|
A welcome
line in the sand
PRAISED BE JESUS
CHRIST!
(Now and Forever)
From time to time, something gets under my skin that I can’t seem to
purge. That happened several weeks back when op-eds, syndicated
columnists and letters to the editor ridiculed President Bush for
vetoing the embryonic stem-cell research bill, HR 810. Here’s one of the
more grievous chiggers that bored its way under my hide, a letter to the
editor of the Santa Rosa (California) Press Democrat:
“President Bush’s first veto (of the stem-cell research legislation) is
notable not so much for being his first as it was for being the first
veto ever based purely on religious mythology and fundamentalist
theology. Not on economics, not on national security, not on what’s good
for the country, not on what the people want and certainly not on
scientific or medical considerations. It was a decision one would expect
from Taliban or the leadership of a Third World culture rooted in
medieval superstition and religious fanaticism, not from the supposedly
most advanced nation in the world.” Brrr!
Actually, a package of three “stem cell” bills were placed on the floor
of the United States Senate in July: S. 2754, the Alternative
Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act; S. 3504, the Fetus
Farming Prohibition Act; and HR 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement
Act. The first two are now law. The president vetoed the third.
S. 2754 provides funding for efforts to study stem cells which are
thought to have the capabilities of embryonic stem cells, but which are
not obtained by destroying human embryos. S. 3504, the Fetus Farming
Prohibition Act, strengthens federal law already on the books.
HR 810, the one vetoed by the president, would have devoted tax money to
research using new embryonic stem cells. Had it not been vetoed, federal
tax money would have been used to destroy human embryos to provide
stem-cell lines. The hope is that the resultant research would lead to
the cure of a long list of diseases. The fact is human embryos would be
destroyed in the process. On the other hand, the passage of the first
two bills respects both science and ethics.
Those mocking the veto would have us believe that hoped-for cures will
only come about through embryonic stem-cell research and, to push that
forward, federal funding is imperative. That, however, flies in the face
of fact.
Point number one: While disputed, there are studies which suggest that
stem cells from adult tissues and umbilical cord blood have the
versatility once thought to exist only in embryonic cells or may acquire
this versatility by various forms of reprogramming.
Point two: Adult stem cells here and now are providing actual treatment
for dozens of conditions.
Point three: Embryonic stem-cell research to this point has not resulted
in a single cure.
Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos donated by patients
at the in vitro fertilization clinics scattered across the
country. Couples undergoing IVF treatment, which fails about 70 percent
of the time, create more embryos than can be implanted in a given
treatment session. The excess ones are frozen for possible future use.
There may be upwards of 400,000 embryos (according to a 2003 study), an
untold number of which ultimately will be destroyed. The argument is
that these excess embryos, since they are destined for the garbage can,
might as well be used for something worthwhile. That argument sways many
people. The fact that others may destroy these embryos, however, does
not give Congress the right to join in the killing, much less make me an
accomplice by using my tax money and yours to do so.
Cardinal William Keeler, chair of the Pro-life Committee of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, made the point when he said that
“technical progress that makes humans themselves into mere raw material
for research is in fact a regress in our humanity.” Remove ethical
considerations from science and that regression is a road easy to
travel. Yet, the proponents of embryonic stem-cell research cry: Don’t
mix religion and science.
A cartoon in USA Today showed four faces of George Bush with a
statement above each face: “We must protect the unborn; so they can grow
up; and have the same rights as everyone else; to die from an illness
research might prevent.” This, in my judgment, was a disingenuous
advertisement. Millions of dollars are to be made if tax money is
allotted to embryonic stem-cell research. But, that means embryonic
destruction. Not only was the cartoon manipulative, it was untrue!
The acceptance of abortion throughout pregnancy has dulled reason.
Roe vs. Wade opened the door to the killing of millions of unborn
children from the earliest detection of life to the almost completely
born (partial-birth abortion). If taking the life of an almost totally
birthed child can be rationalized, it should not be a surprise that the
destruction of human embryos has become a no-brainer for some.
One columnist, I thought, revealed the shallowness often encountered in
the stem-cell debate when he wrote: “I have always felt that the
pro-life industry emerged on this issue too late. If there is a moral
objection to the ‘destruction’ of embryos, many of which do become
medical waste, then they shouldn’t have been created in the first
place.” Bingo!
If the writer was familiar with Catholic moral teaching, he would know
the business of in vitro fertilization, with its generation of
human embryos, is not morally acceptable in Catholic teaching. But, that
novel idea, were he aware of it, no doubt would be rejected as a
misguided offshoot of fundamentalist theology.
A line needs to be drawn in the sand. Whatever his motivation may have
been, the president did that when he vetoed HR 810. Hopefully, S. 3504,
which was not vetoed, will provide protection against the grotesque
abuse of women and children that could result from fetal farming, while
S. 2754 will advance research leading to cures that do not attack human
life.
On this issue, the Church is a voice crying in the wilderness. It is
painted as an opponent of medical advances that will curtail, if not
eliminate, the ravages of disease. However, cut through the emotionalism
and one sees the opposite is true. The fact is there are serious moral
and ethical issues. And, there are alternatives to embryonic stem-cell
research, alternatives that show far more promise and which respect
human life in its earliest beginnings.
The insistence of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life may
be viewed by some as religious fanaticism or medieval superstition, but
not by this man. It is crucial that people of faith walk arm in arm on
this one. |
