A Moral Stand 0

Mr. Bush claims he has vetoed the stem cell legislation because he believes destroying embryos is murder.

Now, I am not going to take a position on the bill. I listened to the two commentaries on stem cell research on NPR the last two days: pro and con, and I have read much more. I’m not sure what my position is, and I am quite willing to admit my confusion.

What I do have with no confusion is contempt for hypocrites.

If Mr. Bush believes that destruction of embryos is murder, what steps is he taking to end the practice of in vitro fertilization, which produces thousands of embryos which will eventually be destroyed? Or, if not end that practice, demand that all these embryos be implanted in women so they have the opportunity to become fetuses, then babies, then persons?

And why aren’t his female supporters on this issue volunteering to carry these embryos to term?

To the extent that he vetoes this bill, with all his high-sounding statements, but does nothing to end the creation of all the embryos that will eventually be tossed out the back door as red bag waste, he is a hypocrite.

To make an analogy, to take a moral stand against murder with a knife, while taking no stand against murder with a garrotte (or a BFI truck), is to take no moral stand at all.

Mr. Bush’s moral stands are stands of political convenience, not stands of courage.

In other news, US Airways is going to sell advertising on airsick bags. I could use one now.

Update, 7/26/2006

White House press secretary Tony Snow apologized on Monday for suggesting that President Bush believed stem-cell research amounted to “murder,” saying he was “overstating the president’s position.”

“He would not use that term,” Snow told reporters.

Cop out. Their reasons still strains the rules of logic. It’s still better, I guess, for the embryos to be thrown out than put to use? The only logical outcome of the Bushies’ position is to prevent the creation of the embryos in the first place.