Stem Cell Veto

I can understand how people (including the president, obviously) would believe it is a moral wrong to destroy human embryos.  If it is wrong to destroy embryos, though, how do you distinguish between destroying them with no positive benefit because you have too many and destroying them with a clear positive benefit for the purpose of scientific research into stem cells.  Seems to me like the former is worse than the latter.  But, nobody (again, including the president), ever comes down in favor of eliminating fertility treatments because that would be a politically disastrous position.  What struck me about the president's remarks when he vetoed the stem cell bill was the fact was that most of what he said could be applied to any destruction of human embryos, which quite honestly, is part and parcel of modern fertility treatment.  I just don't like the idea of pretending it is some great moral steadfastness when the full moral implications of this position would be the politically untenable position of opposing most fertility treatments.  

%d bloggers like this: