Valuing human life
What exactly is “pro-life” about President Bush’s threat to veto a bill that would open up federal funding for researchers who use surplus embryos produced at fertility clinics to search for cures for deadly disease?
The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (SB471) would supersede a 2001 executive order from Bush that restricts National Institutes of Health funding of such research to embryonic stem-cell lines that were already created by that date.
The president’s opposition to expanding stem-cell research is based not on science but on a religious belief that human life begins at conception. While it is admirable that the administration has emphasized the moral dimensions of scientific research, it is troubling that the religious beliefs of an impassioned few would effectively overrule the 70 percent of Americans — religious and secular alike — who say they support funding for this promising avenue of science.
It is also important to note that the president and the conservative Christian base that shares his views on stem cells do not hold a monopoly on religious, or even biblical, notions of life and death. The Orthodox Union, in a letter supporting the Senate bill this week, points out that Judaism does not bestow the “full status of humanhood” on embryonic cells outside of the womb. That does not put the rabbis on the wrong side of the ethical divide. “The traditional Jewish perspective,” continues the OU, “emphasizes that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life.” (Italics in original.)
The Senate this week was also considering two other stem-cell bills, including one that would fund research into stem-cell lines using techniques that do not knowingly harm embryos and another to prohibit the use of tissue from fetuses “farmed” for research. These two measures only confirm the status quo and give the president cover for vetoing the more contentious bill.
Bush has not vetoed a single bill during his six years in office. A misguided attempt to stifle life-saving research is no way to set a precedent.
Comment | | |
All rights reserved