The Doctor’s False Prescription
by Father Michael Madden

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete — yes, immature — but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science. — Senator Bill Frist, July 29, 2005

I admit I should have paid more attention in science class, but Bill Frist must have snoozed through philosophy.

In a lengthy speech on the Senate floor, the majority leader announced his support for a pending bill to expand federal financing for embryonic-stem-cell research. Mr. Frist’s support is considered pivotal in gaining passage of the measure, which faces an almost-certain veto by President Bush.

The stem-cell-research debate is a complicated one. People can grasp the pros and cons of building a new school or renovating downtown, but faced with an issue as technical and intricate as constitutional law or modern medicine, most of us keep our mouths closed because we don’t have the background and expertise to grasp fully, let alone discuss intelligently.

And so we turn to the so-called experts. Senator Frist, for example, is a heart-lung transplant surgeon to whom his Senate colleagues often look for advice on medical matters. No doubt Mr. Frist’s stand will carry a lot of weight on Capitol Hill and sway a lot of minds.

But as reasonable as his Senate comments might have sounded (Senator Frist's speech given to the Senate.), you have to question a thought process that moves with facility from acknowledging that an embryo is human life to advocating its destruction in the name of science.

A large part of the problem in the current debate on embryonic-stem-cell research is that, as with the issue of abortion, emotions tend to steer policy-making, to the exclusion of objective moral law and justice. Our senses don’t allow us to view an embryo in a laboratory as a human being, as they would a person we encounter on the street, and therefore our senses lead us to the conclusion that there’s nothing wrong with doing to that embryo what we would never countenance doing to a person we meet on the street.

But our senses would be leading us erroneously. As Senator Frist rightly recognizes, an embryo is a human life, and that protects it — or should be enough to protect it — from anything we might want to do with it in the name of science or expediency. That an embryo is a human life is a fact of science and also a matter of faith, which begins with the truth that when God creates life, it is forever.

Far more instructive for the national debate than the Senate Majority Leader’s faulty reasonings are remarks by Dr. Janet Smith at an educational forum sponsored by the Connecticut Catholic Conference earlier this year (Dr. Janet Smith's Comments.).

In a talk entitled The lame shall walk: Who can be against Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Dr. Smith lays out a cogent case against further federal funding, minus the emotional rhetoric that has figured so prominently in the push for pending legislation. It is well worth reading in its entirety and provides much clarity and understanding about this complicated issue.

This is a critical issue with serious ramifications for our future as a nation. Civilization never leaps into barbarism. It ends up there by a series of small steps, steps that often appear rational, reasonable, and even compassionate, but steps that end up leading in an entirely different direction. Not even those keen legal minds on the Burger Court, when they discovered a right to first-trimester abortion thirty-two years ago, could have envisioned its expansion to the moment a baby first opens its eyes on the world.

Decisions are going to be made with or without us. We need to start doing our homework, stop relying on the “experts,” and start making our voices heard.