Stem-cell research outside the bio-science authority is not limited in any way in Kansas. Proposals have been made to change this, and one proposal which I carried on the House floor did pass the House last year, but not the Senate. That proposal would have banned for one year, the use of any taxpayer dollars for human cloning, defined to include Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT). That proposal did not ban the procedure; it just said taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it.

I thought it a modest proposal as the lobbyists for embryonic stem cell research and SCNT had repeatedly testified before committees on which I sit claiming they would never ask for a dime of taxpayer money for SCNT. I assumed that taking them at their word would be no problem. What I found instead was that the proponents of SCNT went absolutely ballistic; it made me question the wisdom of taking them at their word in the future.

In any event if my speech were confined to current Kansas law on stem cell research I could stand for questions right now. But in order to earn my breakfast let me suggest a few things further. Let me suggest how I believe we should think about the issues of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. Now all too often this debate gets couched as a religious issue, and particularly an issue that is driven by peculiar folks like me who are conservative Christians.

I’d like to take that issue out of it for a moment by framing my remarks by giving consideration to a pre-Christian conflict over what I think are the issues truly before us; does might make right and do the ends justify the means.

One of the most famous considerations of these related questions come to us via Thucydides, as he recounts for us the Melian Dialogue. For those who are rusty on their Thucydides, Melos was a small island in the Cretan sea allied with the Spartans, but neutral in the Peloponnesian war. The Athenian Navy came to Melos and asked that they ally with them and pay them tribute. The Melian’s refused.

What has made this story a classic in Western thought was the argument of the Athenians. While the dialogue itself is too lengthy to recite in full I do want to give you a brief taste:

The Athenians argued as follows: “We then, we Athenians, will use no fine words, we will not go out of our way to prove that we have a right to rule… But you and we should say what we really think, and aim only at what is possible, for we both alike know that in the discussion of human affairs the question of justice only enters where there is equal power to enforce it, and that the powerful exact what they can, and the weak grant what they must.”

To which the Melians responded: “Well then since you set aside justice and invite us to speak of expediency, in our judgment it is certainly expedient that you should respect a principle which you know if for the common good; that to every man in peril a reasonable claim should be accounted a claim of right… Your interest in this principle is quite as great as ours, in as much as you, if you fail, will incur the heaviest vengeance, and will be the most terrible example to mankind.”

Now in the end the Melians decided not to yield, and as a result the Athenians blockaded the city until the Melians capitulated in the face of starvation, at which point the Athenians killed every male citizen of Melos and carried off the women and children into slavery.

In this case the Athenian argument was a simple one, might makes right. They argued in essence that because they had the power to act it was therefore right for them to act. The Melian’s in their response made a crucial point; that those who violate principle in the name of expediency may well themselves someday find it necessary to rely upon the very principle they have discarded. But under such circumstances they may find that they won their initial argument too convincingly, that the principle upon which they now need to rely no longer holds sway.

Now let’s step away from ancient Greece for a moment and talk about stem cell research. Let me start with a personal point. 30 years ago my sister Darian was born with Spina-bifida and Hydrocephalus. I have participated at very close range in the innumerable struggles associated with her disability. She faces challenges every day that I can only vaguely comprehend, and she does so with grace and courage. I could have no greater joy than seeing a treatment or cure for the many problems that afflict her.

Simply put, I get it. I understand very well the desire to pursue any avenue that seems to provide opportunities for treatments and cures for the disabled. But, even in these cases, indeed perhaps especially in these cases, we must not neglect the ends vs. means question.

As an aside allow me to note that in framing the question this way I am conceding the possibility that embryonic stem cell research may in fact lead to treatments and cures, something that I believe is very far from certain. But I want to confront this issue as honestly as possible, at the level of principle. And at that level the choice set before us is a clear one:

The whole question that we are faced with is whether the ends justify the means. That’s it. In order to answer the question of whether the ends justify the means we must, in this case, ask what is the nature of the cloned embryo that is destroyed in order to extract embryonic stem cells. I believe the way that we answer this question is of crucial importance to the whole issue of human dignity. As for myself, I believe that human dignity is inherent not instrumental.

Think about it this way, Christopher Reeve’s value as a human being did not change one iota as a result of his accident. Or put it another way, my sister’s value as a human being is not in any way denigrated by her disability. We can say these things only because we acknowledge that human begins have intrinsic value. Human are not instrumentally valuable depending upon their social utility.

But for this argument to be true, for human life to have value that is truly inherent, so that an instrumental argument does not sneak in the back door, then that value must be the same as all other human beings, regardless of their size, their level of development, their environment, or their degree of dependency.

I believe that the evidence is simply overwhelming that the embryo that is destroyed by embryonic stem cell research is a human being that is just smaller, more dependent, in a different location, and less developed than you and me. It's valuable because of what it is, not how it can be used. To say anything different is to place at risk the very concept of the inherent value of human life. It is to say that in some circumstances some human begins can be treated as products rather than people.

My simple point here this morning is this, if the embryo that is destroyed in embryonic stem cell research is human then the ends to be achieved by this research can not justify the means of the embryos destruction without placing the entire concept of inherent human dignity at risk.

If we disagree as to that point than our disagreement truly does go all the way down and there is little possibility of meaningful discussion. But if we can agree as to that point than a very useful dialogue is possible; one that I would be pleased to take up with any one of you in greater detail.