Minutes after President Bush’s veto of a bill from congress that would have provided federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, MSNBC published a vituperative response from one Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, titled: “Bush to stem cell community: Drop dead.”

He accused President Bush of having a policy on the issue based on “lies.”

An administration that has shown itself over and over again to have trouble telling the truth is now telling Americans in wheelchairs, those with damaged hearts, babies who are diabetic and those left immobile by Parkinsonism not to worry. The president, whose grasp of science left him unable to identify creationism as a fundamentally religious idea, and his trusty sidekick Karl Rove, rarely seen in a white lab coat but who knows something about rats, having been in Washington for some time now, claim to know best which medical research is most likely to benefit diseased Americans in the future.

Do you begin to sense that Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, might have a little more on his agenda than merely embryonic stem cell research?

No matter. Caplan poses a string of questions to the president that he apparently considers to be debate enders — i.e., that there are no answers President Bush could possibly supply to them. Well, let’s see if RWB might be able to oblige, at least for the most significant ones.

First, he questioned the compromise that President Bush arrived at in his decision of 2001, which allowed — for the first time — federal funds to support research on stem cell lines derived from embryos which were no longer alive.

If the president deemed it moral to use cell lines made from human embryos that had already been destroyed, then why would he argue that other embryos headed inevitably for destruction couldn’t be the source of new stem cell lines?

Perhaps President Bush considered it acceptable to pursue research on stem cells from embryos that had already been destroyed, because they had already been destroyed. Maybe Dr. Caplan can perceive the ethical difference between performing medical research on the bodies of those who have already died, versus killing people in order to perform research on their corpses. Caplan may characterize those other embryos as “inevitably” headed for destruction, but for any one individual embryo, such a fate is hardly predetermined. After all, President Bush, as he has in the past, met with several embryos today, at the White House, who were once on their way to the garbage, but ended up being adopted and born to loving families. Certainly, mathematics and practical reality suggest that the great majority of “excess” embryos currently frozen in fertility clinics will ultimately be destroyed. However, by the same token, all prisoners currently incarcerated in the U.S. will one day die. Shall we just go to town on them now with scalpels and chemicals and anything else handy — purely for the benefit of finding cures for the sick, of-course?

In fact, if the president was so concerned about the fate of embryos, why did he not speak out to close infertility programs around the country that destroy embryos?

Well, Dr. Caplan, as you’d probably be aware, there is currently no legal basis to close such programs. The question of the value of unborn human life was “settled” by Roe v. Wade, and “speaking out” against infertility programs would be a conspicuously pointless tack for a president to take. No one is against couples seeking fertility treatments — i.e. trying to have babies. Pro-life advocates would hope that such treatments could take place without the needless creation and destruction of human life along the way. Currently, the only motivation for creating so-called “excess” embryos is to have enough embryos to make the chances of a successful pregnancy better for couples who want to achieve it. The goal of pro-life advocates would be to advance that science so that “excess” embryos are no longer needed. Perhaps you might be able to discern, Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, how creating another use for “excess” embryos — as sources of stem cells and as treatments for motivated and vocal groups of ailing people — would remove any incentive to avoid creating “excess” embryos. And if you can’t figure that out, perhaps I might recommend Economics 101 at your local community college.

Why did he not try to shut down privately funded embryonic stem cell research?

Again, you might consider the notion of any legal basis for such action. And perhaps, Dr. Caplan, you can see the distinction between what people do with their private funds as opposed to what all of the taxpayers of America are compelled to finance. People can invest privately in gambling casinos, and in pornographic film production companies, and in lots of other fun enterprises, if they so choose — but when money is taken out of the checks of millions of ordinary Americans, perhaps you might concede that it is allowable that some moral or ethical considerations come into play. This is precisely what the president is saying:

If this bill would have become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. And I’m not going to allow it.

…

So, now leaving Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, behind: What did it mean that President Bush exercised the first veto of his presidency on this issue?

Think back to the election of 2000, when there was no war going on. The economy was beginning to go on the wane from its greatest heights of the 1990s, but few were really aware of that fact. There was every reason for the effective incumbent, V.P. Al Gore, to sweep to victory on the relative peace and prosperity of the Clinton years, not unlike V.P. George H.W. Bush before him, who rode to success on the public’s pleasure with the Reagan years in 1988. Clinton’s scandals complicated the scene, but Gore did his best to distance himself from all that. Yet, in an election that came down to a few hundred votes in Florida, the challenger, George W. Bush, won the presidency. You can point to any number of “single issue voters,” to make up that margin, if you like, but know this:

There were many, many voters who saw few practical distinctions between Gore and Bush but who believed Dubya when he committed himself to fostering a “culture of life” in America. For many of those voters, election day was simply about taking the opportunity to do the right thing — to vote for life, rather than against it, and rather than merely sitting at home saying “it doesn’t matter — they’re all crooks.” Dubya convinced enough of those voters that it did matter; that on this, above all other things, it made a difference as to who was in the White House. Make no mistake: those voters made the difference in Florida, and likely in other states too. On his very first working day as president, President Bush illustrated how it did matter on this issue as to who was in the White House, by issuing as his first executive order one which eliminated federal funding for overseas organizations that provide abortion counseling.

Since then, on this issue, President Bush has continued to demonstrate that it does matter who is in the White House. Today, by not hesitating to use the first veto of both his terms as president to defend the notion that the right to life is more fundamental than any other, President Bush has vindicated those who stirred themselves to vote for him before 9/11, before the War on Terror, before the Democrats became the party of Cindy Sheehan and John Kerry.

Nevertheless, I don’t believe that President Bush used his veto today in order to please those voters. After all, he will never have to stand for election again. I think he used his veto today because — just as many of us trusted at the time — he actually meant exactly what he said on this issue.

Today, President Bush gave an entirely coherent, honest and eloquent speech on this subject, and one that the mainstream media (and Arthur Caplan, Ph.D) will dutifully ignore. Read it all. Extracts:

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. 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.

…

Since I announced my policy in 2001, advances in scientific research have also shown the great potential of stem cells that are derived without harming human embryos. My administration has expanded the funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords, with no harm to the donor. And these stem cells are already being used in medical treatments.

With us today are patients who have benefited from treatments with adult and umbilical-cord-blood stem cells. And I want to thank you all for coming.

They are living proof that effective medical science can also be ethical. Researchers are now also investigating new techniques that could allow doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos. One technique scientists are exploring would involve reprogramming an adult cell. For example, a skin cell to function like an embryonic stem cell. Science offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life.

…

If we’re to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing, when necessary, to reject the wrong ways. So today, I’m keeping the promise I made to the American people by returning this bill to Congress with my veto.

As science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a nation demand that we resist this temptation. America was founded on the principle that we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with the right to life. We can advance the cause of science while upholding this founding promise. We can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology. And we can ensure that science serves the cause of humanity instead of the other way around.

It should not be forgotten that this was an issue that the Democrats ran on — and lost on — in 2004. And it will be an issue in 2008, whether commonly discussed in the media or not, in both the primaries and the general election.

George W. Bush made his promises, and he has kept them.

Good job, Dubya. May God bless and keep you always.

...................
Share this!

Posts which might be related to this one based on a mysterious algorithm:

• Stem cell successes and stem cell defeats
• An embryonic success
• The tide is stemmed