All The More Reason

George Bush used the first veto of his presidency to strike down a bill that would have expanded federal government funding for stem-cell research.

Stem cell research involves, in the words of the president, ‘the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others’ and therefore ‘crosses a real moral boundary that our society needs to respect’ (as an aside, doesn’t the death penalty take human life for the ‘benefit’ of those who would be murdered in a society that did not contain such ‘deterrents’?)

Whether a cluster of a few embryonic cells can really constitute ‘human life’ is a question worth serious consideration. However, if the sanctity of life is a guiding principle of the Bush administration, then what are we to make of today’s news?

‘Scientists have found a way to make human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, a breakthrough that could overcome intense ethical objections to the research.’

Good news it seems. The embryo cells can be developed to full term after the good scientific work has been done. Except…

“…the research has raised concerns among scientists and lobby groups. Josephine Quintavalle, of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: “We still don’t know the dangers of taking a biopsy from an early stage embryo, whether it has any effect on the baby’s future development. On paper it looks like an ethical solution, but that requires the biopsy to be completely harmless.”

The ‘ethical’ solution could therefore entail the deliberate creation of seriously disabled human beings in order to satisfy the dogma of those who believe that a cluster of 100-150 cells constitutes ‘innocent human life’. Moral boundaries are very poorly mapped nowadays.

Michael P