President Bushs promise to veto legislation passed by the congress that would fund embryonic stem cell research has been rightfully applauded by many pro-life organizations and blogs. The President has remained firm in his policy amid relentless attacks by political opportunists, the media and special interest groups who have faith in the unproven promises of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research enthusiasts. However, his position on the value and legal status of the human embryo is inadequate.
Joe Carter, publisher of the Evangelical Outpost, provides an insightful evaluation of the Presidents statements on ESC research and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) that were made to clarify his position during a recent press conference (emphasis mine):
Question: Again on stem cells, Mr. President. If I understood you correctly, the embryos put together for in vitro fertilization do contain life. And if that's the case, do you believe that those people who create those embryos for in vitro fertilization have an obligation to ensure that they are brought to term if they are, in fact, not needed by the original --PRESIDENT BUSH: No, the issue that involves the federal government is whether or not we use taxpayers' money that would end up destroying that life. That's the issue at hand. And as you know, I'm the first President to say we could use federal dollars on embryonic stem cells, but those stem cells had already -- had been created, so that -- it's from the moment I made the declaration forward that we would not use federal taxpayers' money to destroy life. That's the issue. And the Congress has made its position clear, and I've made my position clear. And I will be vetoing the bill they send to me if it were to pass the United States Senate.
Now, there is research going on in the private sector, there's a lot of research on adult stem cells that appears to be very promising. And my government strongly supports stem cells. There must be a balance -- strongly supports adult stem cell research. But there must be a balance between science and ethics. And I've made my decision as to how best achieve that balance.
Carters response is clear and to the point:
While I have the utmost respect for Mr. Bush and appreciate the way in which he has defended the sanctity of life, he is wrong on this point: our obligation to embryonic human life is the issue at hand.The value of human life and the moral obligation to protect it do not depend on the pain of infertility or, in the case of ESC, the possibility of a cure for chronic and incapacitating diseases. Although President Bush has blocked Federal Funding for ESC research, he remains silent on the rudimentary issuefurther elucidated in Carters conclusion:No doubt it is easier to oppose those who would destroy embryos for speculative scientific research than it is to criticize citizens who create extra embryos out of the desire to have a child. But while the motives may differ, the embryo has the same moral status and deserves to be protected from harm. The pain of infertility does not provide an exemption to our obligation.
Creating embryos that will never be implanted is as immoral as cloning human life for research. Whether the intention is to relieve the suffering of infertility or to pursue research in hopes of finding miracle cures, embryonic human life must not be treated as a means to an end. Innocent human beings, however they are created, deserve our protection.Read Joe Carter's entire post here.And that, Mr. President, is the issue at hand
.
