Across the mighty Atlantic there was a deafening silence when Timothy McVeigh was put to death. Europe, land of enlightenment, poor dental care and 5 pounds per liter petrol could not rally the troops for a hearty protest against us barbarians of capital punishment. McVeigh was the murderer they, too, would kill.
Those whose moral outrage knows no limits on abortion clinic bombings remain mute as the Phoenix arsonist torches homes along the mountain preserve nature paths.
Napster creator Shawn Fanning cheered and facilitated the pirating of copyrighted music via peer-to-peer file sharing, but moaned mightily of infringement when an entrepreneur took the Napster logo and slapped it onto shirts that sold like hotcakes.
Bill Gates, Mr. Requiring-Me-To-Disclose-My Windows-Code-to-Rivals-is-Confiscation, personally lobbied to force AOL to share its instant-messaging software, an area in which Microsoft had missed the boat.
Now pro-life politician Connie Mack, a cancer patient himself, and Nancy Reagan, whose husband's illness might be contained, tout the wonders of stem-cell research. Their personal circumstances make them dismiss their commitment to life's transcending quality. What folly it is to say that we need stem-cell research! Such analysis begs the question. Every ethical lapse has a reason, but no justification.
The saying that sports build character has relevance here. Sports reveal character. Sports participation can correct character flaws through a controlled environment, if we keep overzealous parents away from games.
So it is with ethical dilemmas. We already have our principles; we just compromise them when the going gets tough. Compelling personal circumstances test us, but they are not justification for compromising principle. Not stealing bread when you're starving is the challenge. Hunger does not change the principle that stealing is wrong. Ad hoc application of principle is moral relativism. Ad hoc results arise because dilemmas are presented as either/or ultimatums.
An expedient resolution becomes the only resolution. Moral relativism thrives. There is effective stem-cell research using adult and umbilical cord cells. Such avenues may take longer, but we get results without the offense to life's transcending quality.
Protection of life requires unwavering principle in life's most emotional circumstances. A letter from a regular detractor on my pro-life position read, "Wait until your daughters are pregnant. We'll see your position on abortion then." That my daughters might be affected does not change my views. My daughters would have my love and support during any pregnancy, but our profound respect for life doesn't waver because we would prefer a different consequence.
The issue in stem-cell research, and President Bush's decision on whether to continue federal funding for it, is very simple: Does life begin at conception? If life begins at conception, the rationalization of the inevitable disposal of frozen embryos is clearly not the issue. The creation and freezing of embryos was the result of medical science focusing on "Could we?" and forgetting to ask, "Should we?" Because that analysis was not done, we now have a supply chain of embryos from parents who have moved on to a new fad.
Tiny beings now sit on ice, abandoned by their makers to scientific swashbucklers foraging among them. That original flippant and seemingly harmless interference with the dignity of creation (in the name of the noble act of giving folks offspring) has brought us ghoulish scientists in Virginia ratcheting up embryo production for research only. May God have mercy on them for their disregard of the sanctity of life and its creation, whether in a petri dish or the master bedroom.
My oldest daughter once asked me about the challenges of giving birth at age 41. She said, "Another baby was probably the last thing you needed." I reminded her of life's origins in conception. Armed with genetics class material, she conceded, "John existed from the moment he was conceived, from his red hair to his curved fourth toe to his bad temper."
They are not embryos — they are freckles, personalities, and complete beings, save a little incubation. It's tough to draw this line because our children suffer from cancer, our parents bear the indignities of Alzheimer's and diabetes takes its unrelenting toll.
But, life is not ours to create and then destroy in the name of wants and needs. If life begins at conception, all other questions are moot. Even the choicest among us have succumbed on this issue for we lose sight of principle when we're hungry. Principle compromised for expediency is not only wrong, it is the beginning of an inconsolable regret over our failure to hold firm when the inevitable consequences haunt us.
Marianne M. Jennings is a professor of legal and ethical studies at Arizona State University. Her e-mail address is mmjdiary@aol.com .