This is covered terrain for Vox Nova. Blackadder and I have very different political outlooks, yet we both see eye-to-eye on the big problem with McCain: He IS NOT pro-life.
Over at InsideCatholic, Mark Stricherz asks the pressing question: How can we call John McCain “pro-life” when he has consistently supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research? This is an important question, which both Blackadder and I have raised many times.
Stricherz’s fellow contributor at InsideCatholic, Deal Hudson, contrived a response entitled “John McCain IS Pro-life.” Hudson listed a number of reasons why we should all think of McCain as an advocate for life:
- Fr. Frank Provone, head of Priests for Life, states that McCain has a “clear and convincing pro-life voting record.”
- NARAL gives McCain a “Zero” rating
- Senator Sam Brownback says that McCain is “pro-life”
So Hudson’s brilliant piece of reasoning really amounts to: “Other people say John McCain is pro-life, so he must be pro-life.” Such arguments from authority would not hold up in a logic course, much less in the eyes of St. Thomas Aquinas, who reminds us that arguments from authority are the weakest sort (Summa Theologiae 1.1.8 ob 2). Truth is, Hudson hides behind Fr. Pavone and Brownback rather then really engaging the question raised by Stricherz.
Now, it is well known that McCain’s voting record on abortion is consistently pro-life. No one’s disputing that. However, what seems to be ignored is that McCain voted in 2006 and 2007 to enhance federal enhancement of embryonic stem cell research. McCain voted “Yea” on S.5 and H.R. 810. S.5 and H.R. 810 were bills to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. These measures passed the Senate, but were vetoed, thanks be to God, by President Bush. Incidentally, Hudson–a long time Bush supporter–obfuscates matters by comparing McCain with Bush on the issue. A contrasting of positions would be more beneficial (Bush vetoed the bills that McCain supported).
Some Catholics have asserted that McCain is beginning to change his view on embryonic stem cell research. No, he’s not. Blackadder noted the following report from The National Review on a campaign stop McCain made in Florida just before its primary:
A woman asked McCain at his West Palm Beach town hall if he will change his position to oppose federal funding for embryonic stem cells research in light of new developments. McCain said he’s very encouraged “by the information you just relayed and I agree it has tremendous potential to eliminate an issue which has divided our pro-life community and eliminate the need for embryonic stem cell research. We’re not there yet. According to a growing body of scientific opinion, we are approaching it. I look forward to that day. I’m not changing my position yet, but I am encouraged by the progress that has been made.”
So, my friends, John McCain has voted 100% of the time in favor of federal enhancement of embryonic stem cell research, and as recently as January 2008 he has stated that he has not changed his mind on the issue. Okay, now back to Hudson…
Hudson authored the now (in)famous “How to Vote Catholic” guide in which he laid out what HE thinks is the proper political perspective for ALL Catholics. In this guide, he forged a tenuous distinction between non-negotiable issues and issues of prudential judgment. Allow me to quote a few passages from his guide on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. Hudson writes (all emphasis is mine):
Bioethics is taking center stage in the arena of public policy and morality. The past few years have witnessed highly visible debates on human embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Since the future of such research has a direct impact on the life and death of human persons, it’s a life issue for all Catholics.
—
Catholics take seriously what science reveals about human embryogenesis and intrauterine human development. Human life begins at conception, and the gift of a child is linked with the conjugal act. Therefore, the Church opposes abortion and embryo-destructive research and rejects reproductive procedures that attempt to substitute for the marital act, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination. In this way, the Church upholds the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the marriage union.
—
The Church’s message is one of enthusiastic support for biomedical science, yet firm opposition to killing in the name of research. To experiment on unused, unimplanted, or frozen embryos violates Church teaching and “reduces human life to the level of simple ‘biological material ‘” ( Evangelium Vitae , 14). The fact that surplus embryos have been effectively orphaned does not reduce them to the status of expendable research material, nor does it remove their right to be protected by law.
—
Members of the U.S. Congress are now facing the issue of whether human clones, once they are created, can be killed for the sake of medical research or benefit. Immediate attention to this matter is critical.No Catholic can justify such a policy.
Hudson clearly states that embryonic stem cell research is a life issue in his guide to voting (we have an election coming up!). This would mean that, according to Hudson’s own words, McCain is on the wrong side of a life issue. Might I add that this life issue is not a matter of prudential judgment.
Putting things together here, we see that Hudson is not only inconsistent in his evaluation of McCain’s record on life, but he also implicitly contradicts himself in stating that embryonic stem cell research is a life issue on the one hand, and that McCain is pro-life on the other. Look, it’s either one or the other: Either opposition to the practice and funding of embryonic stem cell research is the pro-life position or it is not. You can’t have it both ways.
So has Deal Hudson changed his mind on embryonic stem cell research and now rejects what he wrote in “How to Vote Catholic”? Does he think supporting McCain over the real pro-life candidate, Mike Huckabee, is more important than consistently voting pro-life? Is he fundamentally confused right now? Perhaps all of the above. In any case, what is clear is that Hudson is not consistent in his positions.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In