Replies

What is the conservative Catholic viewpoint on President Bush's decision to allow research to continue using "existing lines" of embryonic stem cells?

Human embryos are human beings. "Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo" (CRF 4b).

From the Charter of the Rights of the Family
Presented by the Holy See to all persons, institutions and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today's world October 22, 1983

Article 4
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
a) Abortion is a direct violation of the fundamental right to life of the human being.
b) Respect of the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo.
c) All interventions on the genetic heritage of the human person that are not aimed at correcting anomalies constitute a violation of the right to bodily integrity and contradict the good of the family.

From KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER of April 27, 2004

In the April 19 issue of "National Review" Hart wrote a column against the magazine's opposition to embryonic stem cell research. Hart is a very smart man, when it comes to English literature and to his other field of special interest, the reform of higher education. But his column is hopelessly muddled, as pointed out in an immediate following column written by Ramesh Ponnuru.

Hart says that "The entire NR case against stem-cell research rests, like a great inverted pyramid, on the single assertion that these cells are 'human beings'--a claim that is not self-evidently true. Even when the naked eye is aided by a microscope, these cells--'zygotes,' to use the proper terminology--do not look like human beings."

Ponnuru, who also is an editor at "National Review," had the perfect response: "Actually, they look exactly like human beings--the way human beings look at that particular stage of development. We all looked like that, at that age." Ponnuru could have extended his argument by noting that the newborn does not look like the nonagenarian, and so what? A fetus looks more like a newborn than a newborn looks like someone in extreme old age. In such cases outward appearances tell us little.

Hart falls back on a long-discredited line: "I think we must conclude, if we are to use language precisely, that the single fertilized cell is a developing or potential human being." This is half true and half false.

The true part is that the fertilized cell is a developing human being. The same can be said about any later stage of human life. I have been walking for more than half a century, and I am still a developing human being. Some of the development is physical--I am developing more wrinkles each year, for instance--and some is mental and some is spiritual. (I just wish the spiritual would develop more quickly than it has!)

What is false about Hart's line is that the fertilized cell is a "potential human being." It would be right to say that it is a "potential adult human being," but the same can be said of a teenager. What Hart means, of course, is that the fertilized cell, as a "potential human being," is not yet a real human being.

If that were so, the fertilized cell would have to be something else. What is that something else? It isn't enough to say, "I just told you--it's a potential human being." The phrase "potential human being" means only that a thing is not at this moment a human being but might become one. It is like a negative sentence without a "not," and it leaves open just what kind of being exists right now.

If the fertilized cell is not a human being but only potentially a human being, then it is something else--something that, in the future, may cease to be what it is and may become a human being. So what is it now? It is not a frog, an antelope, or a cabbage. We could list thousands of others things it is not. What we cannot list is what it is, if we insist that the "potential human being" is not already a human being.

Hart is at a logical impasse. Either the fertilized cell is a human being or it is something altogether different, as different as a frog, an antelope, or a cabbage. I suspect Hart knows this perfectly well. After all, he is a well-read and well-written man, yet he offers up an argument so sophomoric that many sophomores would see through it.

Moving on, Hart wonders what should be done with existing lines of embryonic stem cells. "It seems to me that the prospect of eliminating horrible, disabling ailments justifies, morally, using cells that are otherwise doomed," he says. "But," replies Ponnuru, "we would not kill one five-year-old child for the certain prospect of curing cancer, let alone the mere possibility--because the act would be intrinsically immoral."

Of course. Christianity always has taught that we may not perform an evil act even if some great good might flow from it. To Hart, the fate of a fertilized cell is determined by the principle that the ends justify the means. To Ponnuru, and to the Catholic Church, the applicable principle is that the ends do not justify the means.

In other contexts, I am sure, Hart would affirm this, but here he gets things exactly backwards. He is not alone. This kind of poor thinking is distressingly widespread among political conservatives, even Catholic ones.

As late as the 1960s conservatism in America was, at least in its theoretical constructions, largely a Catholic movement. In four decades it has become much more secular. Many of its leaders (not just in politics but in other fields) give scant evidence that their thinking on public policies has been formed by twenty centuries of Christianity.

I hope this answers your question.

Hart is at a logical impasse. Either the fertilized cell is a human being or it is something altogether different, as different as a frog, an antelope, or a cabbage. I suspect Hart knows this perfectly well. After all, he is a well-read and well-written man, yet he offers up an argument so sophomoric that many sophomores would see through it.
Moving on, Hart wonders what should be done with existing lines of embryonic stem cells. "It seems to me that the prospect of eliminating horrible, disabling ailments justifies, morally, using cells that are otherwise doomed," he says. "But," replies Ponnuru, "we would not kill one five-year-old child for the certain prospect of curing cancer, let alone the mere possibility--because the act would be intrinsically immoral."

Of course. Christianity always has taught that we may not perform an evil act even if some great good might flow from it. To Hart, the fate of a fertilized cell is determined by the principle that the ends justify the means. To Ponnuru, and to the Catholic Church, the applicable principle is that the ends do not justify the means.

Thank you very much for your reply.

Again, I couldn't agree more with your analysis.

And, yes, thank you, it answers my question, which was actually inspired by certain posts I've seen on FR castigating Alan Keyes for his comments on the President's decision on stem cell research.