In a debate that was often heated, emotional, and woefully misinformed, the House of Representatives voted today to extend federal funds for embryonic stem cell research [1]. As this will likely also pass the Senate, only a veto from President Bush stands in the way of your tax dollars and mine being used for the destruction of human beings in the name of research. I hope the president has plenty of ink for what’s ahead.
I got to hear some of the debate via C-SPAN, and shockingly evident were the typical verbal shenanigans that surround the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) debate . For example, the bill’s sponsor Rep. Diana DeGette [2] (D-CO) reamrked that cloning was not involved with ESCR, rather something called somatic cell nuclear transfer, which was “another way of looking at the cells.” Somatic cell nuclear transfer [3] is, of course, a five-dollar word for — you guessed it — cloning.
Though Democrats were in the vast majority in passing the bill, they weren’t alone. Rep. Joe Barton [4] (R-TX) exhibited one of the more common rationales for supporting ESCR. After touting his “nearly perfect” pro-life record, Rep. Barton went on to describe why he as a pro-lifer was for embryonic stem cell research. He quipped, “What’s more pro-life? Medical waste or medical hope?”
The argument that says it’s morally acceptable to destroy human life because it’s going to be destroyed anyway only works in a utilitarian ethical worldview. We’re all going to die anyway, Rep. Barton. It doesn’t make it morally acceptable to kill someone because he or she is going to die. Never — at any point from conception to the grave — is a human being “medical waste.”