Doug Kmiec Wants Your Answers to Stem Cell Research and Life Issue Questions
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
Doug Kmiec and Robby George, two of the country's top legal scholars and Catholic conservatives, recently debated President Obama's executive order on embryonic stem cell research on this blog. George said the order pledged federal dollars for human cloning; Kmiec argued that it did not. Now Kmiec and George are in discussions to continue the argument in public, with a face-to-face debate. To help shape the debate, Kmiec has sent me a list of questions that he wants God & Country readers to answer. (Kmiec has asked George to respond to the same questions ahead of their debate.) Put on your thinking caps and prepare to do some soul searching. These questions are tough.
Kmiec also invites readers to submit their own questions for him and for George. "It occurs to me that your readers may have much to contribute on these matters," Kmiec said in an E-mail to me yesterday.
I've also asked George for questions and will post any that he sends along.
Here are Kmiec's questions for you:
Q. Assume we need a relatively clear answer to the question "When does life begin?" in order to avoid ethical arbitrariness and to show proper respect for the dignity of the human person. The Supreme Court, of course, has selected viability, but this is objectionable to many since it does not seem to be anything but an arbitrary point designed as a jurisprudential compromise. Since either fertilization or implantation is a bright line, is there a basis to decide between the two that is not dependent upon faith?
Q. As Professor George apparently conceded in our recent email exchange concerning the President's stem cell directive, different faith traditions answer the question of when life begins differently. Should respect for these religious differences and the human right of freedom of conscience affect how public laws treat abortion or embryonic stem cell research? If so, how should different religious perspectives be accommodated?
Q. To what degree does the Church teach that human dignity is traceable to man's "soul" or spiritual destination and does the Church have a view on when the soul enters the body? Is the Church's present view spiritual or scientific?
Q. Is it correct to posit that since the very existence of an immortal soul is not a subject for scientific inquiry, the question is a philosophical one?
Q. If you believe that the Church has consistently taught that human dignity attaches without reference to the soul or spiritual nature of the human person (i.e., ensoulment or its proof), but instead on the basis of objective scientific fact, where has the Church presented its scientific argument in detail in writing accessible to the lay body of the Church? [N.B., the recent admonishment of now Vice-President Biden during the 2008 campaign and the Catechism, I assume you would agree, do not present scientific argument, even as both announce scientific claim].
Q. If the question of when life begins depends on objective science, where has the scientific community confirmed that it overwhelmingly and definitively favors fertilization over implantation [or nidation]?
Q. If the scientific view in favor of fertilization is not unanimous or nearly so, why not?
Q. Do you believe the president's stem cell directive to have any justifiable biomedical research goals? If so, what are they, and how have you distinguished these goals from other goals that are without justification?
Q. As a matter of objective scientific fact, is there unanimous or near unanimous agreement that there is no difference between the destruction of a human embryo for the purpose of seeking a medical breakthrough in behalf of patients suffering from potentially curable, but presently fatal, illness and the taking of an adult life for the same purpose?
Q. If the President implements his announced prohibition against human cloning for the purpose of human reproduction by punishing those who purposively create human embryos by means of Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer with the objective of human reproduction, would that not amount to a prohibition on cloning for the purpose of human reproduction?
Q. Would you also think there would be a need—borne out of the desire not to directly or indirectly cooperate with evil—for the Catholic Church to advise the faithful against utilizing any pharmaceutical product or medical treatment regimen that has been advanced by SCNT involving a human embryo? If so, is there a need now for Church leaders to advocate strict disclosure requirements that will permit faithful Catholics to discern which aspects of medicine or medical treatment may or may not be pursued? Is such a limitation workable? To avoid material cooperation, would it be enough for a faithful Catholic suffering from cancer or Parkinson's disease to attempt to identify the pharmaceutical firms or research universities that the faithful should avoid patronizing or supporting?
Q. Does the difficulty of any of the above, or the lack of agreement in the scientific community on any of the above, or the general unavailability of the Church's scientific exposition on any of the above commend a disposition of discussion and inquiry among Catholics that is ill-served by the use of ethical condemnations premised upon propositions like "material cooperation"? If so, should greater latitude of debate and discussion be extended toward non-Catholic citizens?
Tags: abortion | religion | Catholicism | stem cells
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (45) | Print
Reader Comments
as succinct as possible
Life begins at conception. Viability shifts depending on medical advances. The start of life is fixed, not dependent on whether the fetus is alive in 1973 or 2009. A new human being is created at conception, a new member of the species. Faith and/or religion need not enter the debate when dealing with law. When life begins should be determined by the natural law. The natural law says conception -- a unique member of the species is created at conception. In terms of determining the Church's position, it is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of Church teaching. Read the documents that deal with it (e.g. the Catechism, Humanae Vitae, etc.). Ensoulment may be debated and has been, but the point is moot. Whether or not an embryo has a soul does not determine the time at which life begins. A new human life is created at conception. This is scientific fact. You can debate whether or not you think this life merits protection under the law or not; but the fact remains that it is a new unique human being.
Misunderstanding
Darcy,
I think you are simply misunderstanding the Catholic Church's position on the matter of abortion. The Church acknowledges that her position on the question of abortion does not rely on theological premises. It is simply an affirmation of a principle recognized through reason that ALL members of the human species should be treated with dignity and respect. Furthermore, the article you cite by Mr. Willis confuses another recognizable distinction between parts and wholes. The scientific criteria of when a human -organism- comes to exist is when it is a genetically distinct, whole organism. This is why a sperm is not considered an organism in the scientific nomenclature. The criteria you stipulate of a certain minimum level of brain function excludes members of the human community as a matter of level of development and implicitly adheres to a false dualistic position on personhood. Humans are not souls that inhabit bodies, but are the bodies themselves. Why bring up "ensoulment" when we both sides seem to agree that this should be resolved without appeal to theological premises? I'm not understanding what level of brain function you are stipulating. Clearly, the fetus has a brain with different levels of function throughout the pregnancy even before 6 months. Why suddenly posit that there must be a function x before he/she possesses the status of personhood? You seem to acknowledge that the unborn human is life of a certain sort. Again, human life - as in the life of a human organism - only possesses life of one kind dependent on the kind of organism that it is. A vegetable possesses only vegetative life not simply because of what functions it can exhibit at that point, but because it is a member of a species within the plant kingdom. I think both Beckwith and George have recently published books recently with Cambridge and Oxford presses respectively on this issue. It seems you are serious about thinking this issue through. I suggest you read those books. And, Boonin, a philosopher at UC, has recently published a book that advocates for excluding, as even he admits, some member of the human species from the human community, which seems to align to with your current position.
doug kiemk
I am not a christian but the 1st commandment is thou shalt not kill. Scientists have made a dazzling new discovery according to them even lobsters , crabs and shellfish feel pain and suffering. All life wants to live is a fairly simple observatrion but true.
advertisement
