|
Jewish World Review July 30, 2001/ 10 Menachem-Av, 5761
Marianne M. Jennings
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
ACROSS the mighty Atlantic there was a deafening silence when Timothy
McVeigh was put to death. Europe, land of enlightenment, poor dental care,
and 5 pounds per liter petrol could not rally the Renaissance troops for a
hearty protest against us barbarians of capital punishment. Mr. McVeigh was
the murderer they too would kill.
Those whose moral outrage knows no limits on abortion clinic bombings remain
mute as the Phoenix arsonist torches homes along the mountain preserve nature
paths.
Napster creator Shawn Fanning cheered and facilitated the pirating of
copyrighted music via peer-to-peer file sharing, but moaned mightily of
infringement when an entrepreneur took the Napster logo and slapped it onto
shirts that sold like hotcakes.
Bill Gates, Mr.-Requiring-Me-To-Disclose-My
Windows-Code-to-Rivals-is-Confiscation, personally lobbied to force AOL to
share its instant-messaging software, an area in which Microsoft had missed
the boat.
Now pro-life politician Connie Mack, a cancer patient himself, and Nancy
Reagan, whose husband's illness might be contained, tout the wonders of
stem-cell research. Their personal circumstances make them dismiss their
commitment to life's transcending quality. What folly it is to say that we
need stem cell research! Such analysis begs the question. Every ethical
lapse has a reason, but no justification .
The saying that sports build character has relevance here. Sports reveal
character. Sports participation can correct character flaws through a
controlled environment, if we keep overzealous parents away from games.
So it is with difficult ethical dilemmas. We already have our principles; we
just compromise them when the going gets tough. Compelling personal
circumstances test us, but they are not justification for compromising
principle. Not stealing bread when you're starving is the challenge. Hunger
does not change the principle that stealing is wrong. Ad hoc application of
principle is moral relativism.
Ad hoc results arise because dilemmas are presented as either/or ultimatums.
An expedient resolution becomes the only resolution. Moral relativism
thrives. There is effective stem-cell research using adult and umbilical cord
cells. Such avenues may take longer, but we get results without the offense
to life's transcending quality.
Protection of life requires unwavering principle in life's most emotional
circumstances. A letter from a regular detractor on my pro-life position
read, "Wait until your daughters are pregnant. We'll see your position on
abortion then." That my daughters might be affected does not change my
views. My daughters would have my love and support during any pregnancy, but
our profound respect for life doesn't waver because we would prefer a
different consequence.
The issue in stem-cell research, and President Bush's decision on whether to
continue federal funding for it, is very simple: does life begin at
conception? If life begins at conception, the rationalization of the
inevitable disposal of frozen embryos is clearly not the issue. The creation
and freezing of embryos was the result of medical science focusing on "Could
we?"and forgetting to ask "Should we?" Because that analysis was not done, we
now have a supply chain of embryos from parents who have moved on to a new
fad.
Tiny beings now sit on ice, abandoned by their makers to scientific
swashbucklers foraging among them. That original flippant and seemingly
harmless interference with the dignity of creation (in the name of the noble
act of giving folks offspring) has brought us ghoulish scientists in Virginia
ratcheting up embryo production for research only. May G-d have mercy on
them for their disregard of the sanctity of life and its creation, whether in
Petri dish or master bedroom.
My oldest daughter once asked me about the challenges of giving birth at
age 41. She commented, "Another baby was probably the last thing you
needed," and wondered if there was time for a way out. I reminded her of
life's origins in conception. Armed with genetics class material, she
conceded, "John existed from the moment he was conceived, from his red hair
to his curved fourth toe to his bad temper."
They are not embryos - they are freckles, personalities, and complete
beings, save a little incubation. It's tough to draw this line because our
children suffer from cancer, our parents' bear the indignities of Alzheimer's
and diabetes takes its unrelenting toll.
But, life is not ours to create and then destroy in the name of wants and
needs. If life begins at conception, all other questions are moot. Even the
choicest among us have succumbed on this issue for we lose sight of principle
when we're hungry. Principle compromised for expediency is not only wrong,
it is the beginning of an inconsolable regret over our failure to hold firm
when the inevitable consequences haunt
07/13/01: Rage born of sublimation
|