As the embryonic stem cell debate over HR3 wages, political spin has approached absurd levels. Kathryn Jean Lopez via LTI Blog notes,
Rep. Diane DeGette (D., Colorado) said that her federal-funding-for-embryonic-stem-cell-research bill has the support of many of the freshman "self-described pro-life Democrats." She added, when pressed for names: "some have said they will vote for us and some have said they are thinking really hard about it."These wayward pro-life Democrats better get their act together and begin evaluating their position on the basis of the life principles they claim to affirm. Unfortunately, many on both sides of the political spectrum appear to be listening to those who falsely assert that human embryonic stem cell research is actually a pro-life activity, moral and deserving of their support. Sean Tipton, the president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research, contributed a column to the Pittsburgh Tribune which encapsulated many of the most common logical mistakes of this position:
In his column about Sen. Robert Casey, Mr. Novak automatically assumes that just because a member of Congress is pro-life, he automatically must be opposed to embryonic stem cell research.The problem so-called "pro-life" ESR proponents have is that they must provide an argument to support the proposition that killing a human embryo is pro-life and, consequently, moral.Most of America knows this assumption is a bad one to make and, fortunately, senators such as Orrin Hatch and Gordon Smith, as well as Reps. Joe Barton and Jo Ann Emerson, understand that the two are completely separate issues. They support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and can vote accordingly for what is right for America.
In fact, we believe that in the case of embryonic stem cell research, being pro-life means that one supports the quest for better treatments and cures for the 100 million Americans who suffer from cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries and other debilitating diseases and disorders for which stem cell research provides great hope
How is destroying human life pro-life? Well, you see, it has the absolute guaranteed certain possibility of curing diseases that afflict millions, the argument goes. And, curing disease and helping the suffering is pro-life. Therefore, ESR is actually a pro-life activity and those who stand in the way of this technological possibility are hypocrites they argue that the dignity of human life demands the protection of humans at every level of development yet are unconcerned about the truly needy.
The argument is bankrupt, full of fallacies.
There is the blatant and illegitimate redefinition of the term pro-life for the purpose of supporting the morality of ESR. Instead of the term referring to those who advocate the recognition and protection of the right to life, these pro-life politicians assert the "pro-life" label principally demands support for cures and technological advancements that will help the sick.
While there is nobility in seeking medical advancements, destroying humans in the process ought to set off bells and whistles in the minds of those who claim to be pro-life. [note: click here for a more thorough explanation of pro-life principles
No, the redefinition of the term "pro-life" does not lend any support to the assertion that destroying human life is moral.
Proponents of ESR also make an invalid appeal pity. Although compassion for those who suffer is a key motive within the pro-life community, the fact that many suffer does not support the moral assertion in favor of ESR. The bare argument looks something like this:
Bob: ESR is immoral because it involves the destruction of humans beings.The line of "reasoning" is fallacious because Sues appeal for pity does not serve as evidence for her moral claim.
Sue: But people who are really suffering could benefit from ESR.
Bob: Oh, ok then, it is moral.
Implicit in Tiptons column is the assertion that opposition to ESR cannot be pro-life because it could stand in the way of disease treatments and cures. This claim is also invalid because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. Specifically, pro-lifers believe that it is immoral to kill one human for the benefit of another. The fact that the consequence of this belief is viewed negatively by Tipton and others has no bearing on whether or not the belief itself is true.
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Tipton and others commit it by suggesting that those who oppose the destruction of human life in ESR must prove that their position is valid. For example:
Bill: I think we should use human embryos to cure life-threatening diseases.Rather than meeting his obligation to provide evidence for his position, Bill shifts the burden of proof to Sue, assuming his position is valid unless Sue can prove that it is not. In the process, he uses a Staw Man argument by misrepresenting Sues actual position (that killing human embryos is immoral).
Sue: I think that would be a bad idea, considering it will involve the destruction of human beings.
Bill: How can anyone be against saving lives?
Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) commits this very blunder in his unfortunate press release: HATCH: PASS H.R. 3, LET DOCTORS SAVE LIVES.
Although there are many more, Ill add a false claim to the list of errors. Tipton asserts that being pro-life and opposing embryonic stem cell research are separate issues. Later, he actually denies the very claim by suggesting support of ESR is pro-life. Nevertheless, the claim is false because the pro-life position supports the sanctity of human life. Since embryos are humans, the inherent pro-life position is that their lives should be recognized and protected.
Despite deceptive and, at times, absurd arguments, the pro-life position on human embryonic stem cell research is quite clear and follows directly from the recognition of the value and dignity of each human. Killing one person to help another is wrong and funding embryonic stem cell research is a violation of what it means to be pro-life.
In other words, Vote No on HR 3.
