February
23, 2005
Romney's Stem-Cell-Logic Pile-Up
By
Froma Harrop
The
debate over the humanity of embryos has honest voices on
all sides. But there are also dishonest ones. Hypocrisy
happens when high moral principle crashes into political
expediency. Such conflict helps explain the hash Massachusetts
Gov. Mitt Romney has made of his policy on stem-cell research.
Embryonic-stem-cell
research offers great promise for curing diabetes, Alzheimer's
and other devastating diseases. But it can't be done without
destroying embryos.
My
position is easy to explain: An embryo is not a human, or
even close to being one. So I have no problem with using
-- and destroying -- these specks of cells for research.
And if Harvard University wants to make the cells through
therapeutic cloning, that too is fine with me.
Others
disagree. They see embryos as inviolable human life. This
view deserves respect, but anyone who holds it must follow
the argument to its logical end. If scientists have no moral
right to destroy a fertilized egg, then neither should fertility
clinics, which routinely discard unused embryos.
No
"pro-life" politician has had the guts to shut down fertility
clinics. Nor has anyone proposed requiring that every embryo
created by in-vitro fertilization be implanted in a woman's
womb -- and brought to full term as a baby.
Romney
professes to believe in the sanctity of embryos and to support
embryonic stem-cell research at the same time. There is
no way to square these irreconcilable views. So he fudges,
turning moral logic into a smoking nine-car wreck.
Here's
what Romney says: "Lofty goals do not justify the creation
of life for experimentation and destruction." So no, Harvard
may not make embryos for stem-cell research. However, Harvard
may use frozen embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization
-- with the permission of the embryos' "parents."
In
other words, infertile couples have the moral right to create
and destroy embryos, but medical researchers do not. If
his true concern were the sacrosanct humanity of embryos,
Romney wouldn't let anyone destroy them.
But
this isn't really about the humanity of embryos. It's about
the motives of the people who created them. From a moral
standpoint, Harvard's motive -- to find life-saving treatments
-- compares nicely with that of couples wanting to have
babies.
So
much for moral principles. What about the politics?
Romney
is a Republican with national ambitions. Republicans wanting
a presidential nod must speak to the anti-abortion wing
of the party. Coming from Massachusetts -- the poster state
for liberal and pro-choice views -- Romney must speak twice
as loud.
It's
not pretty when a politician distances himself from the
people who put him in office. Romney has never hidden his
anti-abortion sentiments, but he has also kept a promise
not to impose them on the people of Massachusetts. Until
now.
In
addition to forcing other regions' abortion politics on
his voters, Romney has committed a kind of economic treason.
Boston is a biotech leader. California, New Jersey and several
countries already allow therapeutic cloning. (This is cloning
for purposes of research, not making human beings.) Cloned
cells are more useful than fertility-clinic embryos because
they are an exact genetic match to the research subject.
By barring therapeutic cloning, Romney has put his state's
research centers at a competitive disadvantage.
Some
conservative commentators have ignored -- or not noticed
-- the logical mess in Romney's stem-cell policy. Instead,
they have praised him for breaking with the godless people
of Massachusetts. And they often point to his personal situation
as a sign of his sincerity and courage.
Romney's
wife has multiple sclerosis, a disease for which stem-cell
research might find a cure. Thus, the Romneys appear willing
to make a grand sacrifice in defense of embryos.
But
they are not. The Romneys can rest assured that this research
will be done. It just won't happen in Massachusetts. Some
reporter should ask Romney this question: If researchers
in Britain or New Jersey find a cure for Mrs. Romney's devastating
disease using cloned cells, will he approve of her taking
the treatment?
Many
people want it all ways. They want cures for disease. They
want help for infertile couples. But they don't want embryos
destroyed in the process. Pretending that all can be had
may be good politics, but the price is intellectual fraud.
Copyright
2005 Creators Syndicate
Send
Today's Article to a Friend
