Moral grounds for stem cell veto don’t hold water

By: Roque Corona / Contributing Writer
After being in office for five and a half years, President George W. Bush has finally used his veto power to reject a Senate initiative that proposed opening additional federal funds for research on embryonic stem cells, saying that it “crossed a moral boundary.”

The advantages of federally funded stem cell research, however, far outweigh the moral qualms of those opposed to it, and the majority of the American public supports it. What’s more, the logic behind Bush’s decision to run contrary to the public’s wishes do not hold any water.

In 2001 Bush became the first president to make federal funds available for stem cell research. The funds were only made available, however, for research on stem cell lines that had already been opened prior to his decision.

Despite Bush’s good intentions, the 78 stem cell lines that were opened proved to be unsuitable for research. The new bill he vetoed would have allowed for federally funded research using excess embryos from fertility clinics – embryos that would otherwise be thrown out.

With Bush’s veto, embryos will now be exempt from scientific research, but they will still be destroyed.

There seems to be a pretty big logical problem in this situation – it’s acceptable to conduct research on embryos that have already been destroyed, but unacceptable to conduct research on embryos that will eventually be destroyed. Wouldn’t it be more logical to allow these embryos to be used for research than to throw them out as if they were trash?

The private sector has already donated a tremendous amount of funds towards embryonic stem cell research. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger even authorized a $150 million loan to fund California’s stem cell institute.

The private funding of stem cell research only helps to confirm the hypocrisy of Bush’s position. The president has stated that his objection to embryonic stem cell research is that ‘murder is wrong’, though he has done nothing to prohibit or regulate stem cell research being conducted with private funds. So then murdering embryos is both right and wrong, it just depends who picks up the check?

More to the point, it seems that the accusations of immorality in this debate are misdirected.

Those opposed to embryonic stem cell research say that it would be immoral to destroy one life in order to save another. Embryos, however, may be alive from a scientific point of view, as a cluster of cells, but they aren’t alive in the same way we are. They are not yet human life. Rather, they have the potential for human life.

In any case, morality is on the side of using embryos for stem cell research, as it would help save lives and cure disease. President Bush may embrace children born from frozen embryos, but he turns his back on the paralyzed and diseased that could benefit from those embryos that would otherwise be thrown out. If anything is immoral, it is to forsake the sick for the benefit of the unborn.

The president’s veto caused uproar among affiliates of both parties alike. Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado called Bush’s veto “a sad sidebar in a debate that has been about ethical scientific research and hope,” in the Washington Post.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told the New York Times, “I am pro-life, but I disagree with the president’s decision.”

He also went on to say, “Given the potential of this research and the limitations of the existing [human embryonic stem cell] lines eligible for federally funded research, I think additional lines should be made available.”

There are clearly supporters on both sides of the political arena, and the majority on either side is for federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Moreover, according to a recent ABCNEWS/Beliefnet poll, 60 percent of Americans support federally funded stem cell research as well. If this is actually the case, is President Bush justified in voting against federal funding towards stem cell research? Shouldn’t the majority opinion out rule his desire to please the religious conservatives?

If President Bush wishes to go against the wishes of most American taxpayers and dash thousands of medical patients’ hope for a cure, he should at least come up with a more convincing reason for doing so.