Several prominent anti-abortion politicians, including Orrin Hatch and Bill Frist, joined the Senate majority in endorsing the public funding of embryonic stem cell research. To the casual observer it might appear that the arguments against abortion must be stronger than those against publicly funding the destruction of embryos. This conclusion, however, would be mistaken. The funding of destructive embryo research is actually worse than legal abortion.
Some might disagree, arguing that the continuing identity of a developing being means that embryo research cannot be better or worse than abortion. The politicians are wrong to say it is not as bad as abortion, but it is also wrong to say that it is worse. “All stages of life are stages of the same being. Each of us was once a human embryo. Each of us is just a human embryo that has grown up. And we have been alive the whole time we have been growing and developing—that is, since fertilization. If one of us had been killed at any time before we were born, a human life would have been lost. So abortion and lethal research on embryos are equally bad.”
Others might argue that, if there is any difference, abortion is the worse of the two. For abortion involves not only killing but betrayal. In abortion, parents destroy an unborn child entrusted to them, who depends on them, a child whom they have a moral duty to nurture. By contrast, the scientist who dissects an embryo is not harming his own offspring. He wrongs life, but not necessarily the family. So how can one possibly contend that embryo research is worse?
Dehumanization
Let us take a closer look. Someone choosing abortion need not be completely set against life. She typically does not want abortion with all of her heart. Rather, she is filled with desperation and panic. She often has been, or fears she may be, abandoned or harmed by one or more persons whom she herself has trusted. Even if her fears are not so great that moral culpability is absent, she is not fully an enemy of her unborn child. She may profoundly regret what she feels compelled to do. If only the circumstances were better, if only she had enough support, she would let her child live.
The abortion provider, of course, is not under such duress. He is not pressured by circumstances to perform abortions. And yet, in a sense, he too is only contingently against new life. He performs abortions only because his clients ask him to do them. By contrast, for the sake of future cures, the scientist seeking funding for embryonic stem cell research is eager to destroy life—and convince the public to pay for it. His lethal aim is not even contingent in the sense that “if only there were another possible route to cures,” no embryo killing would occur. There is, in fact, a shorter route, via adult stem cells. Would-be embryo researchers demand to be carried by the public down the longer and more uncertain path.
Moreover, almost all abortions aim to preclude an “unwanted child.” Of course, this is profoundly contrary to the care owed by parents, as has been mentioned. But abortion paradoxically reaffirms the very parent-child bond that it betrays. The fetus is unwanted precisely as a child who must eventually be cared for by her parents. They fear and reject her because she is their own offspring. Because she is their child, they feel a duty to care for her if she lives. Therefore, so that they may escape this duty, she must die. Both a parental relationship and a parental obligation are acknowledged by the act of abortion. Therein lies its tragedy.
Embryonic stem cell research, by contrast, is wholly dehumanizing. When parents turn the living human embryos they have begotten over to science, they not only forget them as children but also turn them into commodities, donate them for eventual body parts. The embryos become wholly instrumental, they become resources to be calculated and consumed. They are degraded before they are destroyed. Like human embryos created by cloning, they do not die as unwanted children, or even as human beings, but as things to be used and used up. No greater negation of human dignity is possible.
The End of Choice
Lastly, tax-funded embryonic stem cell research is worse than legal abortion for our public community. Legalizing abortion is not quite the same as desiring abortion. It is logically possible, even if unjust, for a legislature to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice, just as people could once be anti-apartheid and yet defer to the sovereignty of South Africa.
By contrast, no one in favor of funding embryonic stem cell research can say “I’m not for killing embryos. I’m just pro-choice.” Such legislators want human embryos to be dissected. Stems cells must be extracted. In states like California and New Jersey, where embryonic stem cell extraction is funded by the public, the law can no longer be labeled even euphemistically “pro-choice.”
Even where abortion is publicly funded, the government does not insist on death. No officials are angry if funds previously allocated to subsidize abortion are left unused because women have freely chosen life. The abortion-related equivalent of embryonic stem cell funding would involve using taxes to pay women to abort their children, as part of scientific experiments aimed at distant and uncertain cures.
If you are interested in the subject of criminal punishment, here is a must-read for you: a review (from Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews) by Jeffrie G. Murphy (Arizona State, Law and Philosophy) of William Ian Miller, An Eye for an Eye (Cambridge 2006). Click here. _______________ mp
Some of our sisters and brothers (more often, the latter) commit horrible crimes. Yet, we believe that even they have inherent dignity and are inviolable.
Can it possibly be that a punishment of solitary confinement for life is consistent with the dignity/inviolability of any human being? Or is it, instead, a form of torture?
If this question interests you, you may want to read this report, in today's New York Times. _______________ mp
In addition to the language from Solicitudo Rei Socialis that Tom cites, Economic Justice for All says the following about the evil of excessive economic inequality, as such:
185. Catholic social teaching does not require absolute equality in the
distribution of income and wealth. Some degree of inequality not only is
acceptable, but also may be considered desirable for economic and social
reasons, such as the need for incentives and provision of greater rewards for
greater risks. However, unequal distribution should be evaluated in terms of
several moral principles we have enunciated: the priority of meeting the basic
needs of the poor and the importance of increasing the level of participation
by all members of society in the economic life of the nation. These norms
establish a strong presumption against extreme inequality of income and wealth
as long as there are poor, hungry, and homeless people in our midst. They also
suggest that extreme inequalities are detrimental to the development of social
solidarity and community. In view of these norms we find the disparities of
income and wealth in the United States to be unacceptable. Justice requires
that all members of our society work for economic, political and social reforms
that will decrease these inequities.
We've discussed the Catholic Statement of Principles signed by 55 House Democrats. A transcript has now been posted of a Pew Forum event held last month in which Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the Statement's organizers, talked extensively about the perspective, purpose, and direction of the group. I won't provide an excerpt because the whole thing is a good read, with insightful (and occasionally skeptical) questions and comments from E.J. Dionne, Michael Cromartie, Jim Wallis, and lots of reporters.
MOJ-readers may be interested in this fine article by Howard Lesnick, who is Jefferson B. Fordham Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania: The Consciousness of Religion and the Consciousness of Law, With Some Implications for Dialogue, 8 Univ. of Pennsylavania Journal of Constitutional Law 335-354 (May 2006). _______________ mp
A new study by researchers at Cornell finds that "one-half of all cohabiting unions end within a year and 90 percent within five years," and concludes that the "common view of cohabitation as a steppingstone to marriage needs to be seriously questioned."
Here is a disturbing vision of the paternalistic welfare state becoming the laissez-faire warehouse state. Seattle operates a housing facility for hard-core, homeless alcoholics. It's entirely taxpayer-funded, and residents can drink as much as they want to:
Each [resident] had been a street drunk for several years and had failed in at least six attempts at sobriety. In a controversial acknowledgment of their addiction, the residents - 70 men and 5 women - can drink in their rooms. They do not have to promise to drink less, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings or go to church.
In 2003, the public spent $50,000, on average, for each of 40 homeless alcoholics found most often at the jail, the sobering center and the public Harborview Medical Center, said Amnon Shoenfeld, director of King County's division of mental health and chemical abuse. . . . the annual cost for each new resident of [the new facility is expected to] be $13,000, or a total of $950,000.
The mindset of this program strikes me as wildly inconsistent with human dignity, providing a stark reminder of the distinction between individual autonomy and human flourishing. Basically we're warehousing alcoholics, content to let them suffer and die with their disease, in order to lessen the burden on the taxpayer. Are folks who are leery of the state funding faith-based personal transformation more excited about this as an alternative?
Rob
UPDATE: Incoming St. Thomas law student Abby Johnson has a different reaction:
I wonder whether programs that put stipulations on care are really the most humane way of addressing these issues. Let's say Joe has tried 10 times to give up alcohol and failed every time. He's homeless, sleeping on grates and scavenging food where he can, he has liver cancer and diabetes, and he's weeks from dying. Treatment programs are out for him, since he has provided no indications that he's really willing/able to kick his addiction. What's the better course of action for him, to give him a roof over his head for a short time along with some medical care, or to let him live out the rest of his days on the streets until he succumbs to his diseases?
Here is a copy of the President's remarks, on the occasion of his veto of Congress's bill authorizing funding for increased embryonic stem-cell research (and his much-less-noticed signing of a bill authorizing increased funding for other forms of stem-cell research). Here is a bit:
Like all Americans, I believe our nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibility that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. We have opportunities to discover cures and treatments that were unthinkable generations ago. Some scientists believe that one source of these cures might be embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells have the ability to grow into specialized adult tissues, and this may give them the potential to replace damaged or defective cells or body parts and treat a variety of diseases.
Yet we must also remember that embryonic stem cells come from human embryos that are destroyed for their cells. Each of these human embryos is a unique human life with inherent dignity and matchless value. We see that value in the children who are with us today. Each of these children began his or her life as a frozen embryo that was created for in vitro fertilization, but remained unused after the fertility treatments were complete. Each of these children was adopted while still an embryo, and has been blessed with the chance to grow up in a loving family.
These boys and girls are not spare parts. (Applause.) They remind us of that is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research. They remind us that we all begin our lives as a small collection of cells. And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals.
The Wall Street Journal op-ed page today has a piece a with an uncharacteristic topic: growing income inequality, which the author calls potentially "the mother of all electoral issues." The author, investment-banking and media mogul Steven Rattner, writes that one can't deny "the failure of robust top-line growth in the U.S. economy to filter into the wallets of Americans below the top of the pyramid. . . . From 2000 to 2005, for example, average weekly wages for the bottom 10% dropped by 2.7% (after adjustment for inflation), while those of the top 10% rose by 5.3%."
This reminded me of the MOJ discussion a few months ago, in which Rick asked,
why, exactly, is [growing income disparity] a problem? If we put aside -- just for the sake of discussion -- entirely appropriate concerns about, for example, a consumption culture that is fed by images of the super-rich on spending binges, or about whether those at the low end of the scale (or in the middle, or at the high end, for that matter) are being compensated justly, and just ask about "income disparity" . . . why, from a CST perspective, is this objectionable?
Catholic social doctrine clearly regards some level of income disparity as the inevitable product of morally commendable freedom and initiative; moreover, you obviously can't identify a precise point at which income disparity becomes too great. But let me try a few suggestions why large and growing income disparity may be ground for concern in itself, and not just as a symptom of other things like a high poverty rate.
One is that great disparity seems likely to make it harder for people to practice the value of solidarity, that is, "see[ing] the 'other'-whether a person, people or nation-not just as some kind of instrument, . . . but as our 'neighbor,' a 'helper'(cf. Gn. 2:18-20), to be made a sharer on a par with ourselves in the banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God." Solicitudo Rei Socialis, para. 39. Again, this is not talking about equal results; but the more that different classes of people lead entirely different lives determined (heavily at least) by income -- with radical differences in housing, schooling, neighborhoods, work, leisure, transportation, and almost everything else -- the more they will find it hard to sympathize with each other (especially the rich to sympathize with those of modest means). Around the time of our discussion last year, Michael Kinsley wrote about threats to "the role of civil equality as a consolation prize for economic inequality":
[W]hole areas of life that were part of everyday democracy have fallen to the empire of money. People increasingly go to schools with people of their own class, live in class-sifted neighborhoods, hold their Fourth of July picnics in their own back yards rather than the public park.
Of course Catholic doctrine calls on all people to develop empathy across the lines that will always be there. But realistically, people will find it harder to do so when income and life-condition disparities are really large. This effect seems independent of what percentage of the population falls below some absolute measure of poverty.
Related to this is that greater income disparity can make it harder to have economic and social mobility. The further you have to go to reach a different class, the harder it is. And I would presume, though I don't have time to get the cites right now, that mobility is a positive goal in Catholic social doctrine with its emphasis on opportunity and full participation by all in economic life. There are studies showing that we now have less intergenerational mobility than we thought and less than many other developed Western nations. (And don't get me started on the estate tax.) I don't deny that the effects here may be complicated; I can imagine that a more laissez-faire economy that produces greater income disparity can promote greater mobility in some situations. But the evidence suggests this is not always the case, and it seems to me that there is a prima facie reason for concern about large and growing inequality in itself.
Finally, there is a concern that relates to, but is distinct from, Rick's mention of "a consumption culture fed by images of the super-rich." It's the concern about "expenditure cascades," defined (in this paper) as "[i]ncreased expenditures by top earners . . . that resul[t] in increased expenditures even among those whose incomes have not risen." The author, Cornell economist Robert Frank, emphasizes that he is not talking about increasing spending caused solely by a psychological need to emulate the rich (the "consumption culture fed by images" to which Rick referred) -- which Christian doctrine might classify as envy that we ought to encourage people to overcome. Rather, increased top-end spending puts pressure step by step on people down the line for more concrete, objective reasons as well. For example, houses mushroom in size and price in the suburbs with the decent schools (which non-wealthy parents want for their kids too); huge Hummers or other SUVs on the road render a cheap or small car not just less fashionable but more dangerous; the suits you're expected to wear to be presentable in formal situations, or the gifts you're expected to give to satisfy etiquette, also balloon in luxury and price; and so forth. Nor, as far as I can see, are these increases even fully reflected by inflation measures, since we're often talking about new, higher-level goods, not simply higher prices for the same basket of goods. Several of these affect primarily the middle class, not the poor (at least not directly). But the paper argues, using regression analysis on the data, that higher income inequality in various areas produces significantly higher average home prices and also matches up with "higher personal bankruptcy rates, divorce rates, [a]verage commute times," and total hours worked -- all of them matters of real concern to CST. Cf. Elizabeth Warren's work on the relation of home prices to families' economic troubles. I'm no economist, but those interested in the issue might want to read the Frank paper, with his statistics.
