[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Calgaryborn: Bush's stance on this is similar in a way. He basically allowed for research on existing stem cell lines regardless of what their "method of procurement" was, and disallowed research on other lines. But if the results and the research is immoral, isn't it immoral regardless of when the stem cell lines were produced? Look at it this way--if stem cells actually came from babies, then research on them would be immoral regardless of whether the stem cell lines came into existence before or after a certain date. Bush was trying to strike a middle ground, but landed himself in a thorny moral contradiction.

Bush choose to allow the stem cell strands already in use to continue to be used. You can't bring that embryonic life back. He was being pragmatic. I don't support China's harvesting of organs from condemned prisoner for use in transplant operations. If I could stop the practice I would. But having done that I wouldn't deny someone a life saving organ if one was still available from before the practice was outlawed.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe that a blastocyst is a human being or you don't. Either destroying one is murder, in which case both stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization should be banned, or it isn't murder and both should be allowed. The axiom "you can't be a little bit pregnant" is kind of apt in this instance.

I believe that an embryo is the beginning of a human life. It shouldn't be treated as a meaningless collection of cells. I understand the value I put on an embryo is not shared by everyone in society. That being said, I don't want my tax dollars used in support of research that destroys a viable embryo.

I honestly think even if Bush didn't hold that same view of an embryo he would have been wrong to fund something with tax dollars that a significant amount of tax payers found offensive and/or immoral.