Where is the outrage?

Today's topic (among many) is stem cell research and the Senate votes on three different measures. One would broaden the scope of federally funded research to include new stem cell lines - derived from embryos created as a result of in vitro fertilization (IVF). Proponents of using those embryos point out, correctly, that the IVF process creates "surplus" embryos that will never be implanted, and that will eventually be discarded (in part, because they deteriorate even though cryogenically frozen). So what's the big deal?

Those proponents have solid logic on their side. If IVF is allowed, which "uses" embryos (in the sense that some never become babies), then stem cell research should also be able to "use" them.

The challenge to opponents of federal funding for research into stem cells that go beyond the limited set of existing lines, is this:

Why don't you also oppose in vitro fertilization?

Give them credit, the Catholic Church opposes IVF. So they can be consistent when opposing embryonic stem cell research (and therapy, should it ever come about).

But what about Joe Republican, member of Congress. Or Bush, for that matter. If they're all fired up in opposition to using IVF embryos, where is the outrage over IVF itself?

Karl Rove was quoted recently saying that "we were all an embryo at one point, and we ought to as a society be very careful about being callous about the wanton destruction of embryos, of life". Okay. So get movin' on outlawing IVF.

ADDENDUM: Yes, there is a difference between allowing IVF/embryonic-stem-cell research, and funding it. A quick look at the governmen'ts HSS site doesn't show if there is funding for IVF (for patients or for research), but there are links to places that do IVF, which could be considered tacit approval, at least.


posted by Quiddity at 7/18/2006 11:37:00 AM