now do research on their body parts. My fellow Americans, you and I are now accomplices in the killing, but we can rest assured that the greater good will be served through this policy." Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
Avoiding the guidance of natural law ethics, the president has not honored the proper "fundamental moral line," but created a new "illusionary and arbitrary moral line." This false criterion serves the purposes of the biotech industry and opens the door to expanded killing and the creation of a market for human cloning. I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
Will this make all of us feel better about the destruction of the human beings who President Bush has relegated to byproduct status? I will also name a president's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.
What good is a "president's council" that monitors human destruction when, by virtue of this very address, the president has drawn a new arbitrary moral line that condones killing innocent human beings? Is it not true that the medical and ethical ramifications of murder are that such an act is a crime against humanity? This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others, and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago. This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.
By this time we all know that while the public can discuss and evaluate "important issues," such as whether or not it is ever acceptable to kill an innocent human being, the president will be guided by a set of moral principles that are foreign to principled pro-life Americans. As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience. I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.
As we go forward, let us pray for the grace and the total surrender to the will of God that is needed at this most tragic time in the history of our nation. And let us pray for President Bush and all those who lead him to make such a tragic—and incredibly disastrous—decision. Thank you for listening. Good night, and God bless America.
Statements from organizations critical of the president's decision: American Life League Statements from commentators critical of the president's decision: Charlotte Allen
©2001 American Life League, Inc. |