Ethical Divide
Markus Grompe and Robert P. George, in the WSJ of June 20, report that new promising new research shows that it may be possible to obtain human pluripotent stem cells without destroying living human embryos. Researchers believe that it may be technically possible to reprogram a cell's nucleus to trigger the development of a new and distinct organism which is not an embryo (fertilized egg). The writers believe that creative science such as this will lead to a "resolution of our nation's divisive debate" so that the biotechnologies can be embraced by "people on both sides of the ethical divide."
The writers neglected to point out that many on one side of the stem cell debate (Ron Reagan Jr., John Edwards, etc.) have no interest in bridging any divide. In fact, I predict that many on their side will condemn the reprogramming research as a waste of research funding, and continue to criticize those who oppose the destruction--as well as cloning--of embryos as religious zealots. Because to take any other position (even a compromising one) would amount to a tacit recognition of the human identity of a human embryo.
And they are not willing to do that, for purely political reasons. Politics trumps ethics any day.
The writers neglected to point out that many on one side of the stem cell debate (Ron Reagan Jr., John Edwards, etc.) have no interest in bridging any divide. In fact, I predict that many on their side will condemn the reprogramming research as a waste of research funding, and continue to criticize those who oppose the destruction--as well as cloning--of embryos as religious zealots. Because to take any other position (even a compromising one) would amount to a tacit recognition of the human identity of a human embryo.
And they are not willing to do that, for purely political reasons. Politics trumps ethics any day.
