All over the morning newspapers around this country there are editorials on the stem cell debate. Here's one which says it is OK to have firm convictions about the issue but wrong to impose one's Christian convictions on this "pluralistic nation." Congress is in the middle of passing legislation which will loosen rules on federal funding of stem cell research. Yesterday Steve posted a blog piece about Congress' new push for embryonic stem cell research. With everything I have read recently about embryonic vs. adult stem cell research leading me to conclude that embryonic stem cells hold little promise for curing chronic conditions such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's, I really wonder what this debate is about.

Yesterday, the House passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 which now moves to the Senate. Bush is saying he will veto it. Every congressman and woman wants to express his or her opinion on the subject. But where is the evidence that embryonic stem cells hold ANY promise for finding a cure for ANY of the chronic diseases these legislators are talking about in their rhetoric?

Even if there was a glimmer of hope of finding a cure for one of the conditions, it would still be morally questionable. We have often cringed when we have read about parents of a leukemia sufferer having a child for the sole purpose of creating a donor in order to save their sick child. How is harvesting stem cells from aborted fetuses in order to conduct experiments which hold little if ANY promise more morally acceptable than this? What does it say about a society which kills inconvenient children and then justifies it by saying we'll not just kill them but rather harvest anything useful from them first? I thought American society valued the individual? I guess I better think again.