Breaking: Has McCain "softened' his position on embryonic research?

American Papist ^ | February 17, 2008 | Thomas Peters

[NYer]

Deal Hudson points out this Wired article published yesterday claiming that McCain has taken a "Sharp Right Turn on Stem Cells".

Hudson credits McCain's "shift" to the tireless work of Senator Sam Brownback. I directly asked Sen. Brownback about these ongoing efforts earlier this year, and wrote-up his answer here.

I think the jury is still out on this one, but judging by the reaction of pro-embryonic stem cell research scientists, I think there are more encouraging signs than before.

Therefore when someone from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute says that he reads McCain's statement as a "bad omen," I hear "good omen."

The substance of the Wired article is based on a single paragraph response that McCain recently made to the Sciencedebate 2008 forum on the question of stem cells (scroll down to question #8).

In a nutshell, McCain's position remains that he opposes the creation of new embryos for research purposes, but supports the use of already-existing embryos (for instance, "discards" from IVF-treatments).

What is new in McCain's position, or at least features prominently, is this language: "clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress." That's the qualification that has all the scientists skittish, along with McCain's reminder that he voted to outlaw a form of cloning currently allowed (SCNT).

Again, when the pro-ESCR scientists say stuff like this...

"McCain cannot be trusted to be a supporter of embryonic stem cell research," said University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Art Caplan. "He is moving toward a straight pro-life stance and this sort of answer can only be read as such."

... I hope to heaven they're right.

[NYer]

Ping!

[djrakowski]

I certainly hope McCain is coming around to the genuine pro-life position on this matter.

On Mark Shea’s blog, there are a number of otherwise conservative folks refusing to vote for him because of his past support of ESCR. Of course, if enough people do this, particularly in ‘battleground’ states, it could swing the election to Obama. I couldn’t live with that hanging over my head just to assure myself of purity on the pro-life issue. The stakes this time are just too high.

[frogjerk]

On Mark Shea’s blog, there are a number of otherwise conservative folks refusing to vote for him because of his past support of ESCR. Of course, if enough people do this, particularly in ‘battleground’ states, it could swing the election to Obama. I couldn’t live with that hanging over my head just to assure myself of purity on the pro-life issue. The stakes this time are just too high.

Remind them that they will be handing over the Presidency to man who wants babies to die.

[djrakowski]

Oh, many of us have tried. They fail to understand that only one of the two major party candidates are actually capable of winning this election, and thus votes for non-McCain pro-life candidates is essentially a vote for Obama. They’d rather remain ‘pure’ than limit the damage that would be done with the most pro-death candidate in this nation’s history in the White House.

And they’re going beyond what the bishops have said, too. I’ve read statements from Bps. Finn and Naumann discussing our duty to limit evil with our votes. It couldn’t have been more clear.

[diamond6]

Great point. We need to education them on this. Here is what I found on that point. Spread it around:

From catholicculture.org:

On Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates

by Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, DD

“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion.

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons strictly defined.

Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.

There is only one thing that could be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion, and that is the protection of innocent human life. That may seem to be contradictory, but it is not.

Consider the case of a Catholic voter who must choose between three candidates: candidate (A, Kerry) who is completely for abortion-on-demand, candidate (B, Bush) who is in favor of very limited abortion, i.e., in favor of greatly restricting abortion and candidate (C, Peroutka), a candidate who is completely against abortion but who is universally recognized as being unelectable.

The Catholic voter cannot vote for candidate (A, Kerry) because that would be formal cooperation in the sin of abortion if that candidate were to be elected and assist in passing legislation, which would remove restrictions on, abortion-on-demand.

The Catholic can vote for candidate (C, Peroutka) but that will probably only help ensure the election of candidate (A, Kerry).

Therefore the Catholic voter has a proportionate reason to vote for candidate (B, Bush) since his vote may help to ensure the defeat of candidate (A, Kerry) and may result in the saving of some innocent human lives if candidate (B, Bush) is elected and votes for legislation restricting abortion-on-demand. In such a case, the Catholic voter would have chosen the lesser of two evils which is morally permissible under these circumstances.

Of course, the Catholic voter could choose not to vote. But that would be a serious abdication of the Catholic voter’s civic and moral obligation to participate in the election. By not voting the Catholic voter could well be assisting in the election of candidate (A, Kerry) and while that would not carry the same guilt as formal participation in candidate (A, Kerry’s) support of abortion-on-demand it would still be sinful, even if only a sin of omission.

Those Catholic voters who love moral absolutes would have no choice but to vote for candidate (C, Peroutka), but those Catholics who recognize that in the real world it is sometimes necessary to choose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent greater harm – in this case harm to innocent unborn children would vote for candidate (B, Bush).

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi
Contact: Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi
Bishop Rene Henry Gracida - Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, 661-869-1000
Email: rhg1923@hotmail.com

[djrakowski]

Excellent... I’ve read +Gracida’s statement before, and it applies directly to the situation at hand. Believe me, though, myself and several others who are more persistent than me have been repeating this message for weeks, and they’ve failed to hear it.

Personally, I think they’re not only guilty of potentially giving the election to Obama, but of the sin of scandal as well (for convincing people to vote in the same manner).

And the problem I have isn’t so much that they’re going to vote for pro-life 3rd-party candidates (which seems to be allowed according to +Gracida’s letter), but that some of them have gone so far as to claim that it’s a sin to vote for McCain on the basis of his past support of ESCR. And that’s nonsense, especially since he’s shown a degree of willingness to reconsider his position on the issue.

There’s no way to come out of the voting booth completely clean. But there are ways to come out less dirty.

[MurryMom]

The official 2008 Republican platform reveals the party’s true intent of enacting even more drastic restrictions on ESC research up to and including a totalitarian ban on any federal, state, or commercial research involving embryonic stem cell lines. Change some terms, cross your fingers, quietly drop the word ‘embryonic’ and hope no one notices.

McCain doesn’t just hope you're stupid, he's counting on it to win in November.

[eclecticEel]

I only wish it were so, though I have yet to see McCain give any solid statement that he’s come to his senses. Perhaps as it becomes clearer that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary it will give him the perfect opportunity to shift to the right side of this issue; somewhat less than a bold ethical stand, but I’ll take it.