President Bush recently decided to allow limited federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, only for previously-established embryonic cell lines. From a Roman Catholic point-of-view, this decision is not fully in accord with the moral law. However, the President's decision is also not completely contrary to the moral law. There are moral pros and cons to his decision.

The Pros:

The decision prohibits federal funding for new cell lines, which are created by destroying human embryos. Thus the decision prohibits federal funding for the immoral action of creating a new human embryonic stem cell line by destroying human embryos.

The decision creates an economic pressure on scientists and biotech companies not to destroy any more human embryos to create embryonic stem cell lines. If a scientist or biotech company creates a new stem cell line, they must keep that cell line, and any projects based on that cell line, separate from projects which receive federal funding. There is a certain degree of time and effort and money needed to make sure that projects based on new embryonic cell lines remain identified as such and remain separate from other projects. Rather than take on this additional burden, scientists and companies are more likely to use an existing cell line.

The decision creates a political pressure on conservative politicians not to join with liberal politicians in voting for a law allowing more extensive funding for human embryonic stem cell research.

The decision provides federal funding for research on stem cells from umbilical cords, placentas, human adult stem cells, and animal stem cells. There are moral alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells are taken from the human person without killing that person. Stem cells can also be derived from the human umbilical cord and the human placenta. Research on animal stem cells is also morally acceptable. Progress in these areas may make research on human embryonic stem cells seem less desirable to researchers.

The decision sets up a council of scientists and ethicists to monitor the scientific and ethical situation surrounding stem cell research. The council can monitor the on-going research to ascertain that no additional stem cell lines are created by the destruction of human embryos. The creation of this council encourages moral restraint in this area of research.

The Cons:

The decision allows federal funding for research on cell lines which were created by means of a serious moral offense, the killing of a developing human being. The moral law requires that we not be accessories-after-the-fact, so to speak, of such a crime against God and humanity.

The decision was limited to the question of federal funding, and so did not address or solve larger moral problems. Human embryos are being created in clinics and labs, are being frozen in storage, and are being destroyed when they are no longer wanted. Destroying developing human beings is immoral, regardless of whether or not federal funding is being used. Human life should be protected from natural conception to natural death.

The Political Situation

The President's decision on human embryonic stem cell research was not the best moral decision that could be made. However, it may have been the decision which was both closest to full agreement with the moral law and acceptable to the current batch of lawmakers. If Bush had prohibited all federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, lawmakers would likely have passed a law allowing more liberal funding for such research.

This situation is similar to the current political situation on abortion. Sadly, the current political situation does not allow a law to be passed which completely outlaws abortion. In such a political situation, a moral lawmaker will vote for whichever laws most restrict the moral crime of abortion. Similarly, Catholics should both seek laws which are fully in agreement with the moral law and support laws which are as close as possible to the moral law within the limitations of the currect political situation.

Good Fruit

“Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.” (Mt 7:16-18).

Good fruit does not come from a bad tree. A good result, such as a cure for disease, does not come from a bad means, such as the use and destruction of human embryos for the sake of medical experiments. It is true that the end does not justify the means. But it is also true that an immoral means does not provide a truly good end-result. A medical breakthrough cannot be reasonably expected to proceed from an unethical means, such as research based on, or derived from, the destruction of human embryos.

Treatments and cures for disease are gifts from God. Medical breakthroughs result from God's Providence and Grace, not from scientific research alone. God would never use an evil means, such as the destruction of human embryos, to give to humanity a precious gift, such as the cure for some disease. God's Providence and Grace are not at work in medical research which makes use of human embryonic stem cell lines obtained by destroying developing human beings. No useful treatment for disease, no cure for any medical condition, and no medical or scientific breakthrough will result from the destruction of human embryos because good fruit does not come from a bad tree.

-- by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
Editor, CatholicPlanet.com

Copyright © 2001 by Ronald L. Conte Jr.

(Permission is hereby granted to freely quote this article, when accompanied by
an acknowledgement of the author's name and the publication.)