President Bush vetoed the bill yesterday that would have allowed new lines of stem cells to be used for research. This is another debate that makes no sense.
Here's what I don't understand:
If you are against using leftover, fertilized embryos for stem cell research because you think that they are the beginnings of life and should be protected.... I can understand that. What I don't get is why the same people who are against the stem cell use aren't also against in vitro fertilization to begin with. Why is it okay to produce all these human beings (as you believe) in a dish, implant them one-by-one into your womb until one becomes viable, and then kill the rest? How is it better to kill these tiny babies-in-the-making than to use them to help science? If you think that the scientists who want to use these discarded cells for the benefit of mankind are immoral, then surely the couples who produce these lives only to kill them when they don't need them anymore are evil incarnate.
This whole debate is very similar to my earlier post about people who are pro-life unless the mother has been raped.... because every life is precious, unless your father is a criminal, in which case you should be killed.
If you want to take a moral stand on an issue, I respect that completely, but take a stand! If stem cell research is bad than the people who produce these cast-off cells are even worse. If abortion is wrong than all abortion is wrong, even when the mother has been raped or even when her life is in danger (after all, I don't think people would feel I did the right thing if I killed my own daughter because my life might be in danger..).
A moral position should cover all cases, or it's not a moral position at all.