It's either a life or it's not a life, and it's not much of an argument to say the embryo is going to die anyway. What kind of principle is that? Prisoners on death row are going to die anyway, the homeless are going to die anyway, prisoners in Nazi death camps were going to die anyway. Why not start disemboweling prisoners for these elusive "cures"?
Meanwhile, every Republican with a doddering, 90-year-old parent seems to be gung ho on experimenting on human embryos, or "blastocysts," as they are affectionately known to the "scientific community." The ungreatest generation is so appalled at idea of having to take care of mom and dad, now they're lashing out at embryos.
Admittedly, the real problem is with the creation of test-tube embryos in the first place. But experimentation is just one more step in desensitizing people to the idea of taking human life.
Stem-cell research on embryos is an even worse excuse for the slaughter of life than abortion. No woman is even being spared an inconvenience this time. We don't have to hear the ghastly arguments of mothers against their own children, the travails of girls being sent away to live with their aunt for a few months, or the stories of women carrying the babies of rapists -- as if that's happened more than twice in the last century. This is just harvest and slaughter, harvest and slaughter. Liberals warm to the idea of killing human embryos.
The last great advance for human experimentation in this country was the federal government's acquiescence to the scientific community's demands for money to experiment on aborted fetuses. Denouncing the "Christian right" for opposing the needs of science, Anthony Lewis of The New York Times claimed the experiments were "crucial to potential cures for Parkinson's disease."