Birth of An Oxymoron

Yesterday the President removed the limitations on stem cell research with the reassurance that "We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse." But there is not a single word in his remarks of the principles that should drive those guidelines, or that would define "misuse."

These are not simple issues. I cannot imagine the frustration of a person with Parkinson's Disease at the impediments to research that might materially improve their lives within a decade. But neither can I, or anyone, imagine the potential danger of exploiting a manipulated human identity.

Of the dissenters, the President says "I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view," but then states "we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology." Well, there is no "scientific" definition of human life, and no technical resolution of the chief moral difficulties. Science provides us with facts and terms, but it does not provide a clear moral interpretation of those facts. A biologist may be able to describe an embryo in technical terms, and these can inform a discussion of that embryo's humanity and the application of criteria to that embryo. But that technical description cannot speak to the philosophy by which we determine whether that embryo is human, and any rights that may inhere in that embryo. A coroner can tell us cause of death, but cannot tell us if that cause was somehow justified or amounts to criminal murder. He can only give us facts which inform our assessment of how that death came about.

The question is not whether one embryo is somehow different from another that would be removed from a mother's womb by some natural operation of her body -- the question is our intentions toward that embryo.

My view any embryo is fully human in its dignity before man, society and God is not an "ideology". I do not seek to advance this view to support some larger political purpose. I hold it because I believe it to be true. I appreciate others disagree with me, for reasons of varying quality -- but their opinions are no more "scientific" than mine. Their appeal to "science" does not settle question, it avoids it altogether.

The language of the President's announcement reflects the fundamental thoughtlessness of its logic:

"But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans -- from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs -- have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. "

Just what, exactly, is a "consensus" of a majority? The agreement of a majority is an agreement among a faction, not an agreement across factions. Can the President find an orthodox Catholic or a conservative Baptist who agrees with him -- and as he cannot, he cannot claim support from "all backgrounds and beliefs". And if the proper course is so clear, then why does he not address the fundamental objections raised against this policy? You cannot find a single word in his statement that suggests that anyone believes his policy permits the abuse of human life. The President has resolutely avoided the arguments of his critics, and argues for the "clarity" of his course only mangling the English language. And it is worth noting that the President resolutely ignores the development of techniques and science that promise to dramatically reduce the importance of the Bush administration research constraints.

This is not "reason", it is politics. It is the very ideology of which he accuses his critics. I simply cannot see how it is possible to have a reasonable debate of principles with a person willing to distort language like this.