Proponents of stem cell research like to emphasize that it doesn't cost the life of a single embryo. The embryos killed to extract their stem cells were doomed already. But this argument gives too much ground, and misses the point. If embryos are human beings, it's not okay to kill them for their stem cells just because you were going to kill them, or knowingly let them die, anyway. The better point -- the killer point, if you'll pardon the expression -- is that if embryos are human beings, the routine practices of fertility clinics are far worse -- both in numbers and in criminal intent -- than stem cell research. And yet, no one objects, or objects very loudly. President Bush actually praised the work of fertility clinics in his first speech announcing restrictions on stem cells.Me, I don't think human life begins at fertilization, so I have no moral qualms about in vitro. Nothing is more understandable than a couple wanting their kids to share their genetics.
I see this issue raised on the librul blogs sometimes (lordy, do we love the "Five blastocysts in a dish and a live baby are in a burning building, which do you save?" zinger), but I never hear it discussed in a neutral forum on TV or read about it in the newspapers, except in op-ed form like the above. What gives?