The Roman Catholic bishop of South Bend, Indiana will not be attending the graduation ceremonies at the University of Notre Dame because President Barack Obama will be honored at that time. Obama’s policies on embryonic stem-cell research and abortion conflict with Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life.
In his statement explaining why he wouldn’t attend, Bishop John D’Arcy noted that the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 2004 wrote that “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” D’Arcy said the measure of any Catholic institution is not only what it stands for but also what it won’t stand for.
CNN.com has the story, which is pretty straightforward until you get to the following paragraph:
Earlier this month, Obama reversed a federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Many scientists say the research could lead to advances in treating conditions like Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, while some abortion opponents believe destroying embryos in the research amounts to ending a human life.
Okay, where to begin?
1) There was no federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research. Scientists were free to destroy as many embryos as they wanted using whatever private and state funds they could find. There wasn’t even a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. President George W. Bush was the first president to federally fund stem-cell research that destroys embryos, although that funding was limited to only a couple dozen lines.
2) Do many scientists say the research could lead to advances in treating Alzheimer’s? And, if they do, is that accurate? Let’s go to this 2004 Washington Post story headlined “Stem Cells An Unlikely Therapy for Alzheimer’s:”
But the infrequently voiced reality, stem cell experts confess, is that, of all the diseases that may someday be cured by embryonic stem cell treatments, Alzheimer’s is among the least likely to benefit.
The story goes on to explain why scientists weren’t eager, during the restrictive Bush administration, to correct the “distortion”:
“To start with, people need a fairy tale,” said Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. “Maybe that’s unfair, but they need a story line that’s relatively simple to understand.”
You can read much more about how the media — and some willing scientists — hyped the Alzheimer’s claim without benefit of any science to back up the claims.
3) Notice how the story compares “many scientists” with “some abortion opponents.” As in: “Many scientists say the research could lead to advances in treating conditions like Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, while some abortion opponents believe destroying embryos in the research amounts to ending a human life.”
For the love of all that’s holy, this spin must stop. We’re supposed to believe that “science” speaks incontrovertible facts on the one hand while delusional folks, on the other, believe unsubstantiated bunk.
And yet in this sentence, nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists — when not playing the political funding game, at the very least — know that there is very little indication that the net result of embryonic-destroying research will be any progress with Alzheimer’s.
And science is how we know when the life of a new human being begins. And it’s not when you’re 18. And it’s not when you’re born, as anyone with access to a pregnant lady’s first trimester sonogram can tell you. Life is a continuum. And you may not think that individual rights are gained at the moment of fertilization or for months afterward, but that’s when a new genetically distinct, individual human life begins. That’s science. And this being science and all, you don’t have to be a pro-lifer to acknowledge that fact. You can also acknowledge that fact and believe, say, that the right of a woman to control what happens in her body must be held sacred. Or you can acknowledge that fact and believe that the government shouldn’t protect human rights until viability or birth. There are many different things philosophers, bioethicists and religious advocates believe about pregnancy — such as when rights or personhood begin — that science can’t determine for us. But when a genetically distinct human being is formed is precisely where science comes into play.
But other than those errors, that was a great paragraph, CNN.
 | Posted at 8:10 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (16) |
March 26, 2009, at 9:10 am
“For the love of all that’s holy, this spin must stop. We’re supposed to believe that “science” speaks incontrovertible facts on the one hand while delusional folks, on the other, believe unsubstantiated bunk.”
And if Nothing is holy, what then?
March 26, 2009, at 1:21 pm
Paragraph (1) deserves to be reprinted in every newspaper in the country. I have to wonder why people who know better have propogated lies about the Bush Administration restrictions on embroyonic stem cell research.
March 26, 2009, at 2:24 pm
Other data very hard to find anywhere in the MSM is the fact that despite billions of dollars of private and state investment in the United States alone embryonic stem-cell research has not yielded any worthwhile positive results. On the other hand “adult” stem-cell research has already proven successful in treating 70 diseases including autoimmune and degenerative joint diseases, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, spinal injury, and Type 2 diabetes. In fact, there are doctors on record calling “adult” stem-cell research “obsolete.” (Including a former president and CEO of the Red Cross.)
So why aren’t there more stories or columns at least raising questions like: ” In the decision what was the role of feeding federal funds to medical research that might be as much pork oinking as the notorious ‘Bridge to Nowhere?’” Or what role did abortion advocates play in the decision—seeking a propaganda victory through the way the MSM would certainly play the story???
March 26, 2009, at 2:34 pm
Deacon, I’m a Type 2 diabetic and I sure haven’t heard of any adult stem cell therapy for it.
March 26, 2009, at 2:55 pm
Dave, I too am a Type 2 diabetic. The treatment was not described in the editorial I read, but was in a list published in it to make the point that money going to “adult” stem-cell research has been money well-spent and productive— clearly promising future success if money is sent in that direction. And—aside from pork politics—federal grants are usually sent in the direction where the most success is promised. But, it looks like stem-cell research will be financed differently.
I’m on metformin, but some of my friends with diabetes are taking other medications, some apparently new. Possibly as a result of adult stem-cell research. But clearly not from embryonic stem-cell research as even the MSM that I have read has mentioned (in passing) that, in spite of all the money already spent) tumors and cell incompatibility seem to be the hallmarks of embryonic research.
March 26, 2009, at 3:15 pm
Deacon, I’m on metformin and glypizide, happy to have been on pills 14 years and not yet having to shoot up insulin, and I hope the same persists for you.
Parkinsonism, diabetes and spinal injury are mentioned so frequently in discussion of hoped-for stem cell therapy because they know exactly what cells they want to gin up — the subtantia nigra, the islets of Lanjerhans and the severed neurons, respectively.
Perhaps the media should learn the difference between a cure that seems obvious and a cure that will arrive soon.
I repeat my earlier statement: I’d much rather be treated by my own cells because I don’t want some woman to have to go to the risk and inconvenience of giving up an egg. She’s not the patient; I am.
March 26, 2009, at 4:04 pm
It is easier to take pot shots at religionists and side with so called science when you neglect to provide scientific data to support your analysis.
Too bad CNN can’t possibly dig a little deeper.
Thank you Molly for another nicely written critique.
March 26, 2009, at 5:31 pm
We have to be careful not to be overly simplistic about the actual science involved. For example I found this at the end of a story about adult stem cells:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090326/hl_nm/us_stemcells_safety_1 (iPS are pluripotent stem cells).
The comment about stem cells not only being used to cure disease but also to test drugs should be noted since that point is typically overlooked in the debate.
It once again illustrates how people should be cautious in, as a friend likes to say, leaping to contusions about what science is or is not saying.
The moral and ethical dimension to the science is something else, of course.
And, as I pointed out in the prior topic, there is quite a bit of disagreement about what it means to be a human person just as there is controversy about when death occurs. So I have to disagree with the use of science here since science can’t be used to make a judgment about what constitutes a person. Just one example from the prior post reference: if death occurs when the brain dies, then some assert that a human person starts to exist when the brain starts functioning. So, I could argue that science says that an embryo becomes a “person” when his or her brain starts functioning and not before.
March 26, 2009, at 6:42 pm
Jerry,
Two things. One, it’s interesting, again, that no media reported on President Barack Obama’s lifting of federal funds for alternative stem cell research.
Two, as you note, though, personhood is not a scientific term. Some people believe personhood begins as late as sentiency or a few years of age.
The point isn’t to use science to determine personhood or ensoulment or anything else philosophical or religious. But science does tell us when a genetically distinct human being is performed.
Typically the media act as if abortion opponents are talking about personhood when they’re talking about the science of human life.
It reinforces the media’s “science vs. wackos” meme, but it’s not fair.
March 26, 2009, at 7:57 pm
I really, REALLY, REALLY agree with you on this point. I’ve personally seen media bias toward sensationalism and I’ve seen groups I’m involved with branded as being whackos because of the reporter’s bias.
The underlying issues are so important that they cry out for a thoughtful approach but finding that in the media is too often like looking for an oasis in the Sahara.
March 26, 2009, at 10:05 pm
The deconstruction of the media reports is interesting but I think that getting stirred up about it is naive. Political rhetoric is political rhetoric. “Cure for Alzheimer disease,” “sanctity of life,” “moral values,” “family values,” “Intelligent Design,” rainbows, fish. “Anti-abortionist” morphed into “Pro-Life” which became a powerful label and bumper sticker.
Whining about the liberal media and educational institutions forgets the significant contribution that conservative Christians made to the election of George Bush. (I think that, to some extent, he didn’t follow through with the promises he made but he did owe them a debt for his election.)
Jerry observes that
“The underlying issues are so important that they cry out for a thoughtful approach…”
It is sad that the “public conversation” is rendered meaningless by the political rhetoric and bumper stickers.
I don’t think that Bush was the first to fund embryonic stem cell research. His executive order restricted the funding to 21 stem cell lines that already existed just Obama’s executive order approves the funding of hundreds of other lines already in existence.
We’re not talking 1000s or 1,000,000s.
If we are against use of embryonic stem cell research is it a practical matter or is it a symbolic statement about the sanctity of life?
What about in vitro fertilization? what do you do with the “extra” embyros? Can you claim that none should be allowed to die because God created them or did we create them?
Are we passively or actively promoting “sanctity of life?” If removing one Siamese twin will allow the other to live do we actively sacrifice one? or do we passively allow both to die?
Where does the Biblical call for stewardship come in? How many who oppose embryonic stem research have adopted a special need child? a crack baby? Or even more important to those who have - would they provide respite care for those that have? The Colorado Community Church near me encourages adoption and being a foster parent.
If “we” claim an embryo she is carrying but wants to abort is an individual due legal protection would “we” pay her to carry the child to term?
More thoughts about 2001 election
http://ebenezeride.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-am-so-naive-2001.html
March 26, 2009, at 10:33 pm
[…] CNN on Notre Dame One myth-besotted CNN paragraph preoccupied Mollie at […]
March 27, 2009, at 3:28 am
Mollie you are fantastic i love your posts. You state things in a very clear, rational and lively way. Keep up the great writing!
March 27, 2009, at 2:24 pm
One of the things the MSM didn’t pick up, at least what I have seen, is D’Arcy’s consistency. He did the same thing a few years ago at another local university (St. Francis) in Fort Wayne, part of the diocese, when it invited a speaker perceived as being pro-choice (Dr. Nancy Snyderman). Bishop John D’Arcy was also one of the few, if not the only, bright spots in the whole clergy abuse scandal, having been sent to FW-SB by the infamous Cardinal Law after D’Arcy repeatedly blew the whistle on the behavior of pedophile priests in the Boston area, where he is from. He also is a strong advocate for the better screening of potential clergy.
His conservative stance in this case certainly did not happen in a vacuum, but is, rather, another example of his long-standing defense of orthodox Catholicism.
March 28, 2009, at 4:17 am
Mollie,
Thank you for separating the scientific questions from the ethical questions. Failure to separate them is a maddening pet peeve of mine, as it is crucial for a clear-sighted examination of the connections between the two.
March 29, 2009, at 2:16 pm
[…] For the first time in his 25-year tenure as bishop of the region that encompasses the famous Catholic university, Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop John M. D’Arcy said he will not be on the main stage during the university’s commencement ceremonies because of President Obama’s “long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred.… […]