Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, July 22, 2006
William F. Buckley :: Townhall.com Columnist
Let him live?
by William F. Buckley
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


When I was very young I would play with my younger sister weighty moral games. I remember one of them which said ... Suppose by pushing down just here (I touched my thumb down on a spot of grass) we could kill one Chinese at the other end of the world and we'd get $1 million. Should we do it?

No, Tish said. That would be murder.

I tried to prolong the grand inquiry by pointing out that there were different kinds of murder, some more sinful than others. "It wouldn't be as though we pulled out a pistol and shot the man."

She lingered for a moment, but came back. No, she said.

Caeteris paribus , we understand President Bush to be talking about the same thing. The circumstances are different, but, he insists, there is someone down there and we can't just do him in, whatever the benefits.

We dig in and learn the first lesson, which is that there is a difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells. In vetoing the one bill, while signing another one more limited in scope, Mr. Bush made the point that he could not in good faith direct public money to embryonic stem cell research. Such research accepts the temptation of using embryonic stem cells to support experimental work, never mind that such work is designed to intervene in the development of cells in such a way as might hinder, or even eliminate, malformations that produce sundry human afflictions.

Much of the public has taken to using Alzheimer's disease as the symbolic corpus vile in the picture. It became universally known that Ronald Reagan had contracted Alzheimer's when he wrote his famous public note announcing his withdrawal from public life. As a matter of rhetorical convenience, advocates of stem cell research started advertising their work as the beginning of a cure for that disease. Early on, the explicit sanction of Mrs. Ronald Reagan was solicited, and she gave it. Understandably -- one dead Chinese vs. one live Ronald Reagan?

President Bush makes several points. The first is that it was he who initiated the very idea of federal subsidies for stem cell research by scientists bent on improving human health. What he did, in 2001, was authorize the use of stem cell lines that had already been extracted from embryos.

But he distinguished sharply between the use of these cells, which had zero prospect of developing into human life, and embryos that might conceivably serve as way stations to human life.

Last year, when Congress was considering a bill similar to the one he has just vetoed, President Bush held a ceremony at the White House honoring 21 families. The babies brought into the East Room were manifestly alive and healthy. They had been adopted as frozen embryos and implanted in the wombs of their new mothers, who had successfully brought them to term. The president's point was that he would never be instrumental in the use of public funds for research that began by destroying organic material which might conceivably result in such children as were in the White House that day.

There is no law on the books, and Mr. Bush does not seek one, that would make it criminal to kill embryos in order to use their cells experimentally for scientific work. And we know that research that entails the use of embryonic stem cells is going on, not only in foreign medical centers, but here in the United States, notably California. Mr. Bush hasn't asked for a declaration of war against those scientists, but he does ask the public at large to acknowledge that there is a moral line here that requires attention. At some point, never mind the praiseworthiness of the design, scientists need to stay their hands, guided by different criteria from those that Adolf Hitler was guided by.

Critics of the president, in high fury, say numerous things, among them that embryos by the millions are fated to die as a matter of course, so that to single out those that die, so to speak, under the researcher's knife is arbitrary and morally meaningless.

Well, so the argument goes, but we can take whatever satisfaction we wish from the knowledge that there is one Chinese there, whose life has been saved.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor-at-large of National Review, the prolific author of Miles Gone By: A Literary Autobiography.

Be the first to read William Buckley's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Good grief!
I guess I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

I had to look up "Caeteris paribus" on-line. It means "all things being equal".

Now, why couldn't he just write that?

What a verbose snob.

However, once you wade through the BS, he's right on this iisue, though he does miss the two main reasons:

1. No Constitutional authority for this kind of expenditure.

2. Embryonic stem cell research is bad science.

In the morning (Saturday) I'm posting an essay entitled "Embryonic Stem Cells – 21st Century Snake Oil" on my blog: viewfromtheisland.townhall.com

And a larger point in the issue is
Sorry, embryonic stem cells may have SEEMED like they would be golden, but NOT ONE has proved out. Science is forging ahead and making a lot of treatments with adult stem cells - but none to date of ESC.

Adult stem cells can be harvested without injury from many sources and have been put to work already.

This is just another concerted effort to attack our president on another wishful issue.

what's all the fuss?
merrygoboy shouts at us about some sundae metaphor that misses the mark and BrianR complains that he had to look up a term. The author successfully makes a point. The complaint about hot air is more about style than substance. So clearly merrygoboy missed the point, which is a pity because it was a good one - as BrianR acknowledges. As for verbose snobbery, well, you had to look something up because the author used a term you were unfamiliar with - big deal. Didn't you learn something new? And then you feel the need to put in a plug for your own blog. Real classy.

Right on
Buckley's right - let's stay away from the moral morass (look that one up too, BrianR)and keep our public money going to more ethically sound, proven research.

Just an excuse to keep abortion going
As rightly pointed out, adult stem-cell research is far more viable. Notice how the media tends to avoid this discussion.

Furthermore, embryonic stem-cell research is not, "illegal." However, to hear the talking-heads, you'd be hard pressed to know that.

The real issue in all of this is who's paying for it. As in most areas of research, the scientific community loves programs where the federal government throws a few billion dollars out for the taking. A few pinhead
professors gobble it up, set up a little facility at their local university, hire some of their graduate students and viola! jobs for everyone for a few years. Results? We don't need no stinking results. Just give us the money.

If embryonic stem-cell's are the 'cure-all' they are made out to be, there would be plenty of start-up private enterprises with big investors backing this. As it is, the whole thing is a means to prop up the abortion industry. Note: You aren't killing your baby, you're saving a life!

"THE KILLING OF APPLES AND ORANGES"
WHAT'S ALL THIS WASTED TIME, AND MENTAL EXERTION?

HEY, WE KILL OUR YOUNG IN THIS COUNTRY DON'T WE? AND, IT'S LEGAL, THANKS TO THAT SINGLE COURT CASE WHERE PLAINTIFF ROE THEN CHOSE TO HAVE THE CHILD AFTER ALL. NONE THE LESS, THE KILLING FIELDS WERE PLOWED AND LAID WIDE OPEN TO ALL WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO PLANT, (OR BURY), THEIR HUMAN PRODUCE IN THEM.

COME ON PEOPLE AND LOOK, FOR CONSCIOUS SAKE, OVER THE ADVANTAGES OF THE DEATH OF EMBRYOS, VERSUS DISPATCHING FETUSES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF GROWTH.

THAT OL' SAYING, "OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND." BECOMES PREGNANT WITH MEANING HERE, DON'T YOU AGREE?

WE WHO KILL OUR YOUNG MIGHT SLEEP EASIER IN THIS REGARD, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THIS NEW METHOD IS TOO SMALL FOR THE HUMAN EYE TO SEE.

"YES VIRGINIA, YOU DID MAKE THE CUT."

STEM THE TIDE
It’s hard to stand on an abstract principle when the devastation of disease and suffering are in our face every day.

Bush’s veto is clearly retrograde to the current of public opinion and not likely to win him many new friends. A bad move from the standpoint of political pragmatism at a time when he needs every ally he can get. Many folks whom I often agree with are outraged that he would cast his first veto on this.

The “old conservative,” with whom I find myself agreeing less often these days, makes a valid point here. “Proportionality” arguments, such as the one Buckley proposed to his little sister, appeal, like most Faustian pacts, to our lesser angels.

The Bloody City
Children yawn and stretch and are torn to pieces in an instant.
Cries for mercy fall on deaf ears. They are loathed, they are loathed.
Angels stand with swords drawn as the Bloody City sleeps.

Awaken! City of power, City of light. While you have slept foulness has covered your streets. The stench of the blood and entrails of murdered innocents.

Strange voices from the air, screaming for choice--perverted liberty. Louder, louder, to drown out the cries for mercy.

But the songs of the children go up before the Father for a testimony, while angels stand with swords drawn as the Bloody City sleeps.

To Tom and Godel
Yes, you're right, I complained about Buckley's style. So sue me. I think he's a bloviating (there's one for you to look up, Tom) pseudo-intellectual who is most definitely a legend in his own mind.

Godel
Exactly right. For those to whom the improvement of their limited vocabulary is anathema, "@%!!&*@ 'em if they can't take a word!"

Alternatives
If all stem cell research were done away with today, what would the alternative research be for the cures stem cell research may bring?

Anyone?

GEM

Les:
LOL

Can I take it you're now joining the class-action suit against me?

I have to say, I certainly prefer your clarity of expression: "@%!!&*@ 'em if they can't take a word!"

to Buckley's oral ejaculata.

Research the literature
I have eagerly followed the developments in stem cell research. The very promising results are always from cord blood or adult stem cells. Why not concentrate the funds available on the research that is producing positive results? Why demand embryonic cells that have not one positive result? As adult and cord blood stem cells continue to progress, perhaps some research findings will reveal why ESC only produce tumors. Since ESC research is not illegal, it will continue. I for one would rather see my tax dollars spent on the researdh that IS producing improvements in the health of many people.

Pat in NC
Well, Pat, you're right, and adult stem cell research is where the funding is going. Private funding, that is, and the way it should be.

The G has no business funding any of this research at all.

But no, the ONLY way that embryonic stem cell (ESC) research outfits can get any funding is to foist onto the public the idea that government has some responsibility to take up the financial slack that venture capitalists won’t; in other words, to put lipstick on the pig.

Of course, here in California, our over-rated governor has just earmarked funding of $150 million to ESC, the result of a bond measure that was passed by voters a year or two ago. Naturally, that red-lipped pig won the beauty contest out here on the Left Coast.

Provoke Thought
Buckley's articles are thought-stimulating. His use of words always encourages some brain use. Those folks who complain about his choice of words are suffering from a form of steatopygia between the ears.

conservatives
I am glad i saw the light and joined the 21st century. Dumbya and all others that prefer the 18th century. If it were up to you we would still be burning witches, scarlet A's and our soldiers would still be using flintlocks. If it were up to him we would be using coal to propel his non working star wars crap. the only time it actually worked it had to have a homing device in the rocket it destroyed. I guess it is ok to use tax dollars to kill or visit mars but not to help.

Well, to those who think...
... my criticism of Buckley's style is unwarranted, I guess I must respond. Here's some real fodder for your class-action lawsuit against me.

Yes, I have in the past, and continue to, including regarding this column, criticize Buckley's penchant for verbal flatulence.

I don't find his thoughts particularly insightful, I don't consider him especially wise, I think his intellect is vastly over-rated.

He camouflages a rather pedestrian thought process within his admirable vocabulary.

There are examples of American philosophers with a truly admirable insight coupled with the ability to convey complex and abstract ideas clearly, pithily, succintly, and understandably. Will Rogers and Mark Twain come immediately to mind. Dennis Prager. These are examples of people who are truly intellectual.

Buckley doesn't make the cut.

So critique away, boys! All it shows me is that you're dazzled by flash rather than substance.

Hey Brian, they's only funnin' you
Because you admitted to looking up the word that they didn't know either. Hey, I didn't know it... SO WHAT? I did however know about what it meant, so I didn't look it up. Context.

BUT, all that aside.

I do tend to agree with you about Mr Buckley. He would be in an ethical dilemma going back in time and killing Hitler too. He would talk him to hopeful death, and Hitler would shoot him. (Probably cause he didn't know the words Buckley used!)

Sorry, couldn't resist.

To be or not to be?
This is a most disturbing question. Is it tissue or is it a growing human? Doctor Leonard Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute has made himself quite clear, calling the unborn of any age "potentials not actuals", in other words potential human beings but not yet born and fully alive in the outside world. Therefore not human and no rights as human.

I feel I want to run away when confronted with this question.

If I could make a clone of myself with no functioning brain, just a body for my harvesting of exact fitting replacement organs -- would I?

The future of medicine will bump into many questions like these, some will be even more daunting to ponder.

What do I think about Bush's veto on stemcell research? Ask me tomorrow.

BrianR and Ms Conservative
Both your comments are well stated. You will always find those who use lofty words in an attempt to empress. But this type of person is inherently phony. I don't place Mr. Buckley in this category though. He has a fine vocabulary and uses it as a matter of course in speech as well as writing. I don't agree about his approach to some subjects, because I think he looses some of his audience by speaking above them. But, that's him.

Gosh and MsConserv
Thanks for the support. My water wings were going flat. LOL

Not really, but I do appreciate the support. That's for real.

Gosh, you're right. That's my whole point, which has become such an unfotunate diversion from a real issue worth discussing.

"OooooooooooH, Brian dissed Buckley! Let's slam Brian!"

If there's an issue worth discussing, let's (by "let's" I mean the paid-to-write columnists, as well as us regular folks) do it in a vocabulary, context, and format which can be clearly understood by EVERYBODY. Jeez, we're not members of some secret club with a decoder ring from a cereal box and all that.

We're just (or at least I am just) folks discussing big issues in a somewhat small venue.

I really appreciate the fact that I can state my views in a generally-friendly venue -- as opposed to trying to wade through the BS of MoveOn or KOS -- in response to columnists of national stature.

That certainly doesn't mean they're sacrosanct. That whole idea is a joke on this forum.

What really cracked me up about this whole episode, which you addressed directly MsCon, is that I opened the ball by saying flat out that I didn't understand Buckley's foppish and condescending use of Old Latin, and derided him for it as a pompous affectation.

You can't imagine my surprise that there were some people that actually defended him, and made THAT the issue!


AnimalGirl
Yes, yes, but again the articles you cite don't differentiate between Adult Stem Cells (ASC) and Embryonic Stem Cells (ASC). They just refer to "stem cells".

That's one of the main points. One (ESC) is bad science, the other (ASC) is not.

The only way the bad one can get funding is by hoodwinking the public into believing in a non-existent equivalency.

Then further being hoodwinked into providing unconstitutional public funding for the bad-science (ESC) research, since no way in hell will anybody (specififcally venture-capital development outlets) spend their hard-earned dollars on a route of research with no hope of ROI (Return On Investment).

That's how a free-market system works, my dear, unless f---ed up by an interfering Suckling Government.

Again, my shameless plug: read my blog:

viewfromtheisland.townhall.com

(Man. I gotta Macro that!)

BrianR, I concur...
....when writing, the language should be commonplace, trying to persuade the most with the least.

When debating verbally though, that vocabulary can be intimidating and works well to make someone cower, listen, and can give great credibility.

Jimmy
Exactly. You've put your finger exactly on the pulse of the situation.

High-faluting language as a screen for a paucity of new ideas.

How's THAT for a Buckley-esque load of bull?

If you've got something worthwhile to say, say it in a format that the everyday guy can understand.

Otherwise, the linguistic hyperbole is being used as a barrier to the true realization that the columnist (in this case, Buckley) is hiding his own shortcomings in a barrage of ....

well, quite frankly, linguistic BS.

Oh, Carbuncle.
Sorry I overlooked responding to your post. I was occupied elsewhere.

Let's see, you used the word "steatopygia" in your post.

I'm sure that's a word in your common and everyday conversations. Unfortunately, it's not for me.

Let me take a moment to look it up on the web.

Well, I found a definiton on Wkipedia: "Steatopygia is a high degree of fat accumulation in and around the buttocks".

Well. I'm not really sure what to say to that, Carbuncle. Especially as I'm 6'2" tall, and a lean 195 pounds, mostly muscle as I work out 3 - 4 times per week. Most of my friends and family usually comment (if they say anything at all, since I find the topic less than comfotable) that I have a very flat butt.

Hmmm....

Perhaps, in your everyday conversations, you use the word "Steatopygia" in some other context that would be more familiar?

Would you care to enlighten me on this?




Buckley's style notwithstanding ...
One of the beautiful things about our free-market economy is that private funds will develop successful new technologies without government meddling -- in fact, private actors almost always marshal scarce resources more efficiently and wisely than bureaucrats. On that basis alone, it was right to veto public funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

Bush's moral argument is also valid. There is something to be said for avoiding the willful destruction of nascent human life for the purpose of experiments.

As an aside, I would be curious to know where the PETA and ELF-types stand on this issue. For those unfamiliar, those are groups opposed to using animals for research (or any other purpose that might benefit humans, apparently).

moral ground
Buckley is correct. We need to affirm our moral ground.That is not the same thing as "holier than thou." It is taking a stand about what you believe in. There has to be a little more clearly divided lines along what we as a country stand for. If you believe in life, you cannot be in a gray area-being only maybe alive-you are alive or not. If we aren't sure I say we need to err on the side of life.

Let Him Live
Mr. Buckley approached his moral philosophy discussion, hopefully with a, “When I was a child I spoke as a child; I thought as a child….” Thus, giving him the benefit of the doubt, one hopes, as an adult today he understands that whereas “murder” is a legal term, in which some forms of it carry more penalty than others, “sin” is a religious term, in which there is no such thing as degree, much less, “different kinds of murder, some more sinful than others.”



Since his subject is moral philosophy, his “style,” amply criticized by others, is irrelevant. Every writer has the right to express himself in his own manner - those who dislike the manner - the right not to read that writer. We may debate a writer’s logic, if we feel we must, but not the persona he employs.



All of which leads to my taking issue with his failed logic in the use of, “embryos that might conceivably serve as way stations to human life.” An embryo is not a way station, any more than a five year old is a way station, to human life! An embryo (in this case) is a stage of human growth and development. When it was an unfertilized egg or sperm it was merely a possibility: once conception occurs, it is an independently alive human being, just as surely as a Kangaroo sustained in its mother’s pouch is a living Kangaroo, though it will take considerable time before it can sustain itself anywhere else. Likewise, an embryo is not “organic material” which could “conceivably result in children,” any more than a child is organic material which could conceivably result in an adult.



Legally, courts can and do define “human life” and it’s “murder” in any way they please: nevertheless morally all life begins at conception. Let any pregnant woman, or judge, who denies this reality, attempt to alter it by merely taking thought , or by labeling it “organic material,” and let us see if it ceases to live without immoral, and yes – sinful - human intervention. Human law may have decreed it to be legal, but there is a far higher law than that. Though some live in denial, man cannot decree what is sinful.



When abortion originally became lawful - it was legal only during the first trimester - legal to kill a fetus only during the first three months of its growth and development. We know how that mushroomed into lawful to kill a full-term infant, provided it had not yet inhaled one breath of air. If today fetal stem cell research is not only legal, but were legally financed with public funds, it’s only a matter of time before any and all research is sanctioned – anything, everything that enough people in power feel is expedient, useful to some at the expense of others will be lawful. The fundamental philosophical question is whether anything founded in the premeditated killing of innocent others can be useful or good for any. Can that which is intrinsically wrong be made right because some, or many, may possibly, subsequently benefit? The answer to that in at least two religions is not open to debate. What part of, “You shall not kill” can any man pretend not to understand? Only those with eyes and ears yet who refuse to see and hear can pretend any doubt. Those who claim to believe that life begins with inhalation of air might also believe that the only life on this planet is mammalian!



Mr. Buckley attempted to explain why Mr. Bush exercised his first veto, to explain that he vetoed only spending public funds for the killing of human life and experimentation upon its cells. I’ve no doubt Mr. Bush courageously made the moral choice.



Returning to Mr. Buckley’s, “When I was a child…,” a child may substitute “I want,” and “Everybody’s doing it” for moral philosophy. Adults are supposed to know better. We who are breathing should have the decency, if nothing else, to let others who could, breath also. To take a life, any life, much less a human life, without just cause, is deplorable. To experiment on one is beyond contempt.









Jude
O.K. then. I've followed this meandering thread with great interest. It was more than entertaining. I agree with Jude on both counts; choice of words as the writer's prerogative and beginning of life at conception.

That done then, I'm going to kick back and peruse Buckley's old columns and learn a few new words...

Difficult words??
I find it amusing to read the petty criticisms of Bill Buckley's vocabulary, that he should "dumb down" his words for proper understanding. Oh, well...some people like steak, which has to be chewed, and some people like pablum, which doesn't. I'll take Mr. Buckley's steak...well done, thank you.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.