“The argument is whether using embryonic stem cells is destruction of life.” So declares Dave Bakke in his column of July 23.
No, it is not. The “argument’ is – or should be – whether the vast majority of embryonic stem cells not employed to create human beings will be discarded or put to better use, since they will certainly not be preserved indefinitely in their present form.
So much for “nuances, shadings, spins, repercussions and dimensions.” The issue really is that simple.
“It is embryonic stem cells, not bone marrow, that caused President Bush to issue the first veto of his presidency.”
Wrong again. Embryonic stem cells - by definition - caused no one to do anything. On the contrary, politics influenced Mr. Bush, whether or not he actually believes that destruction of this non-growing, barely visible, literally frozen-in-time matter in a Petri dish is tantamount to “murder,” as his Press Secretary has stated.
Fortunately for the young man Mr. Bakke interviewed, the bone marrow transplant he received was successful in curtailing, if not curing, his medical condition. Had this not been the case, I wonder whether the hypothetical question “Would you have gone through with” embryonic stem cell treatment were it the only option? would have been answered differently.
.
Perhaps not. Now, what about those of us who do support the research?