And so when Mr. Fox goes on the air and exposes the uncomfortable reality of his life to millions of people, he does so from strength and from courage. He deserves respect even from those who fundamentally disagree with his position. He deserves the as someone in a war for his life and for his family, because that must be what drives him in no small part. I know that when I think of fighting for my life I think of my young daughters, and I am determined to do everything in my power to live for them and for my wife.

What Mr. Limbaugh has done belies a frightening cynicism in our politics and in our public discourse that assumes the most nefarious motives and discounts the ideal of hope and genuine belief. He should be denounced by President Bush and by Christian leaders not only because of the offense he has committed to a man willing to put himself in the arena, but also because of the hopelessness, hate, and despair his language reveals. ~David Kuo

Let me say first of all that I think Mr. Fox and Claire McCaskill are wrong on the issue, and it appears that the ad is inaccurate when it says that Talent opposes expanding all such research.  Plainly, he opposes expanding embryonic stem-cell research for well-understood pro-life reasons, and he is right on this.  McCaskill, so far as I have been able to learn, supports all forms of stem-cell research, including those that are an affront to human life.  But we should all be able to agree that Rush Limbaugh is a disgrace and an embarrassment (if some had not already reached that conclusion some time ago). 

His presumption that Fox was probably putting on “an act” and his mocking of someone with a debilitating illness are despicable.  There was an intelligent, decent way to respond to this ad, which would have involved pointing out its inaccuracies and rejecting in principle the destruction of human life inherent in the harvesting of embryonic stem cells.  (The ad opposing the proposed Missouri constitutional amendment on cloning made all the right points in just such a matter-of-fact, smart way.)  Instead, like the hack that he is, Limbaugh went after the messenger in a style reminiscent of…oh, yes, the Clintons and their hangers-on, who would always respond to every criticism by savaging the character or motives of the person rather than responding to the substance of the criticism or argument.  You can think, as I do, that Mr. Fox, like Christopher Reeve before him, is profoundly wrong to want to pursue any and all kinds of such research because of his own suffering, but to cavalierly write off the suffering itself is a remarkable act of contempt. 

Is Mr. Fox exploiting natural sympathy for his condition to pursue an objectionable policy?  It is fair to say that he is.  But if that tactic of using suffering and victimhood is what was wrong with the ad (and Limbaugh did also hit on this point), then that should have been the heart of the response, rather than denying or minisiming the nature of the man’s condition.

Christians, in any event, are called to be merciful.  Even if Mr. Fox went off his medications, which also seems improbable since he would reduced to near-immobility and would have great difficulty speaking without medication, what point would Limbaugh have been making if he was right about this?  That medicines exist to ameliorate the symptoms of a degenerative disorder for which there is as of yet no cure?  Does that not rather make Fox’s point for him about the severity and cruelty of the disease?      

Both the making of policy and moral judgement involve determining a hierarchy of goods and a setting of priorities.  In determing whether it is just and right to destroy human embryos in the vague hope of some future breakthrough that would alleviate the suffering of others, one is called to consider the dignity of human life on the one hand and the reality of that suffering on the other.  To choose to defend the dignity of human life, you must also take seriously that suffering with the understanding that there is a possibility, however remote and theoretical, that such suffering might be lessened by doing unjust and wicked things and that it is not acceptable or right to will to try to do good for these suffering people by an evil means.  To take this position one must therefore also be that much more charitable and merciful towards those who do suffer from such incurable maladies, because it is out of the same spirit of charity that you have refused to sacrifice human life that others might benefit from it.  The spirit of contempt for the sick and the injured has no place among those who would claim to defend human life, because the compassion that moves us to defend the one also requires us to show mercy to the others.