Almost no one was surprised this week when President Obama lifted restrictions on stem cell research that involved the destruction of human embryos. Even jaded Washington watchers are adjusting to the idea that this is a president with an eerie determination to do exactly what he said he would do during his campaign.
Those who approve such research applauded Mr. Obama’s action. (“Fantastic,” said one stem cell scientist on PBS.) Those who disapprove condemned it. (“Deadly,” said an anti-abortion leader in The New York Times.) But some commentary focused at least as much on the nature of the president’s moral argument as on the specific conclusions he reached.
When it comes to the controversy over human embryonic stem cell research, moral argument has not been much in evidence. The president spoke of a popular consensus in favor of it reached “after much discussion, debate and reflection.” That is a kindly description of the hype, exaggeration and denunciation that have dominated the controversy.
Fetal stem cells triggered tumours in boy, study finds
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090218/stem_cells_090218?hub=TorontoNewHome
Yes…hmm…is it ethical to take the stem cells from a murderered baby and inject them into someone’s brain where they cause cancer tumers? The answer is above BO’s pay grade.
Krautheimmer in the Washington Post is more direct and less Williamsonian.
Moral argument? Please. These are Baby Boomers we’re talking about here. There’s nothing and no one they won’t cannibalize for their own happiness. If that means subjecting the next generation that manages to be born to penury through crushing government debt, so be it. If that means sacrificing the rest to the Moloch of stem cell treatments, let it be done.