STEM CELL DISTINCTIONS

ABC News Congressional Correspondent Liz Marlantes writes, responding to my below post:

The distinction opponents on the hill (and advocacy groups) are trying to make is that they do not want taxpayer dollars to support the "killing" of *new* embryos — but that in cases where the "life and death decision has already been made" (as Sen. Brownback put it yesterday), it’s morally defensible to fund the research.

Of course, supporters of the research argue the "life and death decision" has already been made for embryos at fertility clinics whose parents have chosen not to store them beyond a certain span of time.  (Opponents say that’s unfortunate, but they still don’t want the federal government to be encouraging the destruction of said embryos — they would prefer to encourage adoption, hence the Brownback presser yesterday with "snowflake babies" — children adopted as unused embryos from fertility clinics.)

In some ways the oddest argument opponents up here have been making — which seems to undercut the force of their moral argument the most (though the political motive for it is clear) — is that embryonic stem cell research is not illegal and not about to become illegal; that this is just a fight over whether it’s appropriate to use taxpayer dollars for that research. 

You’d think most of them would prefer it to be illegal — but absolutely no one up here is saying that; in fact, i’ve heard Sen. Coburn and others repeatedly stress that states and private institutions are funding the research.  Likewise, for obvious political reasons, opponents are trying hard to portray themselves as pro-stem cell research overall — talking up the advantages of adult stem cells and cord blood over embryonic. 

– LIZ MARLANTES