Frist Thinking Too Much. Politics v. Principle: Politics Wins.

Opinion Times ^ | 7/29/05 | Jim Pfaf

[HallowThisGround]

In the realm of vacuuous reasoning, hollow arguments become sensible. Such is the case when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, and Bill Frist is feeling rather "sensible" these days.The New York Times reports that Senate Majority Leader Frist will be giving a long speech on the Senate floor today in support of expanding research in certain embryonic stem cells.

Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon who said last month that he did not back expanding financing "at this juncture," is expected to announce his decision Friday morning in a lengthy Senate speech. In it, he says that while he has reservations about altering Mr. Bush's four-year-old policy, which placed strict limits on taxpayer financing for the work, he supports the bill nonetheless.

"While human embryonic stem cell research is still at a very early stage, the limitations put in place in 2001 will, over time, slow our ability to bring potential new treatments for certain diseases," Mr. Frist says, according to a text of the speech provided by his office Thursday evening. "Therefore, I believe the president's policy should be modified."

Mr. Frist's move will undoubtedly change the political landscape in the debate over embryonic stem cell research, one of the thorniest moral issues to come before Congress. The chief House sponsor of the bill, Representative Michael N. Castle, Republican of Delaware, said, "His support is of huge significance."

The stem cell bill has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate, where competing measures are also under consideration. Because Mr. Frist's colleagues look to him for advice on medical matters, his support for the bill could break the Senate logjam. It could also give undecided Republicans political license to back the legislation, which is already close to having the votes it needs to pass the Senate.

This comes across as a pure political calculation designed to tobe a tradeoff for something much bigger (say.....a John Roberts up or down vote?). If so, it's bad math, and from the standpoint of conservatives, he can't do his long division. People who make their judgements of political actions on the basis of principle prefer a straight up fight which is also the only effective way to promote principle. But Frist is trying to play it both ways here.

"I am pro-life," Mr. Frist says in the speech, arguing that he can reconcile his support for the science with his own Christian faith. "I believe human life begins at conception."

But at the same time, he says, "I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported."

. . . "Cure today may be just a theory, a hope, a dream," he says, in the conclusion of the text. "But the promise is powerful enough that I believe this research deserves our increased energy and focus. Embryonic stem cell research must be supported. It's time for a modified policy - the right policy for this moment in time."

Though I am not a scientist, I'll never cease to be amazed how some people believe embryonic stem cell research has promise when it has to this point shown no measurable results while adult stem cells are showing tremendous promise. Is this not evidence that, biologically speaking, nature does not support the killing of life to enhance life? And even if this research could lead to medical breakthroughs, are we truly willing to feed on ourselves to maintain ourselves. That is the lesson of the Sci-Fi thriller Soylent Green, and those promoting this policy need to be told, as the Charleton Heston character, Thorn, said so poignantly in that film, “You can tell everybody. Listen to me, Hatcher. You’ve got to tell them soylent green is people. We’ve got to stop them somehow.”

Embryonic stem cells are people.

For background on the stem cell issue, read this article at FocusOnSocialIssues.org

[grassboots.org]

The fact that Frist is a heart-lung transplant specialist means he is already ethically compromised. His definition of the beginning of life is apparently no more principled than his definition of "not alive" on the other end - the end of life.