2007
The 64 Million Dollar Question in the Stem-Cell Debate
0 Comments
by Robert E. Meyer
As often occurs, a letter to the editor in a local paper prompted this piece. The writer of the letter attempted to showcase President Bush's hypocrisy regarding his veto of the embryonic stem-cell legislation, and his Iraq policy. The writer complained that Bush claims to be a defender of innocent life (the inalienable right to life as outlined in the Declaration of Independence) as it concerns the stem-cell debate, but that he takes innocent life because he is responsible for the civilian deaths in Iraq.
But equating a veto of the embryonic stem-cell research bill to deaths in Iraq, labors on the top two false assumptions.
First, this writer along with others of his persuasion assume that the casualties in Iraq, whether civilian or military, are willfully the product of the president's wishes, and ultimately have nothing to do with national defense.
The president has a constitutional mandate to defend the U.S. from its enemies. Unfortunately, that often involves the tragic deaths of military personnel who have sworn to uphold that very Constitution–a lesser of two evils scenario.
Secondly, we have a contingent of people who are convinced that embryonic stem-cells are necessary for break-through research simply because they are theoretically more versatile (are thought to have a greater variety of therapeutic applications). Such a conviction is more a philosophical position, informed by functionalist and utilitarian priorities, than it is a factual scientific conclusion.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
