California's Moral and Financial Suicide Attempt
By Scott Klusendorf. Used with permission.

Voters ignore the Tao and now must pay

C.S. Lewis writes in The Abolition of Man that when men abolish the “Tao”—those first principles of morals and justice upon which legitimate law is based—they ultimately abolish themselves.  They become “men without chests,” that is, men without moral character.  Consequently, they lose the image of their creator and are ruled by their emotions or by other men more powerful.  Either way, they end up destroying themselves. 

On November 2, a majority of Californians stepped into the ballot box and proved Lewis right.  Indeed, Proposition 71—affirmed with 59 percent of the vote—forces taxpayers of that state to borrow three billion dollars (six billion with interest over 30 years!) to fund highly speculative cloning research that the state, already in financial ruin, can ill afford.  And while the financial provisions are bad, the moral ones are dreadful.  Proposition 71 gives scientists a state constitutional right to create—with public dollars—cloned human embryos that MUST be destroyed for the purpose of extracting stem cells, thus reducing human life to a mere commodity.

Did pro-lifers have to lose badly?  To be fair, the No on 71 campaign faced long odds against a well-financed coalition of scientists, doctors, and celebrity spokespersons eager to be heard by a sympathetic press.  If that weren’t bad enough, the California electorate was decisively liberal and secular, growing more so with each election.  President Bush lost the state badly in 2000 and made clear he wouldn’t even try to win it in 2004.  Why should he?  Outside of Arnold Schwarzenegger (no friend of pro-life conservatives) Democrats had swept nearly all state-wide elections since 1998.  Further complicating matters, support for first-trimester abortion was historically strong throughout the state at 62 percent or better.[1]

Still, pre-election polling data indicated that Californians weren’t exactly sold on cloning.  When asked directly (paraphrase), “Should human embryos be cloned expressly for destructive research?” a majority, including some abortion advocacy groups, said yuck!  Conversely, when asked, “Should the state fund stem cell research to find cures?” the majority said yes!  Backers of Prop 71 knew this and made sure that the c-word appeared nowhere in their literature or even in the ballot measure itself.    

In short, pro-lifers had at least one advantage over their better-financed rivals: destructive research cloning did not square with most people’s moral intuitions.  But during the heat of battle and with the best of intentions, the ‘No’ campaign squandered this advantage.  Its primary reply to Prop 71 was that the measure would harm the state financially, which was true enough, except that voters were asking an entirely different question, one that was spoon-fed to them daily: “How can I morally justify not voting for funding that could one day save lives?”  Put simply, the public was asking a moral question to which pro-lifers, for the most part, provided only fiscal answers. 

The drift from morals to money

Five months before Election Day, Prop 71 was wining handily in the court of public opinion roughly 65 percent to 35 percent.  The case for the proposition was easy: Just say the names Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox, Ronald Reagan—who wouldn’t want them cured?  Only a devil would say no.  Still, pro-lifers were convinced that all was not lost.  Proponents of the measure had yet to tell us how dissecting a living human embryo would help them deliver on their promise of eternal health, especially when the empirical data suggested that embryonic stem-cell research was less effective than its non-lethal and vastly promising adult counterpart.  In fact, in the weeks leading up to November 2, even the national press caught on that embryo cell treatments showed little promise of ever curing neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s Disease.[2] 

There were money problems as well.  Individual treatments with embryo cells had a price tag of $100,000 or more, not to mention the billions the state would spend perfecting the research in the first place.  Pro-lifers seized on the empirical and money aspects of the debate and subtly shifted their primary message from “Embryo research is wrong—it kills human beings” to “it doesn’t work and we can’t afford it.”  The practical eclipsed the moral. 

That shift may have cost pro-lifers the election.  Despite the fact that everyone knew the state was flat broke, fiscal concerns had little impact on a voting public conditioned to see only the promise of cures.  Proposition 71 was popular across all ages, races, incomes and education, according to an exit poll conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.[3]  Even the state’s Governor, who just one year earlier campaigned on the dire need for fiscal responsibility, endorsed it.  In the end, the message sent by voters was “Who cares about money if the proposed research, however speculative, might help a child walk again?” 

Should this surprise us?  As Lewis points out, appeals to pure reason (the head) or pure emotion (the belly) do not suffice to instruct on what's right and what’s wrong.  There must be objective values that are external to man to provide guidance.  The “No on 71” campaign simply didn’t deliver those values strongly enough to voters. 

The case that wasn’t made

A voting citizenry tutored in the logic of morals (Lewis’s Tao) would consider the moral and fiscal aspects of Prop 71 and resolve matters with a ‘No’ vote.  The electorate was not so inclined, however, as right-to-lifers stressed money problems over moral ones.  True, pro-lifers had to discuss money as part of their overall strategy, but the order of arguments was backwards.  Lost was the fact that Prop 71 was primarily wrong not because it was expensive, but because it uses state money to fund a barbaric practice that no civil society should allow, no matter what the benefit. And, oh, by the way, we also can’t afford it. 

Hadley Arkes summarizes the case that should have been made: “Given a choice between a therapy that happens to be lethal for human subjects and one that is not, wouldn't we be inclined to favor the therapy that is not lethal? Wouldn't that be even more the case if that non-lethal therapy turns out to be vastly more promising, and far less speculative, than the lethal therapy?  Stem cells drawn from adults have already yielded some striking achievements, and they do not require the killing of the human being from whom they are drawn. The extraction of stem cells from human embryos does, however, result in the destruction of defenseless human beings.”[4] 

This is pure genius!  Note the order of presentation: First comes the moral concern: Should a civil society kill one human being to treat another?  We then follow with a practical one: “What treatment actually works best?  We conclude with a summary of the facts: Embryo stem cell research kills a human being; adult research does not.  Borrowing from Lewis, we first help the voter recover his chest, thereby reawakening his fundamental sense of right and wrong.  Appealing primarily to the belly (in this case, the pocketbook) is not sufficient to awaken a man’s slumbering intuitions, especially when it’s in his own self-interest to fund the destructive research. 

Voters with chests

What if pro-lifers had stuck reasonably close to the Tao?  Might the ballot box have gone the other way?  While no one can say for certain that a “morals first” strategy will prevail on any given Election Day, it nonetheless helps pro-lifers make their case in several important ways:

1) A ‘morals first’ strategy allows pro-lifers a chance to puncture key misconceptions.  No doubt, many people who voted for Prop 71 had no idea that Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR) takes the life of a distinct, living, and whole human being.  Briefly, ESCR strips a 14 day-old human embryo of its stem cells so they can be transplanted into the bodies of those suffering from illness.  Extracting the cells kills the embryo, reducing it to nothing more than research fodder.  However, Pro-71 campaign literature consistently disguised this fact, telling voters that stem cells merely have the potential to become human beings.  But this was an unabashed lie.  Embryos don’t come from stem cells; they are living human beings that have stem cells.  And unlike adult stem cell research, extracting these cells is lethal for the human subject. 

Meanwhile, you would never know that Proposition 71 specifically funds human cloning unless you were familiar with the scientific literature.  In campaign pieces, indeed, even in the text of the ballot measure itself, voters heard only of stem-cell research using a technique known as Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT).  What voters weren’t told is that SCNT is cloning.  It creates an embryo that is a genetic clone of the patient and then uses that embryo as a source for stem cells.  This virtually guarantees that the patient’s body will not reject the transplanted cells.  Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is a three-step process.  First, an unfertilized egg is taken from a woman and its nucleus is removed.  Second, genetic material (DNA) from the patient is placed inside the vacated egg.  Third, chemicals are added and a spark of electricity jolts the cell into dividing and growing as a clone.  This process gave us “Dolly,” the first cloned sheep.  Despite the fact that SCNT is cloning, the word cloning appeared nowhere in the ballot provision. 

2) It confronts the technological morality driving the stem-cell debate.  Many people have bought the notion that simply because we can achieve X, we are permitted to do X—in this case, clone human beings.  You can see this in British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s statement that those who oppose cloning embryos for destructive research are “anti-science:”

There is a danger, almost unintentionally, that we become anti-science.  Our conviction about what is natural or right should not inhibit the role of science in discovering the truth—rather it should inform our judgment about the implications and consequences of the truth science uncovers.  [We will] not stand by as successful British science once more ends up being manufactured abroad.[5]

Echoing these same sentiments, U.S. Senator Orin Hatch remarked, “It would be terrible to say because of an ethical concept, we can’t do anything for patients.”[6] Ron Reagan, son of the late President, told the Democratic National Convention that, "Many opponents to the research are well-meaning and sincere, but their beliefs are just that—an article of faith…The theology of a few should not be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of many.”

Pro-lifers cannot let these statements stand unchallenged.  If Hatch, Blair, and Reagan are correct that science trumps morality, one can hardly condemn past atrocities such the Tuskegee experiments of the 1920s in which black men suffering from syphilis were promised treatment, only to have it denied so scientists could study the disease.  Moreover, if “convictions about what is natural or right should not inhibit science,” how can we condemn Hitler for using Jews for grisly medical experiments, as happened in the death camps?  The No on 71 campaign did not press these questions firmly enough with voters.

3) It allows pro-lifers to simplify the debate and advance the moral logic of their position.  Despite claims to the contrary, ESCR is not morally complex.  It comes down to just one question: Is the embryo a member of the human family?  If so, killing it to benefit others is a serious moral wrong.  It treats the distinct human being, with his or her own inherent moral worth, as nothing more than a disposable instrument.  Conversely, if the embryos in question are not human, killing them to extract stem cells requires no more justification than having a tooth pulled.

The facts of science make clear that from the earliest stages of development, embryos are distinct, living, and whole human beings.  True, they have yet to grow and mature, but they are whole human beings nonetheless.  Embryology textbooks affirm this.[7]  

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott insists that we gain no real knowledge from these facts.  “The fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human: every cell carries the full genetic code.  A severed hand,” she continues “is genetically human as well but we don’t call it a person.”[8]  In other words, Mollenkott would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our cells.

This is bad biology.  Mollenkott is making the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes.  The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear: An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part.  The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity.  Robert George and Patrick Lee say it well.  It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell.  However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo.  “Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating organisms capable of directing their own maturation as members of the human species.”[9]

4. It sparks debate on the question of human nature and gives pro-lifers a chance to objectively ground human value and human equality.  Paul D. Simmons concedes that zygotes (early embryos) are biologically human but denies they are “complex” or “developed enough” to qualify as “persons” in a relevant sense. He argues that humans have value as “persons” not in virtue of the kind of thing they are (members of a natural kind or species), but only because of an acquired property, in this case, the immediate capacity for self-awareness.  A “person,” he contends, “has capacities of reflective choice, relational responses, social experience, moral perception, and self-awareness.”  Zygotes, as mere clusters of human cells, do not have this capacity and therefore do not have value.[10]  

Right away there are counter examples that underscore the arbitrary nature of Simmons’ claim.  Newborns cannot make conscious, reflective choices until several months after birth, so what’s wrong with infanticide?[11]  What principled reason can he give for saying, “No, you can’t do that?”  As Peter Singer points out in Practical Ethics, if self-awareness makes one valuable as a person, and newborns like fetuses lack that property, it follows that fetus and newborn are both disqualified.  You can’t draw an arbitrary line at birth and spare the newborn.[12] 

Patrick Lee puts it well: If humans have value only because of some acquired property like self-awareness or sentience and not in virtue of the kind of thing they are, then it follows that since these acquired properties come in varying degrees, basic human rights come in varying degrees.  Do we really want to say that those with more self-awareness are more human (and more valuable) than those with less?  This relegates the proposition that all men are created equal to the ash heap of history.  Philosophically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature.

The idea that humans are equal by nature not function is grounded in the substance view of human persons that the “No on 71” campaign downplayed in favor of fiscal considerations.  That’s unfortunate, because the strongest pro-life arguments are to be found there.  The substance view defended by J.P Moreland, Francis J. Beckwith, and others says that human beings are valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are, rational agents that remain identical to themselves over time and bodily change.  Substances remain what they are even if they never actualize certain functions that by nature they have the capacity to develop.[13]  For example, a man who never learns to speak, think rationally, or walk is still a man by nature, though he lacks an immediate capacity for those things. Likewise, a dog that never barks is still a dog by nature and will remain so as long as it lives.  On this view, a human fetus or embryo is equal to an adult not because of its immediate functional capacities, but due to its internal nature that directs and orders those capacities.  The substance view, rather than Simmon’s acquired property view, is the only objective basis for human equality.  It grounds human equality objectively, rooting it in our common human nature rather than some accidental property that we all possess in varying degrees. 

Too little too late

The moral logic of the pro-life case against Prop 71 did not reach the masses until the week before the election.  At that time, actor Mel Gibson narrated a series of radio ads that stressed both the moral and fiscal irresponsibility inherent in Prop 71.  These were truly great ads.  Then, in a dramatic exchange on national television, he turned the tables on journalist Diane Sawyer when she glibly dismissed his moral case with this predictable reply (paraphrase): “But Mel, all we are talking about here is a tiny embryo consisting of a few cells!”  To which Gibson brilliantly replied (paraphrase), “Diane, I challenge you to find me just one person, including yourself, who didn’t start out that way.”  Pro-lifers cheered wildly. 

But it was too little too late. Voters had already settled the issue.  From the beginning, we should have asked the Tao question given us by Arkes: Given a choice between a therapy that happens to be lethal for human subjects and one that is not, wouldn't we be inclined to favor the therapy that is not lethal?

That objective case for right and wrong—aimed squarely at the chest of the voter—might have advanced pro-life concerns like it did in the national debate over partial-birth abortion.  Between 1995 and 1999, for example, twenty-nine states with broad popular support enacted legislative bans against the practice.[14]  In every case, the primary message to the public was not “Partial-birth abortion harms the self-interests of women,” but “This practice is barbaric and no civilized person should tolerate treating human beings this way.”[15]  Even in the ultra liberal state of New Jersey that message worked. When Governor Whitman vetoed the restrictive legislation, the State House in Trenton promptly overrode her veto.  "When someone holds up a model of a six-month-old fetus and a pair of surgical scissors, we say 'choice' and we lose," writes pro-abortion feminist Naomi Wolf.[16] 

But pro-lifers in California weren’t students of history.  They bet on the belly and lost the election.