Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sound Logic Behind a Surprising Decision
CNSNews.com Commentary via the ACLJ (Jay Sekulow) ^ | August 20, 2001 | By Paul M. Weyrich

Posted on 08/05/2002 7:26:50 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican

When President Bush announced his decision on funding for stem cell research, he surprised the entire nation. The Left was expecting a purely negative decision, and they were all ready for another gleeful episode of bashing the anti-scientific Christian right. The pro-lifers and social conservatives were also expecting a purely negative decision, drawn along the line that all such research destroys very young human lives in order to extract potential benefits for older people.

The President's eloquent and deeply thoughtful speech surprised both sides because it drew a moral line where neither side anticipated it. He drew the line between research on whole human embryos and research on mere cell lines. He thereby introduced a distinction which the general public had never heard of: namely between stem cell research that would destroy more very young human lives and stem cell research that would destroy no further lives. He realized that federal funding of the former type of research would make the federal government a formal cooperator with the anti-life principle that some people are expendable for the benefit of others.

But federal funding for the latter type of research, he argued, would offend no pro-life principle and would not make the federal government a cooperator with anyone's immoral actions.

I am not surprised that the President's line of thinking has taken some time to sink in, and all of us who watched the television on the night of the speech could see that the instant critics and commentators were caught off guard. More depressing is the fact that a statement released by Bishop Fiorenza for the Catholic Bishops Conference paid no attention to the president's distinction. It had not yet sunk into the minds of those who released this obviously pre-prepared response. But most depressing of all is the fact that this careless response by the bishops has been setting the tone for more and more responses from other pro-life organizations. Just today I got a fax from a reputable national group in which the spokesman was accusing Bush of adopting the principle that the end justifies the means, and that "it's okay to kill in order to cure."

Well, pardon me, but genuine moral judgment requires more accuracy than that.

The president explicitly said that he would not countenance evil means to a good end. He explicitly said that he would not fund killing in the name of curing. The only question is, is he inadvertently doing just that? This question in turn, for those of us who have had an education in ethics, comes down to the question of whether the approved funding would represent formal, as opposed to just material, cooperation with wrongdoing.

Suppose some robbers come out of a bank as you just happen to be parking nearby. They stick a gun to your head and say, "Drive us to the airport." Because you do in fact drive their getaway car, you are giving material cooperation to the robbers' project. Are you also giving formal cooperation - that is, the kind of cooperation that would make you guilty of their wrongdoing? The answer is no, for the very simple reason that you do not share the robbers' intention. You are only intending to save your life. They are intending to escape with other people's money.

Now let's move to a closer example. We're in London, the year is 1540, and the learned men of Europe are just beginning to get the idea that dear old Roman medical writer and philosopher Galen didn't have all the answers. The students of medicine want to dissect human corpses in order to learn what the organs really are and do. Well, there are no morgues, nor any hospitals in our sense of the word. Indeed, the only source of corpses for dissection is street crime (which was rampant in London in those days). Question: if the medical students pick up the dead body of a man who was mugged and stabbed last night, do they become formal cooperators with the project of the murderer, cutpurse, or whatever he was? Again, the answer is no, because the medical students do not share the wrongdoer's intention. He (unless it was a she) intended to put someone to death, and these students intend no such thing. And so, to this day, no moral theologian has ever said that a medical school cannot obtain its research subjects from a police morgue.

Now let's improve the example one step further. Suppose that among the ordinary cutthroats of London in 1540 there was a very eccentric one, who had a yearning for improved medical science, and who therefore went around stabbing his enemies precisely in order to provide corpses for medical students. In the morning the students find one of these corpses. Now, if they pick it up, are they formally collaborating with the murderer? The correct answer is still no, because intentions come in parts. According to noted moral theologian and Christendom College professor William Marshner, "The remote end is one part; the proximate end is another; and the means are a third. You do not become a formal cooperator with someone simply by sharing his remote end, or ultimate purpose."

In other words, my just wanting to have plenty of money, too, would not make me a formal cooperator with bank robbers who forced me to be their driver. For the robbers' intention includes the crucial means, taking what does not belong to them; and as long as my intention includes no such dishonest means, I do not share their guilt. In just the same way, wanting to advance medical science or wanting to have a corpse to dissect is only sharing a more or less remote end of the eccentric cutthroat. So long as the medical students do not will his means, the forcible termination of an innocent human life, they do not share his guilt.

For this reason, I am not surprised that the top moral experts in the pro-life universe - men like Professor Germain Grisez and Professor William E. May - have concluded that Bush's moral line between what should and should not be funded is "ethically defensible." These academic moralists do not comment, of course, on Bush's decision from the point of view of whether it was politically wise. That's where guys like me get to have a say.

Well, in my long political experience, I have rarely seen the Left so flummoxed as they were the other night by the terms of Bush's decision. So, thus far, the president's decision looks like political wisdom to me. I just hope that the pro-life organizations can figure out how to profit from it, instead of shedding tears of ill-reasoned disappointment.


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; U.S. Congress; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; aclj; bush; cell; embryo; embryonic; prolife; research; stem; stemcell

1 posted on 08/05/2002 7:26:50 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
FYI
2 posted on 08/05/2002 8:15:25 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Could you please move this to Extended news or editorial? When I went to post, the options didnot exist for where t place this. Thanks.
3 posted on 08/05/2002 8:22:36 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
There isn't a selection for editorial in the campaign forum.
4 posted on 08/05/2002 8:41:04 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator
Thanks. Don't know what happened when I went to post it; wasn't like usual where you have those choices available. Thanks for replying.
5 posted on 08/05/2002 8:56:19 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

bttt
6 posted on 08/06/2002 3:53:34 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

bttt
7 posted on 08/06/2002 3:53:36 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: *Pro_Life; *Abortion_list
indexing
8 posted on 08/06/2002 5:18:31 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet; Askel5
Read this? Source has additional good articles, Askel. May help to clear up some comfusion about stem cell reasearch and more.
9 posted on 08/23/2002 10:35:39 AM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Thank you for the ping ... indeed I will give it my careful attention.
10 posted on 08/23/2002 11:04:25 AM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Askel5
indeed I will give it my careful attention.

I am sure you will, as in everything that you concern yourself with.

11 posted on 08/23/2002 12:27:00 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The ACLJ has some good info for people on their website concerning the stem cell debate and Pres. Bush.
You won't find many discussing this info here, because it exposes the misinformation that is passed along about Bush's stance on stem cells and abortion. It is much easier to say Bush is pro abortion and approves fetal stem cell research than to get the facts.
12 posted on 09/28/2002 6:20:23 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson