The Stem Cell Veto

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” US President George W. Bush said yesterday “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.” That, of course, came during his address on the need to ban embryonic stem cell research.

Except that it didn't. Rather, it came during his address on the need to veto a bill permitting the use of federal funds to undertake embryonic stem cell research. The conclusion, however, seems unrelated to Bush's line of reasoning. If the cells are sacred human life, then surely it's not okay to kill them in a privately financed manner. The nonsensical nature of Bush's position on this issue is old news, but continues, in my view, to be under-remarked upon in mainstream coverage of the issue. Years ago, he hit upon a goofy split-the-difference compromise and ever since then he's been wandering the country insisting that he's taking a bold stand of principle.

Comments

Why isn't Bush proposing murder charges for the fertility clinics disposing of unused, unwanted or "spoiled" embryos? Is failing to find someone to adopt and implant an embryo before it reaches its shelf life akin to neglect and abandonment?

Posted by steve duncan | June 21, 2007 11:12 AM

Taking nonsensical, bold stands of principle is sort of this president's forte.

Posted by ProfD | June 21, 2007 11:16 AM

And of course, if “Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” then capital punishment is unethical too, n'est-ce pas? And so is bombing when there is a significant chance of collateral damage in the form of dead civilians, oui? Oh, and that thing where cops shoot threatening suspects, that must be unethical too, mon ami? Or, mon Dieu, perhaps I am just a fool of the Enlightenment, expecting the application of logic by the wise leadership of the republic?

Posted by dcbob | June 21, 2007 11:20 AM

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,”

Isn't that his excuse for the war in Iraq, kill them over there so they don't kill us over here?

Posted by Chaz | June 21, 2007 11:20 AM

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” US President George W. Bush said yesterday “a nation founded on the principle that all human life is sacred.”
=========
So tell me again. How many Iraqi civilians have died since Bush's invasion to seize non-Existent WMDS?

150,000?

Posted by Don Williams | June 21, 2007 11:27 AM

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” US President George W. Bush said yesterday

So, wait, does that mean Bush just denounced pre-emptive war?

Posted by Gregory | June 21, 2007 11:32 AM

Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical

Interesting to know how Bush thinks this principle played out in his decision to go to war in Iraq. Of course, my assumption that Bush thinks about anything is probably a poor one.

Posted by Glenn | June 21, 2007 11:44 AM

Why are (my? all?) comments being held for approval? Blogofascist!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 21, 2007 11:49 AM

And of course, aren't we killing people in Iraq ("insurgents" and an unknown number of civilians) to save American lives? Does Bush love unwanted week old American fetuses more than real live Iraqi children?

Posted by Grogor | June 21, 2007 11:54 AM

Does Bush love unwanted week old American fetuses more than real live Iraqi children?

Yes, he does. Or, at least, his "base" does, so he claims to. Whether Bush loves anything other than his own power is debatable.

Posted by Glenn | June 21, 2007 12:00 PM

It's a perfectly reasonable compromise in the case of an activity a lot of people, but not enough to make a ban politically feasible, find morally offensive: Don't ban it, but don't subsidize it, either: That way the people who do want it can fund it outside the government, and the people who think it's immoral don't have to feel complicit.

The problem is that Bush can't describe it as a reasonable compromise, because he doesn't think his party's base would accept it on those terms. In this I think he's wrong, but he's got, if anything, a lower opinion of the average Republican than you do.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | June 21, 2007 12:02 PM

Then, there are the facts that Bush is an enthusiastic proponent and practitioner of the death penalty, as well as the instigator of the Iraq War.

The principal critics of Bush in the Media are not trained philosophers, looking for logical errors or systematic inconsistencies. No, our pundit class is made up of frustrated drama critics, interested mostly in art of public relations and whether Fred Thompson smells good.

What Bush says, in any public appearance, is a calculated attempt to elicit a desired range of emotional response from particular targeted demographics. His speeches make no more sense than a deodorant commercial, because they are not designed to do so.

A deeper question, of more profound importance for the country, is how and why the a substantial part of the voting public finds Bush's statement pleasing.

The "pro-life" segment of the body politic is mostly inconsistent, and thank goodness for that, or we would have more nutcases assassinating doctors. But, why? The Pope may be crazy, but he's not inconsistent -- you won't see the Pope protesting abortion one day and celebrating war or capital punishment the next. But, aside from a few overinvolved movement crazies, whose excessive committment to a cause has homogenized their belief structures, most Americans, who vote "pro-life" are also pro-war and pro-death penalty. Why doesn't anyone think it is weird that Bush, with blood-stained hands, is the pro-life President, followed by the "pro-life" religious right?

And, if the "pro-life" crowd is so little concerned, philosophically, with logical consistency, why does Bush have to take this particular stand on stem cells? Why can't he just come up with another weird jag in Bushian logic, which would not cost him with the political majority?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 21, 2007 12:04 PM

Philip Roth satirized this moral postion in the context of Nixon's anti-abortion stand and the My Lai massacre in Our Gang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Gang_(novel)

Posted by peep | June 21, 2007 12:16 PM

As other commenters have already pointed out, this "principle" is one that Bush has violated repeatedly in his stances on numerous other issues, not least of which is his decision to invade Iraq.

Is nobody in the press going to bring up this obvious contradiction? Shouldn't every president be obliged to provided sound reasoning for his decision, not superficial soundbites that don't pass the BS test?

Posted by Michael | June 21, 2007 1:23 PM

Isn't any pronouncement at all on the subject of 'ethics' from that man a joke? In a sane world, we wouldn't even know what that reptile says, because newspapers wouldn't bother to report it.

Posted by RLaing | June 21, 2007 1:26 PM

Is nobody in the press going to bring up this obvious contradiction?

No, nobody in the press is going to bring up this obvious contradition.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

Posted by Gregory | June 21, 2007 2:10 PM

Ahhhh...the vultures are out. While I do not disagree that there are obvious contradictions in President Bush's "ethical stances" across the board, the one thing that everyone here is missing is that it is un-Constitutional for the Federal Gov't to fund this type of research. It is not un-Constitutional to go to war (especially when Congress approves it), so say what you will about that. And what the media constantly fails to say is that there has so far been little or no evidence that embryonic stem cells will do anything that adult stem cells cannot already do. I applaud our President for doing something that so few in our country will do...and that's stand up for something and not let "polls" or Hollywood schmucks dictate policy.

Posted by KM | June 21, 2007 2:52 PM

I usually agree with your positions, however, I have had a similar discussion regarding abortion with some friends who are strongly opposed. Basically, they concede that all immoral acts do not need to be outlawed. Further, they concede that a reduction in the number of abortions achieved through other means is an appropriate goal of government. Think Clinton's abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" framing of the issue. Nevertheless, while they may not insist on legally enforced morality in all cases, they similarly can not accept the use of their tax money to cause an abortion.

The argument here is not a contradiction. Not making something illegal, is entirely different from using government funds to support an act you do consider immoral. By analogy, compare this to other conduct such as drinking and pornography. They do not have to be banned, but outright support or promotion with government taxes is a different question.

I personally find the theological argument against funding weak, but don't see it as a contradiction to argue against using federal funds to pay for it.

Posted by BobPM | June 21, 2007 2:57 PM

"And what the media constantly fails to say is that there has so far been little or no evidence that embryonic stem cells will do anything that adult stem cells cannot already do."

Well no Sh**! Research/funding has been halted on this type of stem cells. How can anyone provide groundbreaking evidence when they cannot study these cells do to lack of funding? Sounds like a nice little catch-22 to me. Besides, scientists in this field have always believed that these cells give them the best chances of curing disease. I always love when some desk jockey or even a holy roller with maybe a high school diploma gives their scientific opinion on a complicated issue beyond their knowledge of understanding. The sad thing is that these embryonic stem cells exist, and will continue to be thrown away and destroyed when their shelf life expires, instead of being put to a good use. This is not abortion; these embryos currently will never amount to anything more than trash!

As for Bush's position on this issue, it makes perfect sense. Don’t kill unborn babies when they can grow up one day and dye fighting for him in his war! These embryos can save thousands of our young men and women’s lives when one day they are fertilized and trained to be killing machines, sent to conquer the entire Middle East. Believe me, God knows Dick(less) Cheney and George Dubya had more important things to do when they were young and their country was at war. Just think, this could be the answer to future drafts. Who knows, maybe if we stock up enough of these “babies” we can one day match up man to man against China.

Posted by jf | June 21, 2007 3:35 PM

Re "The Pope may be crazy, but he's not inconsistent -- you won't see the Pope protesting abortion one day and celebrating war or capital punishment the next."
---------
Actually, the last two Popes have killed far more people than even George Bush.

Africa is the one place where more innocent people have died than in Iraq. The result of the AIDS epidemic and the genocides in Rwanda/Darfur driven by gross overpopulation.

Yet the Pope promotes such horrors by forbidding Catholics from using condoms.

Posted by Don Williams | June 21, 2007 5:08 PM

“Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical,” and apparently, not lucrative, either.

As many have noted, embryonic stem cell (ESC) research is not illegal. You just have to do it on your own dime.

If there were perceived to be huge gobs of money waiting for the pharmaceutical company that managed to first patent ESC-derived drugs, we would expect The Market (blessed be its name) to have provided us with tons of cures by now. After all, it's been over six years since Mr. Bush's first Big Veto.

But there's been nothing. Maybe Big Pharma isn't actually into actual research anymore - just rejiggering old formulas to reset the patent dates, or finding new ways to grow hair on bald surfaces, or firm up flaccid organs, or inventing new medical conditions with questionable drug-based "cures."

Maybe it's the thought that ESC techniques could actually cure medical conditions that have been providing a solid bottom line via expensive palliative measures extending over decades of a patient's life. Have you noticed how many of the new drugs are "maintenance" measures now? Whether it's lipid control, antihistamine, diabetes treatment - you have to keep on taking the drugs for the rest of your miserable life. You can't just get cured.

Little doubt about it - there's probably not enough money in embryonic stem cell research. Which is not the same as saying it couldn't do tremendous good.

Just for the wrong people.

Posted by Zandru | June 21, 2007 8:15 PM

Blaming the Rwandan genocide on overpopulation (as a way of attacking Catholicism?) is breathtaking. I mean, wow.

But poor reasoning by Matt, who surely doesn't think that Presidents should ban everything they think is "not okay", or that the "I think that's wrong, but I respect your freedom" view is nonsensical.

As for capital punishment and war, one musto address the slippery "innocent" qualifier to make any headway in this.

Posted by nolaboyd | June 21, 2007 8:25 PM

Re "Blaming the Rwandan genocide on overpopulation ... is breathtaking. I mean, wow. "
-------
So "breathtaking" that Jared Diamond spent an entire chapter in his recent book "Collapse" arguing this very point.

Posted by Don Williams | June 21, 2007 11:12 PM

PS I don't attack "Catholicism" -- I attack the last two Popes. Their papal fallibility, actually.

Posted by Don Williams | June 21, 2007 11:15 PM

JF...you still missed my point. Federal funding for ANY type of research that voluntarily (and I can hear the military-funding fanatics screaming down the hall now) destroys a life is illegal according to Constitutional law. Regardless of the ethical and/or moral reasoning that GW gives for the veto, the fact is that it's outright un-Constitutional.

And quit dragging the stupid war into this. The war is not the topic, illegal Federal funding for unfounded research is. (But I guess that would depend on your definition of what "is" is, right?)
Stop using every single thing that this President does and says to bolster your opinion of the current war in Iraq.

Now, on to the topic...Of course the embryonic stem cells exist. And yes, they're getting "thrown away" every day. But how dare you blame that on the lack of Federal funding. There are billions of dollars already poured into ESC research that produce little or nothing in the way of true medical advancement. This is not an issue of whether or not ESC might or might not be the "magic bullet" but it's an issue of whether or not the private medical companies who stand to make billions in profit can coax the taxpayers into shouldering the costs.

I applaud President Bush for standing up for what is right in face of his sinking "approval rating" and the whining of Hollywood darlings. Do some research on the clinical findings from the privately funded ESC projects versus the privately funded ASC projects and you might learn something. ESC promises are not all the media wants you to think they are.

Posted by KM | June 21, 2007 11:37 PM

I know this thread is dead. And I know I shouldn't ask anyway. But still, I can't help it. I just have to know what the crackpot theory KM has that makes federal funding of stem cell research "un-Constitutional."

Posted by Glenn | June 22, 2007 9:48 AM