Think again, Mr. President

Human Events, Aug 20, 2001 by Jeffrey, Terence P

But that is not what Bush decided.

In announcing his decision, Bush posed the obvious question: "[A]re these frozen embryos human life, and therefore something precious and to be protected?" But, then, he did not clearly answer this question-despite having answered it directly for Tim Russert only 20 months before.

"I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem-cell lines, where a life-and-death decision has already been made," he said. "Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 cell lines has great promise that can lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem-cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life."

This was not an argument, it was an evasion. It implied that after months of thought, Bush had abandoned the basic objective fact on which any defense of the unborn must rest-that life begins at conception-and adopted the theory that only "potential life" begins at conception.

It implied he had become Orrin Hatch.

Claire Shipman of ABC News challenged Bush on this the next day. "There are a couple of questions you posed last night that you said guided you through this process," said Shipman. "One [was] the fundamental question, when does life begin."

"I think life begins at conception," said Bush.

"Even in a petri dish. Even with a few cells," said Shipman.

"Yes, yes, I believe that," said Bush.

So, he was not Orrin Hatch.

But, then, Bush seemed to be arguing: 1) Life begins at conception, 2) embryonic stem cell research thus starts by destroying a human life, 3) but I believe the government should force taxpayers to fund that research as long as the government funding arrives after the killing has taken place.

This argument would actually be worse than the one Clinton made last year-the one Bush thought "still amounts to federal support of embryo destruction." Clinton never conceded that life begins at conception.

In a New York Times op-ed last Sunday, the President clarified his reasoning. It was right in the principle, right in the premise, but horribly wrong in the conclusion. "There is at least one bright line: We do not end some lives for the medical benefit of others," said Bush, stating an unimpeachable principle. "For me," he continued, "this is a matter of conviction: a belief that life, including early life, is biologically human, genetically distinct and valuable." So, he had not abandoned the basic fact.

And, yet, he concluded, "While it is unethical to end life in medical research, it is ethical to benefit from research where life and death decisions have already been made."

Surely, the President must not understand it this way, but, given his own stated premise and principle, this conclusion is precisely as if he had said: OK, doctor, we are not going to pay for research on the human beings you kill today, or tomorrow, but we will pay for research on the human beings you killed last week.