Speech Notes

 Ethics at the Beginning of Life

Notes for an address to the

Wyoming, Ontario

25 January 2002

Madame Chairman, Father Paul Nicholson, other members of the clergy, ladies and gentlemen. I am honoured to have been invited to speak to you on the most vital issue of our times -- upholding the sanctity of human life within a culture of death. While there is much to be said on this multi-faceted topic, I will focus on one aspect -- the debate over human cloning and embryonic stem cell research.

On 21 January 2002, William Safire considered this issue in his weekly column for The New York Times. Safire is usually astute. On this occasion, he was sadly confused. He summed up his position as follows:

How, as pro-lifers, should we talk to our neighbours about this kind of argument? To begin with, let us review some of the facts of reproductive biology. To clone a human being, genetic material must be removed from an unfertilized human egg and replaced with genetic material from a body cell of the individual to be cloned. That individual could be the woman herself or some other person; he or she could be young or old, dead or alive. If cloning succeeds, the resulting human being will have exactly the same genetic composition as the person who has been cloned. In the case of reproductive cloning, a cloned embryo that has been created in the laboratory is implanted in the womb of a woman who wants to give birth to the baby. In the case of therapeutic cloning, stem cells are extracted from a cloned embryo for the purposes of research. Some scientists think it might be possible to induce embryonic stem cells to grow brain cells, nerve cells, muscle fibres and other tissues for transplantation without rejection into the body of the cloned patient. Such therapy could provide a cure for everything from Parkinson's Disease to quadriplegia. That's why Christopher Reeve is especially keen on this research: He hopes that spinal cord tissue derived from the stem cells of a cloned embryo of himself will be the key to coming up with a cure for his terribly crippling paralysis.

What, then, is the ethical dilemma? Why should science not proceed with such extraordinarily promising, potentially life-saving and life-enhancing, embryonic stem-cell research? The nub of the problem is that the extraction of embryonic stem cells kills the embryo. That consideration is of little concern to Safire: He is sure that the creation of cloned human embryos for the purpose of harvesting their stem cells will soon, "become law and policy," despite the objections of people, "who believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization."

Note Safire's reference to people who "believe" that life begins at fertilization. Keith Moore and T. V. N. Persaud are eminent embryologists who share that belief. In their medical textbook, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6^th edition), they affirm:

The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune, an internationally renowned geneticist who discovered the genetic basis for Down's Syndrome, held precisely the same view. In his words,

Lejeune was a renowned pro-lifer. Moore and Persaud are at least implicitly pro-choice: They have no compunction about equating legally induced abortions with,

Among experts on embryology like Lejeune, Moore and Persaud, there is no agreement on the moral status of the human being in the womb. Yet they all concur that human life begins at fertilization. This is not a controversial belief. It's a well-established scientific fact.

Nonetheless, there is no corresponding agreement among scientists on the definition of conception. In a feature article on embryology in the New York Times on December 18, one of Safire's colleagues explained, "Some scientists say fertilization is equivalent to conception," while other scientists, "say conception occurs at implantation."

Implantation is the process starting on Day Five of human development, whereby, in the words of The New York Times:

Like The New York Times, the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary has it both ways. It defines conception as:

Are we all confused now? Wait, there is more disagreement over the definition of an embryo. Moore and Persaud state:

In contrast, the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines the embryo as:

In accordance with this latter definition, the developing human individual from fertilization on Day One to implantation on Day 12 is designated as a "pre-embryo".

What accounts for this definitional confusion? Why cannot scientists, medical doctors and other authorities agree on the words they use to describe preborn human life. Pope John Paul II addressed questions like this in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, the Gospel of Life:

Then for the benefit of obtuse theologians and others, the Pope clearly and solemnly stated:

Note that the Pope affirms that one does not have to be a Christian or a Jew to know that the deliberate killing of an innocent human being is wrong. Reason itself, quite apart from faith, tells us that every human being has an unalienable right to life from the moment of conception. It is vital, then, to understand when conception occurs.

Not so long ago, all scientists equated conception with fertilization. What prompted some scientists to redefine conception as implantation? There can be no doubt about the explanation: It was the development of embryonic stem-cell research. Stem cells are extracted three days after fertilization: That is to say, just prior to the beginning of implantation. By redefining "conception" as "implantation", stem-cell researchers have undertaken to dupe the public into believing that the human being prior to implantation is really only a so-called "pre-embryo" or some kind of supposedly sub-human or pre-human species.

Safire has been taken in by this unprincipled scientific deception. He, and people like him, should be instructed to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name. A "therapeutic abortion" is the euphemism preferred by Planned Parenthood for a death-dealing procedure by which a physician deliberately kills a baby in the womb. "Pre-embryo" is the term preferred by Planned Parenthood and exponents of embryonic stem-cell research to mask the fact that extraction of embryonic stem cells from a human being inevitably entails the deliberate killing of a living, developing, unique, human being.

Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, has well said:

On 11 July 2001, the Jones Institute for Medical Research in Norfolk, Virginia, took the progress of our civilizational decline a fateful step further, by boasting that it had created human embryos in the lab for the sole purpose of extracting their stem cells. The institute paid the women who donated the eggs $1,500 to $2,000 each in exchange for an agreeing to permit researchers to fertilize their eggs and kill the resulting human beings.

Under current Canadian law, there is nothing to prevent such sordid transactions from also occurring in this country. That, at least, does not sit well with the Commons health committee. On 11 December 2001, the committee released a report on new reproduction technologies. In this report, the committee stated that the law governing research on human embryos in Canada should stipulate that all research on human beings,

In conformity with this precept, the committee held that the law should specifically ban human cloning, forbid the creation of human/animal hybrids, and outlaw payment for human eggs from a surrogate mother, even for the purpose of having the eggs fertilized and implanted in a woman who wants a baby. In addition, the committee called for a complete prohibition on the creation of a human embryo,

So far, so good. Yet the committee also recommended that the law should allow "strictly regulated" embryo research, provided it is,

We, pro-lifers, are often accused of harbouring irrational and illogical beliefs, yet our pro-life position is entirely rational and logical. The same cannot be said for the proponents of death-dealing research on human beings. The Commons Health Committee cannot logically maintain both that it's wrong to create human embryos for the sole purpose of research, but that it is legitimate for researchers to kill human embryos that are surplus to the needs of a fertilization clinic. We, pro-lifers, uphold the entirely rational, logical and consistent position that it is wrong to kill any innocent human individual, whether inside or outside the womb. We deplore the creation of so-called surplus human beings in fertilization clinics. We lament the gross disregard for the sanctity of human life displayed by morally obtuse scientists and medical doctors who have no compunction about creating some human embryos for reproduction and killing others for research.

On behalf of the Canadian Alliance, Preston Manning, Diane Ablonczy, Rob Merrifield and James Lunney expressed a dissenting opinion to the report of the Commons Health Committee. While agreeing with the majority that an "over-arching consideration" in framing legislation on reproductive technology must be, "respect for human individuality, dignity, and integrity," the Alliance dissenters insisted that the final legislation should also, "clearly recognize the human embryo as human life." In addition, the Alliance representatives observed:

Quite so. Yet Manning, Ablonczy, Merrifield and Lunney recommended only,

How is that for mealy-mouthed equivocation? Nothing can happen within the next three years to justify the deliberate killing of a human being in the womb for the purposes of stem cell research. Parliament should ban such death-dealing research immediately and forever. That's the position taken by Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day. On 26 November 2002, the day after the Massachusetts-based firm, Advanced Cell Technology, claimed that it had successfully cloned a human embryo, Day not only denounced the cloning of any human being, but also declared:

Progressive Conservative MP Andre Bachand, the representative of his party on the Commons health committee, stated in a dissenting opinion of his own:

Good for Bachand. He took a forthright, principled stance in defence of the sanctity of human life. What can be said for his party leader, Joe Clark? In a letter to Prime Minister Chretien on 9 August 2001, Clark called for immediate action on a bill to prohibit human cloning in Canada. That's fine, except that he also wrote:

That's all Clark had to say. He took no position one way or another on embryonic stem-cell research. Evidently, he is one of those who urgently needs to be better informed about the ethics of killing human beings for the purposes of medical research. And that's not all Clark needs to learn about the sanctity of human life. During the last federal election campaign, he expressed frank support for,

a woman's right to choose.

Let us look truth in the eye and call things by their proper name: In defiance of the Pope and the teaching of the entire magisterium of the Catholic church, Clark, who styles himself as a Catholic, maintains that a woman has an uninhibited right to choose to have her child killed in the womb. And the same goes for Chretien. During an appearance at St. Joseph's Catholic High School in Barrie, Ont., he was asked about his views on abortion. In response, our prime minister served up the sleazy observation:

On another occasion, Chretien stated:

Most Liberals, to their shame, concur. Yet the Liberal majority on the Commons health committee holds that it's an intolerable violation of human dignity for medical researchers to create human embryos with the intention of killing them on the fourth day of their tiny lives. How, then, can most of these same Liberals condone a legal regime that gives medical doctors free rein to kill a human being in the womb at four weeks or four months simply because the mother no longer wants to have her baby? Where is the reason, where is the logic in these contradictory positions? Where is the vaunted Liberal compassion for the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow human beings?

Some implacable supporters of abortion on demand claim that it's not all "human beings," but only "persons" who have a right to life. But are not all human beings persons? Not so, according to embryonic stem-cell researchers and pro-choice ideologues: They hold that only self-conscious human beings are persons, and that it is only these self-conscious persons who have a right to life. Peter Singer, a professor of ethics at Princeton University, is a notorious exponent of this corrupt theory of human sanctity. In his latest book, Writings on an Ethical Life, he states:

On the basis of such corrupt reasoning, there is nothing wrong with embryonic stem-cell research and there is also nothing wrong with the decision of a mother to have her child killed for any reason at any time during a pregnancy. Most Supreme Court justices take the same view, but they hold that birth somehow confers personhood on a human being. But there is no rational basis for this prenatal and postnatal distinction. Drs. Moore and Persaud write:

Singer acknowledges these facts. He understands that,

He then draws the dreadful conclusion:

This is sheer barbarism, right? In his 1973 book, Animal Liberation, Singer noted that most people think the life of every human being is sacred. He commented:

In an article published in the on-line journal Nerve last year, Singer maintained there is nothing wrong with sexual relations between a person and a dog or an ape, provided there is no cruelty to the animal. In his view, there is nothing illicit about any form of consensual sex, be it adultery, buggery or bestiality. Can Singer be dismissed as just a crank? No, he is a world-famous ethical philosopher who teaches at one of the world's most prestigious universities. He is dangerously influential.

On one point, Singer is right: Like us pro-lifers, he agrees that there is no argument for abortion that would not also serve to justify infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia. But unlike any civilized person, he draws a diabolical conclusion. He denies the sanctity of human life. He would have no compunction about killing an infant in his cradle or a comatose grandmother on her sickbed. Like all supporters of a woman's so-called right to choose to have her child killed in the womb, he rejects the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these is the right to life.

Where is the church in this debate? Theologically orthodox clerics like Pope John Paul II and the Rev. Billy Graham consistently uphold the traditional teaching of the church on the sanctity of all human life. Most liberal clerics do not. On key issues relating to the sanctity of human life, these liberal clerics are no less irrational and confused than most of our politicians and supreme court judges. And that goes, in particular, for the leadership of my own church -- the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

In 1967, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada (the supreme ruling body of the church), called upon Parliament to amend the criminal code to permit abortion, "when the continuance of a pregnancy endangers the mother's life or is likely seriously to impair her physical or mental health." Other old-line Protestant denominations, the Humanist Association of Canada and a host of other secular groups took the same line. In 1969, Parliament responded by legalizing abortion. The result was the greatest calamity in Canadian history -- a huge and persistent increase in abortions, most of them for lifestyle reasons that have nothing to do with any serious impairment to the physical or mental health of the mother. This tragic development troubled some of my fellow Presbyterians. In 1976, they persuaded the General Assembly to receive a statement on abortion from the church's Board of Congregational Life. This document recalled that in 1967, the General Assembly, had stated,

The Board of Congregational Life added:

Quite so. Yet without repudiating this fine statement, the General Assembly adopted a resolution in 1977, affirming:

Here we have a quintessential example of Orwellian double-think: The capacity for holding two contradictory ideas in mind at the same time and believing both to be true. For a rationally consistent person, this feat is impossible. Either a fetus has a fundamental right to life or it does not. The Presbyterian Church cannot have it both ways: It cannot logically insist that baby in the womb has an unalienable right to life, while also allowing that a pregnant mother who thinks that giving birth is likely to cause her some prolonged mental impairment has a right to have her baby in the womb deliberately killed.

What has gone wrong? What has led the leadership of the Presbyterian, United and Anglican churches astray? Why do most liberal clerics no longer consistently uphold the Biblical commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? Why have they forsaken the traditional teachings of the church on sexual morality and the sanctity of all human life?

At the root of the problem is the disposition of liberal clerics to conform their thinking to the corrupt pattern of the secular world. They have ignored St. Paul's admonition to the early Christians in Romans 12(2):

With regard to this passage, Jean Calvin warned in his Commentary on Romans that:

Isn't that the truth? With rare exceptions, the leaders of the rapidly declining old-line churches in Canada routinely flout the Word of God and the traditions of their own denominations. They have fallen into error. They have embraced the fantastical notion that a mother has a right to have her unwanted baby killed in the womb. They no longer uphold fidelity within marriage and celibacy outside of marriage. They do not even have the wit or the courage to warn our youth in the middle of an Aids epidemic that buggery is a sinful, wrong and perilous perversion.

Instead of upholding reason in conjunction with tradition and the Word of God, liberal clerics rely on their reason alone. Alas, their reason has been distorted by passion, including a pathetic desire for wordly success and the esteem of secular elites. Like the corrupt Christians of Nazi Germany, liberal clerics substitute the ideological fashion of the moment for the eternal truths of the Gospel. Calvin would not be surprised. He held that while reason is fully compatible with faith, reason without faith is liable to corruption. In the encyclical, Fides et Ratio, Faith and Reason, Pope John Paul II has observed:

What do faith and reason, taken together, tell us about the sanctity of human life? Terry Schlossberg, executive director of one of my favourite organizations, Presbyterians Pro-Life, has put the matter well:

That's a clear, consistent, rational and ethical position. In contrast, people like William Safire have adopted the stance of favouring therapeutic cloning, while opposing reproductive cloning. This compromise is not just irrational and unethical: It's impractical. If legalized therapeutic cloning ever gets underway, it will be impossible to prevent some mad scientist from stealing a cloned human embryo that was intended for therapy and using that human being for reproduction. Let our fellow citizens have no illusion on this point: Nothing less than a total ban on all human cloning can prevent reproductive cloning.

When Advanced Cell Technology boasted that it had cloned a human being, President George W. Bush said:

President Bush upholds the sanctity of all human life. Last August, he gave a practical demonstration of this commitment, by cutting off federal funding for all stem-cell research and every other kind of research that would sanction or encourage the killing of human embryos.

On 22 January 2002, Bush followed up with a magnificent address by telephone to a vast throng gathered in Washington for the annual March for Life that marks the 29^th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down laws restricting abortion. Bush acknowledged:

And to that, let us pray, "May God continue to bless President Bush." And let us also beg our merciful God for such enlightened leadership in Canada. As it is, with the exception of former Saskatchewan premier Grant Divine, we have not had a single prime minister or provincial premier in Canada over the past 30 years who has been willing to speak up forthrightly in defence of the sanctity of human life. Canada is truly in a sorry state. Our country has sunk deep into the darkness of a culture of death. What, then, will we, pro-lifers, do? Will we give up the struggle in frustration? Will we abandon our commitment to uphold the truth about the sanctity of all human life from fertilization onto natural death?

Of course not. Together as pro-lifers, we will steadfastly oppose the killing of embryonic human beings for medical research. We will make sure that our movement goes on offering help to women who are pregnant and distressed. We will strive to console the women, and men, who have been hurt by abortion. We will assure them, as we comfort ourselves, with the knowledge that there is nothing that can separate us from the love and forgiveness that is freely open to all of us through repentance and faith in Christ Jesus. We will pray for the conversion of abortionists. We will visit the lonely. We will never stop loving and caring for the sick and the comatose and the handicapped -- not even in the hours of their death. And we will pray earnestly for ourselves, that God will forgive us our sins of omission and commission, and that He will empower us by His grace never to despair, but always to go on upholding as best we can in this culture of death that most wonderful and sacred gift -- the gift of human life.