Harvesting human life

Charles Krauthammer, Morally Unserious in the Extreme

Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix
----
George Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Are embryos potential human beings?  In an interview with Sanjay Gupta on CNN former President Clinton is completely confused about the very nature of embryos, thinking they are not fertilized because if they were.....

video on YouTube transcript here 

Clinton: I don't know that I have any reservations, but I was - he has apparently decided to leave to the relevant professional committees the definition of which frozen embryos are basically going to be discarded, because they're not going to be fertilized. I believe the American people believe it's a pro-life decision to use an embryo that's frozen and never going to be fertilized for embryonic stem cell research....

But those committees need to be really careful to make sure if they don't want a big
storm to be stirred up here, that any of the embryos that are used clearly have been placed beyond the pale of being fertilized before their use. There are a large number of embryos that we know are never going to be fertilized, where the people who are in control of them have made that clear. The research ought to be confined to those....

And that is the one thing that I think these committees need to make it clear that they're not going to fool with any embryos where there's any possibility, even if it's somewhat remote, that they could be fertilized and become human beings.

I wonder how many others share his confusion and don't understand that embryos have been fertilized and are in every respect human beings, very teeny tiny, alive with the potentiality of an eighty-year life span.

Susan Konig
At least one CNN stem-cell report, however, featured not a human but a a rat with a bum leg hobbling around his cage like - well, like Ratso Rizzo from Midnight Cowboy.

The CNN newsgal explained helpfully, "Look at this poor little rat, there's clearly something wrong with his legs." Then, to the reporter's "Now, look!" delight, the rat - treated with stem cells derived from human embryos - was running all over the place on strong, healthy rat legs.

So, we were watching a rat whose life had been dramatically improved, thanks to the sacrifice of . . . potential human babies. Wasn't this a Far Side cartoon?

Research shows that adult and umbilical-cord stem cells provide the materials needed for stem-cell research - embryonic stem cells are not needed to cure and treat diseases. So why is the pro-embryonic-research lobby so loath to admit this? Because if we say that destroying human embryos for scientific research is wrong and unnecessary, it's harder to say that abortion is fine.
--
But with research that destroys embryos, there are no mothers - just embryos orphaned in the lab. And looming behind the stem-cell issue is cloning: The scientists can make more embryos when they run out.

Will we allow a whole industry of conceiving and harvesting human life, if it's for the greater good? And if it's OK to create and destroy human life for medical research, why limit abortion at all?
--

There's the rub.