With Sen. McCain’s win in New Hampshire there have been a bunch of posts in St. Blogs about McCain’s suitability from a pro-life perspective. Christopher Blosser posting at Catholics in the Public Square blog has another one of his good round-up posts on the subject.
As many know Sen. McCain’s pro-life voting record is quite good except for the glaring example of voting for and supporting embryonic stem-cell research. Christopher posts the following from McCain’s site.
Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology
Stem cell research offers tremendous hope for those suffering from a variety of deadly diseases – hope for both cures and life-extending treatments. However, the compassion to relieve suffering and to cure deadly disease cannot erode moral and ethical principles.
For this reason, John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes. Furthermore, he voted to ban attempts to use or obtain human cells gestated in animals. Finally, John McCain strongly opposes human cloning and voted to ban the practice, and any related experimentation, under federal law.
As president, John McCain will strongly support funding for promising research programs, including amniotic fluid and adult stem cell research and other types of scientific study that do not involve the use of human embryos.
Where federal funds are used for stem cell research, Senator McCain believes clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress, and that any such research should be subject to strict federal guidelines.
Some have said with the very pro-life Sen. Brownback supporting Sen. McCain that the Senator now has a more restrictive view on ESCR than what he once held. The question is what does the above statement mean in the real world. If he is actually against human cloning and the intentional creation of human embryos than how does this effect actual research?
One of the reasons that cloning has become the grail for promoters of embryonic stem-cell research is that there are immunological issues associated with putting cells derived from one person into the body of another. These are not minor considerations and one easily solved and are the primary reason that so-called "therapeutic cloning" from the patients own tissue is the primary focus. You don’t have immunological issues if a clone is made of yourself and they kill your twin to get embryonic stem-cells. Using large scale genetic engineering to modify embryonic stem-cells from other sources is highly dubious, if possible at all, and could very well introduce genetic mutations The other possibility is as in organ transplants is finding a good match for the patient and would obviously require a large supply of embryos to make practicable.
So if the Senator is against both cloning and creation of embryos then where exactly are the embryos suppose to come from that he can approve research from? If the statement is actually represents his belief the only alternative is so-called "leftover" embryos from In Virtro Fertilization. If this is the case why doesn’t he just say so. If this is his position it would make it identical to Gov. Mitt Romney’s in that he specifically only supports ESCR with embryos from IVF.
This is a position that has been staked out by other politicians and one that I think makes not only no moral sense, but also no practical sense. Leaving aside moral concerns of using these embryos, say for example that there were sufficient human embryos that were released by the parents for use in research and that this research actually led to actual cures using embryonic stem-cells. This would then create a instant demand for human embryo’s that could not be met by the supply provided from research as a result of IVF. So by supporting use of these human embryos for research you are really automatically supporting the demand for human embryos from other sources.
As a side note it really is I think surprising how IVF seemed to fly in under the moral radar in the first place with very little outcry over it. Once again is is only the Catholic Church that is consistent and she publicly condemned the use of IVF while for the most-part Protestants have no problems with it. I think it is unfortunate the the pro-life community has hardly touched on this issue and I have never heard of demonstrations outside of clinics where IVF is done. Here we have a case where multiple embryos are created and then several embryos are implanted into the womb in the hope that one survives. When too many (by their standards) survive than "elective fetal reductions" are performed. Then of course there are also the other human beings that aren’t implanted who are placed into the "freezer." It is because of IVF that we have had part of the temptations to use these persons. The argument being that they are going to die anyway so I guess we should harvest the organs of prisoners about to be executed or experiment on people with terminal cancer since they are also all going to die anyway. Though of course all of us are going to die anyway.
As for myself I have a host of issues with Sen. McCain, though if he was the GOP nominee is would support him against the Democratic candidate who will be not pro-life at all. For the primaries though I will vote for someone much more pro-life even if they are a Don Quixote candidate.
Sen. McCain on his site also says he will protect marriage though he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, though he defends this as a state’s rights issue. He did support Arizona’s proposition to outlaw same-sex marriage which was narrowly defeated.
This is another issue that annoys me among some of the GOP’s nominees. For example not supporting changes in the Constitution in regards to abortion and marriage. They say these are state’s rights issues only and should be left to each individual state to decide. It seems rather dumb to me that you could get married and then go across a state lines and have a marriage not recognized. But even if you could make the case for this when it comes to abortion we need to ultimately have Federal action done to protect life. Nobody now would accept a situation where slavery was once more condoned depending on the state. This was the situation before where slavery was legal in some states and outlawed in others. As a moral issue abortion is much worse than the great evil of abortion and to say it is only a states-rights issue is quite problematic. On a prudential level I will be quite happy if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the legality abortion once again be determined by each state since it is so much easier to fight against abortion at a state level. Ultimately thought anybody against abortion should see that the protection of life needs to be done at the Federal level. We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery and we should do the same for abortion. Murdering children is not a states rights issue.
18 comments
Rally around Fred Thompson. Huckabee is so similar to Hussein Obama and Hell-ary Clinton on the other issues.
We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery and we should do the same for abortion.
Yes, Jeff, but remember, the XIII Amendment only passed after 600,000 Americans were buried on battlefields from Cold Harbor to the Glorietta Pass. And it was ratified almost entirely by the loyal states. Before the War, such an amendment would have never achieved the 2/3 majority necessary for the state ratification process.
The “2/3” requirement mentioned in my previous post refers to the super-majority votes required for passage in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
mrp,
When such a time come as to when we can get a 2/3 vote and amend the Constitution we should. I am not saying it is practical right now but it must be a goal. And already over 46 million have died so far so the Civil War was not even close.
I think we need to rally around Huckabee. He’s the most sincere, formidable, pro-life candidate that has a chance.
As much as Huckabee is being maligned by many conservatives, I would have to agree with the previous comment about pro-lifers rallying around Huckabee. (Though I actually like Ron Paul much better, but I fear that he will not turn out to be a viable candidate.)
Is Huckabee really one of those “Young Earth” creationist types, though? As in dinosaurs and human beings roaming around together? I’ve heard it but don’t know if it’s true…
I much prefer Fred Thompson as a presidential candidate over Michael Huckabee. Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record and has been endorsed by the National Right To Life Committee. Huckabee, for numerous reasons besides his enthusiastic welcome at John Hagee’s Cornerstone Church, has severe problems as a GOP candidate.
Margaret-
No, Huckabee is not a “young earth” creationist, although like you I have seen that claim. For Huckabee’s position on creation, you may want to look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA
The heart of what he says here: “I believe there is a God who is active in the creation process. Now how did He do it, and when did He do it, and how long did He take? I don’t honestly know.”
On Fred Thompson, I have to say that to me he exemplifies exactly a problem this post points out. Leaving aside the fact that both McCain and Thompson in the past expressed reservations about overturning Roe v. Wade, their current lack of support for an amendment protecting human life logically implies that the abortion issue is primarily about states’ rights. Thompson, for example, has explicitly said that he thinks state and local governments should be able to make different decisions on the legality of abortion.
Regardless of whether an amendment is a realistic possibility at this moment (and it certainly will never become realistic without a president who supports the idea), opposing a human life amendment is seriously problematic because it carries this implication that the problem with legal abortion is a problem with respect for legal procedure, not a more fundamental problem with respect for human life.
Nobody ever informed me, until I was in my thirties, that the Catholic Church was against IVF or why. In consequence, I said some pretty stupid and misleading things, for which I am heartily sorry.
It’s not enough just to be on the right side. You have to let the footsoldiers know what side it is, and where to point the shooty things!
I think everyone agrees that life issues (and I’m including euthanasia and embryonic cloning) must be addressed in a regulatory manner. The questions arise in how and by what means these matters should be resolved. The Founding Fathers tackled the subject of life issues by relegating them to the individual states by including the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights (slavery, on the other hand, was addressed in the charter document). Huckabee, at last count, has endorsed four constitutional amendments. None of them have the least likelihood of passing Congressional muster, much less a 3/4 state ratification process. By pushing the life issues to the States and removing as much authority on these matters from the federal courts as possible is the most effective way of saving unborn and vulnerable life, in my opinion.
In the end, it’s not “support”/”Non-support” of ESCR.
It’s forcing Catholic taxpayers to PAY FOR IT that’s a crime.
And that’s a position that McCain adopted–until his flip (flop?) of this campaign.
“They say these are state’s rights issues only and should be left to each individual state to decide”
That doesn’t make sense to me, since the Constitution needs to mean the same thing to all states. We know now that a fetus is a living person. Therefore, we need to adjust the Constitution to reflect that knowledge. And we knew and still know what marriage means. No one guessed that anyone would try to redefine the institution by redefining the word. No matter how long it takes, and no matter what other fixes are applied, I think we need to amend the Constitution.
As to McCain, it’s possible that he just has some learning to do regarding ESCR, etc. It seems like his beliefs are too inconsistent to be intentional. He sure wouldn’t be my first vote, as is. If it’s between someone who is “pro-life” but still doesn’t understand that a “rape baby” is a person who deserves to live and a candidate who promotes the killing of all “unwanted” pre-born children, I’m unsure whether I’ll vote or not.
Joanne–
As a matter of pragmatism, I’d still go with the 90% pro-lifer over the 0%. 90% of a million+ abortions per year is an awful lot of babies.
Margaret, I don’t disagree with your sense. It’s just that I made a promise not to vote for anyone who’s not pro-life, ever again. And it is frustratingly true that whatever minimum we set as a goal becomes the maximum, at best, of the candidate.
The compromise is always a sacrifice of innocent lives.
Did you catch the theme of the 2008 March For Life? http://www.marchforlife.org/
Theme for March for Life January 22, 2008:
“Build Unity on the Life Principles throughout America.
No Exception! No Compromise!”
Now, I know Fr Pavone does not intend to break our brains with the voting guidelines, but my brain is getting more fragile by the day. My personal promise never made exceptions for “leftover” embryos and “rape babies”.
I, too, will not vote for someone who is anti-life. On the other hand, it just seems insane to me to refuse to vote for someone who is pro-life because they haven’t yet embraced every understanding and teaching of the Church.
My momma used to say, “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.”
Seriously, will we refuse to vote if it is McCain versus any of the Dems?
Br Clare-Vincent,
Good question. The choice gets dangerously narrow when a perfect understanding of ESCR and the intention of amending the Constitution (which does need to happen) is required. I think it narrows the field down to one, and that one makes me nervous.
Perhaps we should pray that the almost-pro-lifers will give up their exceptions. On the other hand, there has been so much scrutiny of their past views, that the misunderstanding may be on our part. It seems unfair to hold someone to what he thought five years ago. Less than five years ago I was conditionally pro-life too. Once you understand why there can be no exceptions, you don’t regress.