The Struggle for a Moral Bioethical Sector

Editor's note. As we approach this year's National Right to Life Convention, it reminded me of a great speech that Wesley Smith delivered in 2007. The following are a few excerpts from Mr. Smith's remarkable address to pro-lifers in Kansas City.

If you paid attention to the media you would think that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research and human cloning, genetic engineering, and fetal farming are "anti-science." But this is not a science debate. It's a debate about ethics. It's a debate about morality. It's a debate about what is right and what is wrong. That is beyond the purview of science.

Science can tell us that an embryo is a distinct human organism. It cannot tell us, however, what moral value this entity should be accorded. That issue, and it's a crucial issue, is one of philosophy, values, religion, and ethics. It is a different area of human thinking and endeavor. Science can tell us what the organism is. It cannot tell us what it's worth.

Science is in danger of devolving into a special interest that uses all the tools of the trade to gain a blank check. What is being asked for in this debate over embryonic stem cells research and cloning is not just a financial blank check, although that's a huge part of it, but also an ethical blank check. But science without ethics can become monstrous.

The Intrinsic Value of Human Life

Human life must have intrinsic value simply because it's human or none of us is safe. Because otherwise it means you have to earn your value and who decides who is valuable and who is not is a matter of power, instead of a given. And that is what we are fighting against.

Science can tell us what is, but it can't tell us good from bad, right from wrong. Therefore it is not anti-science to oppose embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. It is pro-science to care enough to keep this powerful enterprise within proper ethical parameters.

It is not anti-science to stand for intrinsic human dignity. It is pro-human. It is not anti-science to deny the assertion that only scientists can tell us what is moral in science, it is pro-democracy.

It is not anti-science to insist that the government not fund research that destroys nascent human life. It is keeping with the post-slavery struggle in America to prevent human life from ever again being treated as a mere natural resource to be exploited.

Leon Kass, former head of President's Council on Bioethics, has warned that we are developing into a culture that will allow anything in the name of curing Uncle Charlie's Parkinson's disease. The problem with the attitude of accepting anything is that the ends don't justify the means; the means become the ends.

So let's face it, the struggle for a moral bioethical sector is difficult. It requires one to swim against powerful cultural tides. It requires the fortitude to stand up for what is right in the face of demagoguery, name-calling, and the false accusation that you lack compassion. That takes courage.

But it seems to me that taking unpopular stands, because it is right, swimming against powerful cultural tides, because it is right, and standing tall in the face of demonization, because it is right, is courageous and is what the pro-life movement is all about. And I know you will take up this challenge with integrity and love for your enemies because that is the pro-life way.

The Science Establishment believes that "might makes right"--that their money, their credentials, and the bias of the media will carry the day. But we disagree.

We agree with Abraham Lincoln who said that it is the other way around--that "right makes might."