The newest papers cover a broad spectrum of topics, and are listed below:

The Nazi Research Data: Should We Use It? – Sarah Wilson

Safeguarding Genetic Privacy – Anna-Marie Struble, Emily Valji, and Jennifer Lilly

Altered Nuclear Transfer Violates Natural Law Ethics – Thomas Bertagnoli

Of Violinists and Fetuses – Dylan Black

Virtue Ethics for Christians – Benjamin R. Kilian

Third-Party Gametes and the Christian – Emily Valji

1) The obligation to perform the procedure “in case of emergency”
2) A prohibition for persons participating “indirectly” in the procedure to exercise their right of conscience
3) The establishment of an official list of conscientious objectors

Hmm, this means that pro-life doctors might be mandated to perform abortions in some circumstances, in spite of their moral scruples. Furthermore, nurses and allied health professionals will be obligated to assist in all such procedures — no right of conscience for them. And finally, there will be a list — a “black list” if you will, of “objectors,” exposing such individuals to discrimination and recrimination. If this doesn’t bother you, just think of the McCarthy era in America in the 1950′s to better picture how this might work.

Pay attention as this issue plays out, for as the Council of Europe goes, so will the United States go in the near future.

I have added my name to a petition to appose these draconian measures, that violate the Hippocratic tradition of medicine that has held sway for 2400 years (see petition link below). Please also consider signing, and join me in prayer.

Petition (in French, but click on the British flag to review in English)

Achilles tending the wounds of Patroclus in the Trojan War

Followers of the Center for Bioethics and this blog know that I have endorsed and signed the Manhattan Declaration, a Christian statement of solidarity in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. In previous posts (1/10/2010 and 7/06/2010),  I have pointed out that speaking out for life, families, and conscience may come at a price, as these principles are under assault in our contemporary society. It appears that these religiously-informed ideas, foundational as they are, are becoming a minority viewpoint, certainly in the United States. And, increasingly, we are a persecuted minority.

So what does this mean for those of us who believe in and teach these foundational benchmarks? We must surely continue our advocacy, but what if we are not successful? At what point is it incumbent upon us to practice civil disobedience, as the apostles did (Acts 5:27-41)? For an insightful discussion of this idea, listen to Dr. Timothy George, one of the originators of the Manhattan Declaration, at this link.

This last idea has been under increasing attack in our public discourse. Last December, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University. In a subtle phrase that Chuck Colson refers to as an example of  Orwellian “newspeak,”she repeatedly referred to “freedom of worship” as a key democratic principle. But the Bill of Rights guarantees our “freedom of religion,” not the more narrowly defined right Mrs. Clinton spoke of. If we accept her terminology, we will lose the ability to define who may work in Christian organizations and churches. This would be an erosion of religious liberty similar to what is happening in Canada, with devastating results for faith-based organizations and charities.

To better understand this, check out Chuck Colson’s recent commentary (below, or go to his website):

Sources:

Robert Kane: A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will (2005, Oxford University Press)
Derk Pereboom: Living Without Free Will (2001, Cambridge University Press)

Free Will Debate (Video)

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Except as noted, all additional music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network.

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Hmm, not so fast. Some claim that only physical and naturalistic forces are at work in the universe. What we perceive as free will is merely an illusion, since every effect has a purely natural cause. The mind, even our consciousness, is nothing more than chemicals, neurons, and electrical signals that obey physical rules. Nothing else matters, so it makes sense to deny the existence of free will.

The debate between free will and determinism is an ancient one, dating back to an era before Socrates and Plato, and has continued up to the present day. My engagement in this discussion will take place at a Debate Summit at Grace Community Church on March 13, 2010 (7:00 p.m.). I will have a lively conversation with Dr. William Provine of Cornell University. Although I have not previously met Dr. Provine, I am familiar with his work and his views.

The title of our debate is: “Free Will: Does it Exist? Does it Matter?” Dr. Provine is an atheist and hard determinist, who claims that free will is illusory and unintelligible.  For my part, I am a Christian theist, who holds that created beings are endowed with the ability to exercise an independent will. Not only is this possible, but it is essential for society’s good and for ultimate meaning in life.

So our debate will contrast two views. Dr. Provine’s hard determinism claims that everything in the universe is either random or caused by pre-existing conditions, leaving no room for any higher purpose, and no room for free will. Therefore, our views of law and ethics should change to accommodate the idea that our choices are constrained, and no one should be held morally accountable for his actions. He states, “Every biological organism is determined by heredity, environment, and their complex interaction. No organism has any trace of freedom . . . Moral responsibility is crucial for human social interaction, but this we must teach to humans.”

My view is that of free will libertarianism (not to be confused with any political theory). There is order, meaning, and purpose in the universe, that ultimately comes from a Creator-God. While determinism is true to the extent that many events follow law-like principles, this does not mean that human nature is necessarily constrained by physical or chemical forces. Our free will is a reflection of God’s volitional nature, who has given us the capacity and the responsibility to act for our own good and for that of those around us. Therefore, moral censure and moral praise make sense, and help to define our ethical lives.

Dr. Provine has countered,  “The myth of human free will, promulgated by all religions in the world, has caused more harm in this world than any gods . . . [This myth] is the true fangs of religion.”

This is going to be a lively exchange of views! For more information, go to the Debate Summit website.

In fact, it is the disconnect between public will and political pragmatism that causes many to be frustrated, for it appears that common citizens are being lost in the shuffle. In short, our government seems to no longer be listening. But listen it must, for our values are under attack as never before.

As Christians, it is time to make our voices heard. Professor Robert George (Princeton University), Professor Timothy George (Samford University), and Chuck Colson (founder, Prison Fellowship) have jointly authored a document entitled the Manhattan Declaration. I invite you to read the document in its entirety, but I will quote a few excerpts here.

The authors begin with a reminder of the historical role of the Christian church in promoting and defending social justice:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

Given our long standing commitment to these principles, it seems especially appropriate for the church to take a stand today, at a time when an increasingly secular government has become so insensitive to these human values:

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

And so, quite simply, it is these three principles are are under assault: 1) the sanctity of human life; 2) the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and 3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty. These are not subtle matters of worship preferences or fine points of doctrine; these are common traditions that are shared by Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox believers. We should join together in common cause on these matters.

But the situation is serious, and calls for a strong commitment to oppose the forces that would tear apart the moral foundations of our nation, even to the practice of civil disobedience:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

These are powerful words, and worthy of your consideration. Please go to the website listed below, and read the entire declaration. If you agree with it, there is a place for you to sign it.

I have done so.

The Manhattan Declaration

Appointed in November, 2001 by the Bush Administration, the Council has provided valuable input on some of the most difficult ethical issues in our modern culture. New technologies, both at the beginning and end of life, have challenged our understandings of what it means to be human, and what are the limits of medical science.

The Council was first chaired by Leon Kass of the University of Chicago, followed by Edmund Pelligrino of Georgetown University in 2005. Daniel McConchie (VP for Govt. Affairs with AUL) recently said: “This was the most balanced bioethics council in history, with two leaders . . . who went out of their way to ensure the council was reflective of all the major perspectives on the issues.”

The Obama Administration claims that the President’s Council was “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that tended to focus on extended discussion rather than consensus. Others were even more critical, calling it “more like a public debating society” than an advisory agency.

I have found the President’s Council Web site to be an excellent source of balanced articles on a wide range of subjects (the site is being archived, for which I am thankful). The Council’s outgoing Chair has said this:

To advance human good and avoid harm, biotechnology must be used within ethical constraints. It is the task of bioethics to help society develop those constraints and bioethics, therefore, must be of concern to all of us. (Dr. Edmond Pelligrino)

Granted, each presidential administration has the right to set its own priorities. President Obama has said that he will soon name a new commission that will focus more on “practical policy options.” I suppose that means that this body will be less focused on theory and more on tangible steps. Hmmm.

It has sometimes been said, not without justification, that university and hospital ethics committees are in place to rubber-stamp (and defend to the public) decisions that have already been made, rather than give true, independent ethical guidance. Could this also be said of the new Council under the Obama White House?

Perhaps the former “public debating society” will be replaced by a society where there is no debate at all. Stay tuned.

NY Times Article

That is why I am troubled by her June 5th piece, “The Myth of the Lone Gunman.” Her commentary on the recent shooting of late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller is mean-spirited, vitriolic, and unfair. Virtually all the pro-life groups in this country have disavowed and repudiated the use of violence to accomplish their aims. Most pro-choice advocates understand this, and have not attempted to use this terrible incident to discredit anti-abortion activism.

Not so with Ms. Goodman. In a subtle way, she casts about widely to find a wider circle of blame. Here are a few excerpts:

It is believed that the shooter acted alone. Surely, that’s true. No one else was standing beside suspect Scott Roeder when it is believed he murdered Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of his church.

But Michael Griffin also acted alone when he killed David Gunn in 1993. Paul Hill acted alone when he killed John Britton in 1994. John Salvi acted alone and so did Eric Rudolph and James Kopp. This suspect is hardly lonely in this murderous cast of lone actors . . .

The pro-life community reacted with shock. No doubt. But where was the shock at the fringe groups they forgot to disavow? . . . Were they also shocked by the everyday mainstream rhetoric that casually refers to abortion as murder? Did they worry about the movement strategy designed deliberately to target providers, the weak link of abortion rights, driving clinics out of 87 percent of our counties?

Pro-life leaders denounced the murder . . . [And] as a First Amendment absolutist, I don’t believe that words kill. But this week, I can’t help wondering whether rhetoric can justify a crime in the mind of a fanatic. Can’t words provide the sort of perverse moral platform that jihadists stand on and the alternate universe in which a “lone nut” can find a home?. . .

I don’t blame everyone who checks a pro-life box on the pollster’s chart. I know that ambivalence is the emotion often cast onto the sidelines of this debate. But it is well past time for the antiabortion movement to denounce those who are in the profession of inflaming passions: Those who call Obama the “most pro-abortion president ever.” Those who ratchet up the rhetoric on a Supreme Court nominee. Those who cull doctors from their honored profession by labeling them “abortionists” . . .

You see, this suspect was not such a lone gunman. And no, I am afraid, this was not an isolated incident.

Now, let’s be clear on a few things. The sudden loss of human life is always a terrible tragedy, whether that of a physician shot down by an unbalanced gunman, or that of an unborn child who dies as a result of abortion. Ms. Goodman is obviously more concerned about the former than the latter; that is her right.

I agree that our passions sometimes get carried away, and our rhetoric is sometimes “over-the-top.” That is surely true on both sides of the debate. Ms. Goodman specifically repudiates the use of inflammatory language, e.g., labeling those who perform abortion as “murderers.” She’s got a point.

But what would you have the pro-life movement do, Ms. Goodman? Should they tone down their rhetoric so much that they can no longer call abortion evil? Surely it is not extreme to say that abortion is “morally equivalent to murder,” if one believes that human personhood begins at conception.

The moral indignation of the pro-life movement is based on a passionate defense of the most vulnerable among us, those who cannot defend themselves. Trying to get pro-lifers to tone down their rhetoric will be difficult. Their emotions are understandable in the face of a society that wants to treat human life as a disposable commodity.

I sincerely regret that a few extremists have chosen to take matters into their own hands, rather than respecting the rule of law. Their actions diminish all of us. But Ms. Goodman, you should not blame us for our moral outrage against the evil of abortion.

Then came the news that the Commencement speaker would be President Barack Obama, and that he would receive an honorary law degree. Her reaction appeared in a letter to Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., the President of Notre Dame University. Some excerpts:

I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions” . . .

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice. . .

It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

Professor Glendon’s letter is a bold rebuke to to Notre Dame University for setting aside its historic pro-life principles. She should be commended for her strong stand on behalf of human life.

Newsweek Article

Full Text of Professor Glendon’s Letter

Here is the interesting wrinkle: In a move that was probably unexpected by Oprah herself, Dr. Oz rightly pointed out that embryonic stem cells are probably not going to help much in this kind of research, because it is difficult to make them become specialized brain cells, and because such cells often form tumors when injected into experimental animals. On the other hand, an exciting development from November, 2007 uses ordinary human skin cells to create the needed stem cells. Although Dr. Oz did not use the term, they are called induced pluripotent stem cells, and they are far superior to embryonic stem cells. Look at the short video segment from Oprah – you’ll be amazed at how soon Dr. Oz expects these cells to be in clinical use:

Video Link

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research.

This speech was all about vague promises of medical cures that will come about with the help of stem cells. So what are stem cells? The president doesn’t tell us. Where do these cells come from? The president doesn’t tell us. How are stem cells obtained? The president doesn’t tell us.

There’s an elephant in the room, and the the president is ignoring it. He never talks about the entity that must be destroyed to produce stem cells. These are embryonic stem cells, which means they must come from the destruction of embryos. What are embryos? The earliest stage of human life.

Honest people may differ on the moral issues involved in embryo-destructive research, but to have a meaningful conversation they must understand the issues at stake. Unfortunately, on March 9th, President Barack Obama didn’t tell the American people what he was really talking about.

Fr. Neuhaus, a Lutheran pastor for 30 years, converted to Roman Catholicism in 1990, and was ordained a Catholic priest one year later by New York Cardinal John O’Connor. As a social conservative, he helped to shape the dialogue of the religious right in its opposition to abortion and to the devaluation of human life. In the 1990s, he worked closely with Chuck Colson to start the movement called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” that formed the basis for common cause on pro-life advocacy and theological engagement between Catholics and Protestants.

Fr. Neuhaus wrote several books, including his best-known work: The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America. He also was the founding editor of the journal First Things, the only magazine I read cover-to-cover each month (I highly recommend it: go to www.firstthings.com).

Fr. Neuhaus was a powerful and clear writer, after whom I have often wished to pattern my own efforts. He somehow managed to be both passionate and eloquent at the same time, and had a razor-sharp wit. Some of his comments, though subtle, could make me laugh out loud. Always gracious, his irony and sarcasm never drifted into ad hominem attacks. Most of all, there was a spiritual ebullience that directed his readers toward the Savior. His deep faith lifted his prose to musicality.

Though I have never personally met Father Richard John Neuhaus, I will deeply miss him.

Associated Press

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn died at the age of 89 of a heart ailment. This once unknown Russian high school teacher published his first book, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, in 1962, launching him from obscurity to international renown. He received the Nobel Prize for literature in 1970 for his brave prose confronting the evils of the former Soviet state.

Exiled from his native land, Solzhenitsyn became an American citizen, and continued speaking out against the Soviet empire. But he was equally critical of the West. He gave the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, a speech the New York Times called a “hectoring jeremiad.” Yet his criticisms seem amazingly prescient and appropriate today, even 30 years later.

In his Harvard address, Solzhenitsyn’s most scathing complaint against American society was its moral poverty. Materialism has triumphed to such an extent that “it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, leading them to physical splendor, happiness, possession of material goods, money and leisure, to an almost unlimited freedom of enjoyment.” The pursuit of happiness as unalienable right, embedded in our founding documents, has (on his view) led us to see material happiness as our highest calling.

Along the way, the very rights guaranteed by our democratic system have gotten in our way. The “supreme solution” to moral matters is found in a legal remedy:

If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd.

This confusing of the moral with what is merely legal is at the heart of our distorted American ideal of freedom: “Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.” This means that man has become autonomous in his humanism: “[H]humanistic autonomy [is] the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.”

Is it any wonder, then, that individual preferences become the moral barometer of our social, political, and ethical life? The Russian dissident has said well: “To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects.”

In condemning material happiness as ultimate moral good, Solzhenitsyn makes the observation: “If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.”

Which brings us to the ongoing blindness of our modern culture. Solzhenitsyn’s Harvard remarks received a cool reception when they were delivered, and still fall on deaf ears today. Despite a glowing elegiac tribute to the fallen writer, the New York Times failed to even mention that he was a devout Christian.

Alexandr, rejoice now in union with the Heavenly Father you have so loved. I hope that we may yet listen to your prophetic voice.

NY Times Tribute to Solzhenitsyn

Harvard Address

My good friend Dr. Joy Riley, Director of the Tennessee Center for Bioethics and Culture, has produced a short video entitled “Who Am I?” It is a poignant exploration of what it means to be a donor-conceived child.

“Who Am I?” (Video from YouTube)

The Tennessee Center for Bioethics and Culture

The term eugenics was actually coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton, an Englishman and cousin of Charles Darwin. Galton, a brilliant statistician, anthropologist, and explorer, applied Darwinian science to develop theories about heredity and how to have “good offspring.” His original writings called for a “positive eugenics,” which would benignly guide young couples to find the “best” partners, in order to ensure that certain desirable traits would carry on.

Yet the legacy of eugenics has not been a good one for humankind. Galton’s ideas soon gave way to “negative eugenics,” which recommended the culling of defectives and degenerates from the population in order to promote and preserve the fittest. Eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach. “Genetically selected” traits included: pauperism, feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, rebelliousness, nomadism, criminality, prostitution — all due to “defective germ plasm.” On this idea, defective individuals should not reproduce, which led to compulsory sterilization. There was a strong racist element as well, which led to selective immigration restrictions.

The popularity of eugenics thinking waned in the U.S. and Great Britain with the extreme forms seen in Nazi Germany. So why are we seeing a resurgence of eugenics thinking today? Social Darwinism and human engineering is again on the rise, with a utilitarian calculus that desires to tinker with our traits in order to make men “better.” A recent post by Wesley Smith entitled “It Pays to be a Eugenicist” discusses the big money available to promote human neurological enhancement. This meddling with our birthright, our human givens, has Wesley Smith scared, and I’m right there with him. Isn’t there a saying about those who forget the lessons of history?

Eugenics Archive

Finally, we consider a beautiful engraving by William Blake, to illustrate a Robert Blair poem, The Grave, and how it captures the idea of the soul.

Sources and Links:

• Project Gutenberg E-Text of Phaedo
• The First Fourteen Days of Human Life

Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound.

Special Music: “Minnie,” by Psykosoul

Music Bumpers: “Untitled,” by Axiom to Zeal and “Tolkien: The Hobbit” by the Brobdingnagian Bards

To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).

Player:

• CedarEthics is now home to both the CedarEthics Podcast and the Director’s blog.
• We include more photos of students and faculty engaging in activities related to bioethics.
• Academic Resources (the heart of the Web site) are more clearly marked and easier to access.
• Site navigation is easier and more logical.

Please let us know your feedback!