I recently had the opportunity to speak with a research scientist who has published hundreds of articles in medical journals, works closely with the National Institute of Health, and works in the very field which proponents of embryonic stem-cell research claim would most benefit from that research. While he is personally opposed to abortion, he does not have qualms about doing research on embryos that would otherwise be killed. Yet, he told me, he supports President Bush, who has restricted federal funding for stem-cell research. (The Bush administration appropriated $25 million for embryonic stem-cell research, with the restriction that it only be on certain lines of cells from embryos that had already been destroyed. In other words, the president has decreed that federal funds cannot go towards destroying new embryos.)

I asked the scientist why he would support Bush when John Kerry has made support of embryonic stem-cell research a cornerstone of his campaign. Was he putting his political views above his professional views?

His answer surprised me, because, even though I'd read it over and over in pro-life literature and conservative magazines, I didn't expect to hear a scientist admit it.

He said that embryonic stem-cell research held promise—but it was far more likely that adult stem cells would lead to cures. Moreover, he said, President Bush's restrictions on federal funding did not greatly hinder embryonic stem-cell research, because there were no restrictions on privately financed trials.

I bring this up because a woman who says she reads this page in hope of "understanding the other side's point of view" recently wrote to me asking why I disparaged Christopher Reeve's TV commercials advocating embryonic stem-cell research. She thought that the never-used headline I'd composed for a newspaper story about the commercials—"Reeve 'spins' in his grave"—was offensive to the star's widow.

One thing that advocates of embryonic stem-cell research seem to have difficulty understanding about this issue is that either an embryo is a human life, or it's not. Certainly, if you advocate such research, you believe it falls into the "not" category. Because if it is human life, then destroying it is murder.

Those who advocate destroying unborn life often seem to believe that there is a gray area between killing and not killing. They know that destroying an embryo or aborting a baby involves something being alive, and then not being alive. Yet they can't believe that something is actually killed in the process.

I submit that killing is killing. Moreover, I submit that such killing is not made any more acceptable when its proponents attempt to sugarcoat it by saying it will save future lives.

Pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood vocally support embryonic stem-cell research, and it's no wonder. It enables them to spin abortion as a "humanitarian" act. This hijacking of the language, making murder appear to lead to life, gives frightening credence to the many warnings from Pope John Paul II that the world is embracing a "culture of death".

Some advocates of embryonic stem-cell research argue, "If you knew that this research would save millions of lives, would you still oppose it?" Again, such a question is ludicrous for those who believe that destroying an embryo is itself murder. It's one thing for a soldier to willingly give his life for his country. It's another thing entirely to deliberately kill an innocent person for another's benefit.

If you asked me if I would kill the stranger standing next to me so that my mother could have a longer and healthier life, I couldn't do it. There is no fundamental moral difference between such a murder and destroying an embryo.

With that in mind, the idea of Christopher Reeve shilling from beyond the grave on behalf of embryonic stem-cell research is outrageous. He might as well have made commercials advocating machine-gunning nursery-school students to provide raw meat for hungry poor adults. Did I mention that I have no respect for the man? But thanks to the abortion lobby, the pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else who has an interest in devaluing human life, he's this Man of Stool who's held up as a modern-day saint. Meanwhile, the voices of living paralytics like Detective Stephen McDonald and Joni Eareckson Tada who vocally oppose the research are marginalized.

Don't grieve for Reeve. Grieve for the human lives that are even now being destroyed in privately funded research thanks to all the cheerleading he did for butchery in the name of science.

SELECTED COMMENTS: Mom (whose bio is linked at left) writes:

I like brave and courageous writing, and I liked your piece about embryonic stem cell research. But why did you say you had no respect for a dead man who tried to figure things out without the benefit of the knowledge of the Lord? I respected him, what I knew of him. I definitely did not agree with him about embryonic stem cell research, and I think that adults who have led a charmed life of advantage need to accept what they're dealt in life and do the best they can with it. He did the best he could, but his fault was that he did not realize that he was denying a babe with a clean slate in life a chance to better the world by being allowed to be born. He did have that chance, and no one gets to live long at the expense of one who doesn't get to live at all. I do believe in respect for elders, and I don't believe in killing sick old people in order to save money or put them out of their misery. But that's another topic.

Some say the Bible says nothing about the unborn. I love the entire Psalm 139, which certainly implies a warning against those who oppose God's plan for the unborn.

I have been researching this topic for a few years now since returning to study and adult stem cells are not just the best option but the only one with results on the board.  If you want to know more check out the Do No Harm Web site.  The results already received are fantastic.

Also, the problem that I have found in Australia and seems to be a problem in the American media is if a study shows some results, it is called stem-cell research when it is usually adult stem cells they are referring to.  Whereas when groups call for funding, they talk about the potential of embryonic stem cells and ignore adult stem cells. But the problem is that the general public are not informed about the differences. I did a presentation for my university class earlier this year on the subject and the tutor did not realise that the result gained in this field were from adult stem cells.  The media and interest groups quite often attribute adult stem cell success to embryonic stem cells.

Your last blog entry on the twisted reasoning of embryonic stem-cell enthusiasts  brought me back ten years to my undergrad (if you want to call it that). At the time the Naval Academy was recovering from a massive EE cheating scandal that had seriously damaged its reputation. As a "corrective action" all officers-in-training had to sit through four hours a month of "Integrity Development Seminar." Mostly it consisted of a short story or reading we all had to do, followed by several hours of discussion that was completely unproductive. (I remember playing "buzzword bingo" with other mids during the most of the discussions.)  Nevertheless, there was one story that stuck with me, written by the SF author Ursula K. Leguin, called "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas." It's short, not terribly imaginative, yet it sticks with you. Check it out.