Lame claims for embryonic stem-cell research.(Between The Lines)

ITEM: The October 12 Times-Republican (Marshalltown, Iowa) reported that Sen. John Edwards lauded Christopher Reeve's attempts to expand embryonic stem-cell research. Edwards vowed that, if elected, "We will do stem cell research. We will stop juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer' s and other debilitating diseases.... People like Christopher Reeve will get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem cell research."

ITEM: The October 11 Chicago Tribune reported that President Bush "prohibited use of federal money for research on embryonic stem-cell lines created after August 9, 2001.... "

BETWEEN THE LINES: On the controversial issue of stem-cell research, ethics has largely been pushed aside to make way for mass misinformation and manipulation.

The media focus has been on the supposed benefits to mankind of expanding embryonic stem-cell research and on the supposed harm President Bush's policies have inflicted on this research. Largely ignored in the media accounts is the fact that embryonic stein-cell research entails the creation of human embryos--innocent human lives--for the purpose of destroying them. Embryonic stem-cell research has been likened, and properly so, to cannibalizing humans for spare parts.

It seems odd, therefore, that liberals, proponents of embryonic stem-cell testing, apparently don't even recognize the moral dilemma they face. After all, many of the same liberals who are trying so hard to destroy developing human beings also devote their time to ending capital punishment. This is strange. One would think that the proponents of embryonic stemcell research would also be proponents of killing society's worst criminals and then giving the criminals' body parts to needy, worthy transplant recipients. But for some reason, the liberals' moral outrage ends at capital punishment, and they do support embryonic stem-cell research, saying that an embryo is just a "few cells." Well, a criminal could be deemed just a "bunch of cells." This latter argument would not hold credence with the liberals; why does the former?

Even if it were true that embryonic stem-cell research could lead to a cure for debilitating diseases, it is still wrong. Of course, Sen. John Edwards ignored this all-important ethical point when he exploited the death of Christopher Reeve. Edwards virtually promised that miracles would occur if he and John Kerry were elected. But would miracles occur? Would "people like Christopher Reeve ... get out of their wheelchairs and walk again with stem-cell research," as Edwards claimed?

Edwards and other advocates of embryonic stem-cell research grossly overstate the claimed benefits and, in general, misrepresent the facts. For instance, claims made about stem-cell research usually gloss over the fact that two types of stem cells seem to exist: those ...