Living Water of Washington DC. A Christian Outreach Ministry.

Changing the Argument, or, Anatomy of the Dialectic

On Capitol Hill, debate is occurring about how much you and I should continue to pay for research on human embryos that were killed in privately funded laboratories so that their stem cells could be harvested. The debate is not about whether you and I should pay at all for such research—but how much. In the meantime, there is no limit to the amount that private enterprises such as pharmaceutical companies can spend on this research. They are, and have always been, free to spend all they want. Whether they should is a question which has not recently appeared in the public debate.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has spoken in favor of legislation to lift the Administration's limits on government funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Bush has said that he would veto this bill. If the President vetoes the bill, and thereby approves of continued “limited” public funding of embryonic stem cell research, will it be a victory for Christians? No.

Our elected policy-makers have set the boundaries of this debate, calculated the dimensions of the playing field and have defined the rules of the game. In their construction of the current debate, the truly Christian perspective has been shut out and called “out of bounds”. They have reached the current rules of the game through cycles of previous compromise. Little more than four years ago, the debate in churches was about whether embryonic stem cell research should be performed at all. The government and the media morphed this discussion into the “debate” of whether the public should pay for this research or whether the research should by privately funded as before, thus diverting attention away from discussion of ethics and focusing more on the question of funding. The President’s compromise—limited public sponsorship of embryonic stem cell research—was viewed as a setback by many Christians only four years ago. But today, the very same policy is being touted by professing Christians as a victory. (This is precisely how the dialectic works, for those of you who have read my previous articles.) I put the word “debate” in quotes because the outcome did nothing but grease the tracks for the Administration’s desired result, which is the current “debate” in which the ethics of embryonic stem cell research is no longer in question. In fact, even the question of who should fund it has all but disappeared. Now, legislators are asking “how much” you and I should contribute to tacit endorsement of infanticide. Meanwhile, private funding on these stem cells continues unabated. It has become a “given”.

The President is portrayed as an “extremist” Christian by his opponents. However, he supports embryonic stem cell research by actions that demonstrate his unchristian belief that compromise is acceptable when it comes to research he admits can encourage infanticide. His “extreme” Christian approach is that you and I should pay for it in moderation. The President’s support for “limited” public funding of embryonic stem cell research is portrayed by the media as the “extreme” Christian point of view, as on the edge of the playing field, barely in-bounds. This is where iterative compromise has brought us. It is a consummate outrage that any public support, let alone any support, of embryonic stem cell research is presented in the media as the “Christian” view.

In March this year, the President said that we should “err on the side of life”. But the current “debate” now takes as its premise an error on the side of death (or, more specifically, on the side of murder), and the question that has arisen is how much you and I, via our tax dollars, should be compelled to pay those who profit from the deaths.

This “debate” is introduced into the public arena in order to distract and to polarize Americans. In the meantime, the haters of God achieve a remarkable coup, unchallenged: everyone ignores the real question regarding the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. They employ the strategy of divide and conquer, divide again and continue to conquer both sides. Whether we pay for embryonic stem cell research in limited amounts, or pay for it without limitation, it will be a victory for the virulently anti-Christian elements of the nation, so why are Christians even going along with this debate?

Our political leaders are taking us rapidly down a slippery slope and we are like sheep following them when we must rather listen to the voice and the words of our Shepherd.

We now have a “Christian” President pondering just how much all Americans should be compelled to contribute to research that involves deliberate termination of human life. In his prime-time address given August 9, 2001, the President said his policies allow us “to explore the promise and [sic] potential stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.” Meanwhile, private funding for enterprises “that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life” is okay, he implies. Furthermore, the President failed to recognize that human embryos do not merely have the potential for life—they are human life!

Now, disturbingly, many Christians have rallied behind the President, ignoring the deft sleight of hand pulled on us all.