|
wish I could say that the president's speech to the nation on stem
cells was as good as I had hoped. It was in many ways a wonderful
speech, deeper and more philosophical than I have ever heard a president
deliver, unusually balanced and fair in presenting opposing arguments,
and clear in delineating both his own decision and the reasons for
it. It was, in addition, heartfelt and compassionate — toward
Nancy Reagan and to all families who have members suffering from
awful diseases or disabilities. That includes virtually all our
families.
I can even see how the president convinced himself, at the end,
that he had found a ray of daylight through the opposing arguments,
and arrived at a moral decision that seemed to him sound and seemed
also to be politically defensible before the country.
During the last months, I have heard many persons who think they
are very smart lay out their arguments on this question. Not one
of them did so thorough, many-sided, fair, and clear a job as the
president of the United States tonight.
At the end, though, my heart sank. The president tried to maintain
a position of principle but what he ended up doing, despite his
best effort, was giving away the principle and trying to limit its
application to the smallest universe he could. He put the Full Faith
and Credit of the United States Government behind the principle
of using human beings as a means to noble ends. He offered a reason
for doing this. The stem cells for whose use in experimentation
he commits federal resources come from embryos already destroyed.
Why not bring good out of evil, he argues, by now using these stem
cells, which will otherwise be wasted, to search for cures for awful
diseases? The outcome is not certain, but at least it's noble to
try. This is a lovely and tempting thought. The problem is that
when this source of stem cells runs out--soon--then those on the
other side will demand more stem cells from more embryos. The demand
for usable stem cells will swell enormously. This is particularly
true if good experimental results are obtained. But it will even
be true if they aren't — See, partisans will say, you were
too stingy, too narrow. You have ceded the principle, so now throw
open the whole range. The glittering utopia of science beckons just
ahead. Be alert to the beginnings of evil. It never comes under
the appearance of evil, but always under the appearance of the beautiful,
the promising, the idealistic, the pleasant. Stop it in its beginnings,
the ancient principle runs. The sooner, the easier the battle.
Politically, the decision may play very well among a substantial
majority. It is already clear that those on the Left whom you want
to attack it are attacking it, which will only reinforce those among
right-to-lifers who accept the president's obvious good will, often
deeply moving words, clearly articulated argument and patent depth
of feeling. The president's chief professional role, after all,
is to act as the chief political leader of our nation (and the free
world).
But I deeply fear the immense battles that lie ahead, and the gathering
of heartened foes, who will very quickly sniff out the weak point
and pry its own inner logic with all their force. It will take almost
superhuman strength now for the president to hold the new position
he has moved into, having surrendered the strongest ground.
That ground was a philosophical one, not a theological one, a ground
born of reason rather than of faith. One of its classic articulators
was Immanuel Kant. The president himself alluded to it in his speech,
in the line about not using human beings as means for even the noblest
of ends. You must never use a human being as a means. You must treat
them only as ends. To use stem cells obtained by killing living
human beings in their embryonic stage is still using them as a means.
It is not enough to say that the wicked deed had already been done;
that the embryos had already been killed. The purpose of the killing
was to obtain the stem cells. One ought not to implicate oneself
in that process, not even for the noblest and most beautiful ends.
One especially ought not to implicate the United States of America,
which Hannah Arendt once called humankind's noblest experiment.
For this nation began its embryonic existence by declaring that
it held to a fundamental truth about a right to life endowed in
us by our Creator. The whole world depends on our upholding that
principle.
Human beings very easily reason ourselves into taking positions
that end up having the most tragic of consequences, positions of
which we would never have approved had we seen those consequences
at that time. For the fruit of the tree of knowledge over yonder
appears to be very sweet, and we feel sure that if we eat of it,
then happy endings fit for a god will result. Those endings have
always turned to sulfur in our cheeks.
President Bush will now have to fight off roaring dragons to hold
on to the shrinking piece of ground he has left himself to defend.
Last night he spoke more eloquently than any president before him
in its defense. Maybe he can yet turn events around, and reclaim
the full range and depth of the principle he has often before enunciated.
Let us wish him the strength of arm of that uncommonly courageous
warrior saint of old, whose name he bears. He will need every ounce
of it.
|
