There’s this fellow named Graeme Laurie who is said by BBC News to be an expert on medicine and the law at Edinburgh University, and who is also said by that British news agency to have spouted the following piece of blather.
“The stated reason for President Bush’s objection to embryonic stem cell research is that ‘murder is wrong.’ Why then does he not intervene to regulate or ban stem cell research carried out with private funds and which is happening across the U.S.? It’s a strange morality indeed that pins the moral status and life of the embryo on the question of who is paying for the research.”
First off, of course, Bush has not referred to the killing of human embryos for research purposes as “murder” in any of his official statements, though his press secretary did unfortunately use the word. More to the point is Laurie’s failure to understand that allowing private parties to do a thing can be far different from that thing being done by an institution that represents all the citizens of the United States.
The U.S. government appears to be barred by court precedent from effectually preventing the distribution of pornography, for instance, and the complaints fall something short of an uproar. But if Congress voted to spend tax dollars to produce a film of naked men and women having sexually explicit encounters, you can bet the protests would be deafening.
It is in fact a time-honored argument that the citizens of a democracy — seeing themselves as being at least to some degree complicit in the acts of their government — can make legitimate objection on that ground to governmental behavior viewed by even a minority of them as morally reprehensible. They may not carry the day, but that’s different from saying there is no bite in saying you should not spend my tax dollars on deeds striking me as despicable.
Laurie is hardly atypical of those battling Bush on his veto of embryonic stem cell research. Instead of relying on sound arguments — and they exist — they fall back on inanities, such as this one from Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., delivered in response to a presidential radio address.
“Scientists agree,” she said, referring to the stem cell research. “We are on the brink of cures for diseases that affect hundreds of millions around the world.”
She cannot name a reputable scientist who has made any such declaration, and for good reason: There is none. The most scientists say is that embryonic stem cell research has great potential. To this date, there has not even been one test of an embryonic stem cell cure for anything on a single human being. We are not on the brink of anything and may never be.
This woman, who is either lying for political purposes or hopelessly ignorant on the subject, then says that the president’s veto was motivated by “cold, calculated, cynical political gain.” Sure, even though the vast majority of voters believe strongly that he was wrong, as the polls instructed both him and the Democrats.
At least our legal expert in England was right about one issue. The research in question is going on in private. All that Bush’s veto did was tightly restrict federal funding. Meanwhile, several states and a number of private institutions have reacted to the lack of government money by planning on the expenditure of billions themselves. If scientists are right about the potential of embryonic stem cells, lives likely are to be saved just as quickly as they would be if Bush was an unabashed cheerleader for the cause.
Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies.
