The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Obama Proposes a Toast Print E-mail
By William Saunders   
Tuesday, 10 March 2009

In 1942, C. S. Lewis published The Screwtape Letters, advice from a senior “tempter” to a novice about how to confuse us poor mortals, which may be summed up in a single sentence: “Your job is to fuddle them, not to encourage them to think.”

In 1959, Screwtape appears again, in an essay titled, “Screwtape Proposes a Toast,” in which the senior tempter reflects on the state of the world and on what can be done to make it even worse. Those who listened to President Obama’s Oval Office address on March 9 lifting President Bush’s restrictions on stem cell research may be pardoned for thinking the old tempter has returned.

Under Bush, restrictions were placed on federal funding of research using stem cells derived from human embryos after August 10, 2001, the date on which he imposed the ban. But that was all – it was a ban on federal funding of research using those lines. It was not a ban on that research as such, which could still be conducted in any state (e.g., California) which did not ban it, and which could be conducted with state government or private funds. Nor was it a ban on research using pre-August 10 lines (though many of us felt it should have been), or on scientific research using other sources, such as adult stem cells, which pose no ethical concerns.

Far from inhibiting research, as Obama suggested, these restrictions, in the judgment of many observers, spurred scientists to seek ethical alternatives, resulting, a year and a half ago, in spectacular success when different teams of researchers, working independently, found ways to re-engineer adult cells to the embryonic state (these are called “induced pluripotent stem cells”). In other words, scientists can get embryonic stem cells now without destroying embryos. Thus, you would think, there was no need, from any perspective, to force taxpayers to subsidize a practice many find morally repugnant.

Not so, according to Obama. Bush’s policy, he said, created “a false choice between sound science and moral values.” Huh? Western civilization has always insisted there is a choice to be made, but it is not “false.” It is basic. From the Hippocratic Oath to the Nuremburg trials, we have struggled to maintain principles such as that the end does not justify the means, that we may not sacrifice some human beings for the benefit of others, that all human beings are of equal dignity. Science is not a god, but a good, and like every other good, it must be subject to ethical constraints. The Tuskegee experiments, the worldwide embrace of eugenics, and the forced sterilizations conducted in the United States, all of which took place during the twentieth century, should have made this point clear to everyone.

While Obama said he “respected” those of us (more than half of Americans) who feel embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong, whether on theistic, atheistic or non-theistic grounds, what his “respect” amounts to is this: he will force us to fund it.

Obama pledged that his administration would be “open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions.” If that was his intention, he got off to a bad start.

For instance, if he wanted, as he said, to be honest with the American people about promising treatments for Parkinson's, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, he should have announced that he was proposing increased funding for already-existing, proven treatments for all of these conditions – that is, research using adult, not embryonic, stem cells. What are we supposed to make of Obama invoking the name and memory of Christopher Reeve to suggest that embryonic stem cell research might help with spinal cord injuries, when it is adult stem cell research that has enabled some with such injuries to walk? (Don’t take my word for it; check out the scientific references at stemcellresearch.org).

Obama assured us his administration would never support the funding of “cloning for human reproduction.” He neglected to mention the obvious corollary – he will support and fund “cloning for research.” In fact, he doesn’t even mention cloning for research. Why? Because while cloning “for reproduction” simply results in a twin being born alive, cloning “for research” necessitates the killing of an embryonic human being, and he has already shown that his administration favors that by rescinding the Bush restrictions.

The facts are simple: human embryos are human beings; deriving stem cells from them kills them; doing so is utterly unethical; other sources for stem cells exist and are proven to help human beings; every kind of successful human cloning produces a living human being (whether in a Petri dish or a womb or a bassinet); the aim of human research cloning is not to produce a twin to walk the earth but a source to be exploited for stem cells through embryo destruction. Yet Obama evades all these facts. He demonizes President Bush, while misleading us about the true results of his own policies.

Like a certain tempter, it appears his aim is to fuddle us. He certainly does not encourage us to think clearly about what he is up to.

William Saunders is Senior Fellow at the Family Research Council. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he writes frequently on a wide variety of legal and policy issues.

(c) 2009 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (7)Add Comment
0
Mr.
written by Zachary Foreman, March 11, 2009
There's an even more basic question: cui bono? If adult stem cells are as promising, or more promising, than embryonic, then why court the controversy? For the same reason that IVF is pushed, to make the destruction of embryos acceptable. It is the "foot in the door" sales technique. If society accepts the "therapeutic" destruction of embryos, it's only a short step to accept abortion on demand. The life principle will have been undermined. Make no mistake--this is part of a calculated strategy.
0
...
written by B.A., March 11, 2009
Funny you should mention the Screwtape letters. The very thought has crossed my mind more than once. Is that a confirmation as some would say when another person has the same thought about the same person/situation? There is surely evil afoot. Our prayers can't be continuous enough, to be delivered from this confused and deluded regime.
0
...
written by William H. Phelan, March 11, 2009
Thank you for a very well done piece. Screwtape. Back when Christianity had something to say! This administration will be the make or break for the Church and for civilization. When I read pieces such these or when I hear Dr. Robert George (Princeton) speak, I am encouraged.
0
...
written by John Duckett, March 12, 2009
These disturbing developments, if they lull the minds of our brothers and sisters, could easily lead to the killing of the old and helpless who are no longer productive (taxpaying) citizens. If it becomes so easy and acceptable to destroy a beautiful baby, how easy will it be to order the disposal of those who are senile, incontinent, decrepit - yet equally helpless and equally loved by God? Boomers, beware - if we do not stand up for the children, they will not stand up for you.
0
...
written by Dominick C, March 14, 2009
Excellent! To the point for anyone to understand. I've concluded, based on basic research, that the only logical explanation for why the current administration is doing what it's doing in "running our country", is to implement the objectives of The Frankfurt School, a.k.a. The Institute for Social Research: 1) before socialism could come to power, Western culture will have to be destroyed, 2) people are oppressed, and through Christianity. See You Tube: The History of Political Correctness.
0
...
written by Andrew, March 21, 2009
Obama will preside over the largest slaughter of human beings since Stalin.
0
Fake
written by Fake, April 09, 2009
Too bad the Catholic Church is the worst hotbed for anti-Christian Pharisaic thinking on earth.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner