Bush's
Stem "Cell-Out"
No issue in recent days has attracted quite the attention
and dissension as has the debate over the continuance of federal funding for
embryonic stem cell research.
Assuming that someone in our audience has just returned from
an around the world balloon voyage, recovered from an extended bout of
sleeping sickness or recently discovered the AM radio band, we had better
take a brief moment to describe the biological nuts and bolts under
discussion.
During the last presidential campaign, then candidate George
W. Bush promised he would end the Clinton administration’s policy of
publicly funding research into a controversial form of experimentation that
required the extraction of building block "stem cells" taken
primarily from the population of leftover and unwanted "test tube
babies."
The reasoning went that since these "cells" would
merely be disposed of anyway, why not put them to good use and see if they
could be helpful in finding a cure to such ailments as diabetes, multiple
sclerosis, spinal cord injuries and many more?
A noble suggestion to be sure. On the surface, at least.
60 lines of stem cell DNA were extracted from the unwilling
human laboratory subjects before the Clintons packed up our national china
and fled the White House.
The election of Republican Bush to the White House would
sound a death knell for the stem cell research. Dr. Strangelove and Igor
would have to find new benefactors and perhaps another country if they
wanted to continue treating human tissue on a par with laboratory rats.
Or so we thought.
Then, an onslaught of Hollywood stars and scientists showed
up before Congress on a fishing trip for unlikely stem cell votes, luring,
dazzling and hooking such Republican pro-life stalwarts as Senators Orrin
Hatch and Jesse Helms.
Liberals within the Bush cabinet advised the President,
"Not so fast, sir. You need to appear presidential and a bit more
middle of the road, here."
Of course, this was not merely a moral or religious issue.
It was and is highly politically charged.
If you accept the definition that a conservative says,
"What’s mine is mine unless God or my conscience say so," and a
liberal says, "What’s yours is mine unless conservatives in
Washington say so," then the battle lines on stem cell research should
be clearly drawn.
I suspect only the most hardcore pro-life supporters would
object on the grounds of principle that all research must cease on the 60
tiny victims who have already gone on to an obviously better place than
this.
Most of us realize that autopsies are performed on dead
bodies without permission and those who donate their bodies or organs to
medical science have helped the living achieve longer and fuller lives
through their acts of largesse.
The real agenda here is one that most of us are considering
but few among us dare to mention. Even President Bush appears to be
considering the research "of value" but only with genuine limits.
Now for the $64 thousand dollar question.
What will happen to those limits if embryonic stem cell
research CAN produce beneficial results in the treatment of a host of
diseases? What if the scientists again darken the White House door, cups in
hand, with a request to borrow a few billion dollars to create, destroy and
harvest vast quantities of human tissue? How will George Bush answer Mary
Tyler Moore, Michael J. Fox or Christopher Reeves if they form another
congressional conga line and demand that millions of new human lives be
harvested so they can have a brighter tomorrow?
What happens to "compassionate conservatism" then?
This might be the proper point to explore the options from
the perspective of Christian compassion. Stem cells are found in human
placentas. They are also found in living adult humans. Perhaps those cells
could take the place of the innocent and expendable embryos. Research can
and should continue in the fight to end MS, paralysis and diabetes. And yes,
it is a valid way to spend tax dollars, in my humble opinion.
But when we start down the slippery slope of, "We had
to take a life to save one," the all-too-similar words of 1st
Lt. William Calley, the butcher of My Lai, Vietnam come to mind.
"We had to destroy the village to save it."
People with enough cash and connections can already buy body
parts from living Chinese convicts. This could be called uncompassionate
capitalism. Some people would probably like the federal government to
underwrite such transplants for the common man. This would be
uncompassionate socialism. Both are selfish as selfish can be.
There is no difference between such despicable behavior and
my demanding that another fellow "human to be" should be forced to
cast aside all chances at "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness," in order to benefit me.
What makes sense from a Christian perspective is the
statement of Jesus Christ, "Greater love hath no man than that he would
lay down his life for his brother."
If the embryo could make that decision, it would be a godly
sacrifice.
But let’s look at the potential inverse of Jesus’
statement and see if it holds water in this argument.
"Greater hate hath no man than that he would make his
brother lay down his life for him."
No wonder they call this a culture war.