# The Hypocrisy of Bush's Position on Stem Cell Research **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 11, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618 "2004-10-11T12:33:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/1 "2004-10-11T12:33:11Z")
In the [second debate](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html#23), Bush said he was opposed to additional federal-funding for stem cell research because it “requires the destruction of life”. So why is he not opposed to in vitro fertilization, which results in the destruction of many thousands of unused embryos each year? [Some of Bush’s hypocritical logic that avoids the this issue while condemning stem cell research:](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html) > [@](#): > > My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. > > **Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed**. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children. > > [snip] > > As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions: First, are these frozen embryos human life, and therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, **if they’re going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn’t they be used for a greater good** , for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives? > > [snip] > > And to the other crucial question, **if these are going to be destroyed anyway** , why not use them for good purpose – I also found different answers. Many argue these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential. Others will argue there’s no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource. Why is this not a focus of conservative outrage? Why is the destruction of embryos as an unavoidable consequence of in vitro fertilization acceptable, but using embryonic stem cells to save lives and cure diseases immoral? The answer is self-evident; conservative women are just as desparate to have children as liberals, and they would bolt the party en masse if he suggested it was immoral to allow an infertility technique that causes unused embryos to be destroyed. _That_ is hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/2 "2004-10-11T13:06:55Z")
Indeed, **FI** : the same can be said of certain means of contraception. There are a whole _host_ of intellectual difficulties inherent in calling a certain two separate cells (daughter nuclei after conception and meiosis) “life” and another two separate cells (sperm and egg) “not life”. Most of the industrialised democratic world saw the folly of this position decades ago. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/3 "2004-10-12T00:42:01Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > The answer is self-evident; conservative women are just as desparate to have children as liberals, and they would bolt the party en masse if he suggested it was immoral to allow an infertility technique that causes unused embryos to be destroyed. A few might, but on the whole, the people for which this is a make-or-break issue are probably against IVF, too. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/4 "2004-10-12T00:52:46Z")
I wondered about this too. I always assumed that it was a probabilities thing. Embryos created by infertile couples which aren’t implanted and are frozen _might_ die. But they’re not necessarily doomed. Some, maybe even all will survive indefinitely, or at least long enough to be implanted in the future. With stem cell research, the embryos are definitely destroyed, no “maybe” about it. As an unused IVF frozen embryo, the life has some chance. As an embryo destined for stem cell research, the life has no chance. I’m not saying I agree with parsing it this way, this is just how I figure they reconciled it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/5 "2004-10-12T06:27:42Z")
It comes down, in Bush’s case, of whether the activity is FEDERALLY FUNDED or not. Keep in mind that there is NOT a ban on stem cell research of the creation of new stem cell lines. It’s only federal funding for the process that has been witheld. I believe the idea is that the federal government should not be encouraging future instances of embryo distruction. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/6 "2004-10-12T07:29:16Z")
While I admire Bush’s desire to balance ethical considerations with scientific progress, in this particular case he’s way, way off. Embryos are killed by the thousands in the U.S. every week. To deny scientists federal funding if they use any of them instead of letting them go to waste is crazy. This is what bugs me about the pro-life movement - they take things to outrageous extremes. Just as the pro-choice movement does when they refuse to consider the rightness of acts like partial-birth abortion of viable fetuses. Stem cell research is too important, and holds the promise of too many cures for truly awful diseases, to be discriminated against because of a line in the sand over embryos, imo. Bush is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/7 "2004-10-12T11:35:50Z")
I agree with **Sam Stone** on this issue. I just wanted to say that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/8 "2004-10-12T14:42:16Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > In the [second debate](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1008.html#23), Bush said he was opposed to additional federal-funding for stem cell research because it “requires the destruction of life”. So why is he not opposed to in vitro fertilization, which results in the destruction of many thousands of unused embryos each year? To what extent does the federal government fund _in vitro_ fertilization? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/9 "2004-10-12T15:29:13Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It comes down, in Bush’s case, of whether the activity is FEDERALLY FUNDED or not. > [@Bricker](#): > > To what extent does the federal government fund _in vitro_ fertilization? Valid points. However, the problem with Bush’s objection is that it is a moral one, and is the same objection that is used in the conservative argument against abortions. And that has not prevented them from calling for the total ban on abortions, not just federal funding. The hypocrisy comes in limiting their objections on moral grounds to federal funding in one case, but demanding a ban in another. If destruction of life is immoral, why the differentiation? If federal funding is the issue, why don’t conservatives just accept a ban on federally funded gay marriage or flag burning? Why is in vitro granted a special status? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/10 "2004-10-12T15:49:32Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > The hypocrisy comes in limiting their objections on moral grounds to federal funding in one case, but demanding a ban in another. You lost me. Can you be specific about which issue you are talking about wrt funding and banning and what you see as Bush’s policy in both cases? I’m not saying I agree with Bush, but I just don’t see the hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/11 "2004-10-12T15:55:54Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You lost me. Can you be specific about which issue you are talking about wrt funding and banning and what you see as Bush’s policy in both cases? I’m not saying I agree with Bush, but I just don’t see the hypocrisy. Bush supports a ban on abortions on the moral grounds that the destruction of life is immoral. Bush supports only a ban on federally funded stem cell research for the same reason. Are the embyos destroyed in stem cell research not deserving of the same moral outrage as those destroyed in abortions? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/12 "2004-10-12T16:09:58Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Valid points. However, the problem with Bush’s objection is that it is a moral one, and is the same objection that is used in the conservative argument against abortions. And that has not prevented them from calling for the total ban on abortions, not just federal funding. The hypocrisy comes in limiting their objections on moral grounds to federal funding in one case, but demanding a ban in another. If destruction of life is immoral, why the differentiation? If federal funding is the issue, why don’t conservatives just accept a ban on federally funded gay marriage or flag burning? Why is in vitro granted a special status? I would argue that the difference is in _intentionality_. Abortion - except that necessary to save the life or health of the mother - has only one goal: to kill the unborn child. This is never morally acceptable. _In vitro_ fertilization has as its primary goal pregnancy. The loss of innocent life is arguably an unintended secondary effect. Drawing a line somewhere is necessary in all moral judgements. You may, for example, be convinced that killing animals for food is wrong, and thus refuse to eat meat. You may even refuse to patronize Kroger’s or Safeway, simply because they sell meat, although that’s a bit extreme. But would you refuse to use Verizon as a phone compnay, simply because they also sell phone service to Safeway and Kroger? In this case, the President seeks to limit federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, under the apparent theory that this will limit the grotesque practice of harvesting cells of slaughtered innocents for experimentation. This is not an unreasonable line to draw: it recognizes the difference, even if of degree and not fundamental, between abortion and in vitro fertilization. Incidentally, if embryonic stem cell lines are so promising, I assume that privately funded research will ensure a full exploration of its benefits. Imagine what financial benefits await the company that cures Alzheimers, or even male pattern baldness! ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/13 "2004-10-12T16:22:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > _In vitro_ fertilization has as its primary goal pregnancy. The loss of innocent life is arguably an unintended secondary effect. Abortion has as its primary goal the end of pregnancy. The loss of innocent life is arguably an unintended secondary effect. If there were a way to end the pregnancy without killing the embryo/fetus, I believe most women (those with unwanted pregnancies) would jump at the chance. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/14 "2004-10-12T16:40:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I would argue that the difference is in _intentionality_. Abortion - except that necessary to save the life or health of the mother - has only one goal: to kill the unborn child. This is never morally acceptable. > > _In vitro_ fertilization has as its primary goal pregnancy. The loss of innocent life is arguably an unintended secondary effect. I hope you did not spend a lot of time on that argument, for it is exceedingly weak. You are ignoring the premise of the conservatives that life begins at conception, and all embryos are deserving of life. By drawing an arbitrary line that allows some embryos to be destroyed on the grounds of subjective intent says a great deal about Bush’s morality. That his philosophy does not protect all embryos equally is the very essence of hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/15 "2004-10-12T17:37:26Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I hope you did not spend a lot of time on that argument, for it is exceedingly weak. You are ignoring the premise of the conservatives that life begins at conception, and all embryos are deserving of life. By drawing an arbitrary line that allows some embryos to be destroyed on the grounds of subjective intent says a great deal about Bush’s morality. That his philosophy does not protect all embryos equally is the very essence of hypocrisy. To the contrary, intent is precisely relevant. In law, the same act may be murder, manslaughter, or a tragic but non-criminal accident, depending on the intent of the actor. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/16 "2004-10-12T17:43:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To the contrary, intent is precisely relevant. In law, the same act may be murder, manslaughter, or a tragic but non-criminal accident, depending on the intent of the actor. So even if the intent of stem cell research is to save lives, that does not rise to the level justifying the secondary result of the destruction of embryos? But curing infertility does meet that standard, so the embryos must die? How capricious is that? Hypocrisy, I say!! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/17 "2004-10-12T18:01:53Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > So even if the intent of stem cell research is to save lives, that does not rise to the level justifying the secondary result of the destruction of embryos? But curing infertility does meet that standard, so the embryos must die? How capricious is that? Hypocrisy, I say!! Where does Bush’s policy ENCOURAGE the distruction of embryos used for IVF? You are creating a hypocrisy that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/18 "2004-10-12T18:11:32Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Where does Bush’s policy ENCOURAGE the distruction of embryos used for IVF? You are creating a hypocrisy that doesn’t exist. Bush believes that life begins at conception. Bush is completely aware that the destruction of embryos is inherent in both abortion and _in vitro_ fertilization. Bush would like to ban abortion, but not _in vitro_. Why are aborted embryos more deserving of protection than those destroyed as a result of _in vitro_. Intent is a red herring; either life is precious, or it is not. We are not determining a sentence here, were are choose life or death (or so Bush tells me). Bush wants it both ways, to satisfy his political agenda. The hypocrisy is abundantly clear. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/19 "2004-10-12T18:23:29Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Bush believes that life begins at conception. Bush is completely aware that the destruction of embryos is inherent in both abortion and _in vitro_ fertilization. Bush would like to ban abortion, but not _in vitro_. Do you have a cite of Bush saying that destroying embryos in the i_n vitro_ process is OK? I don’t doubt he’d like to see that procedure banned if he could. And, the destruction of embryos is not essential to the _in vitro_ process. And, government funds aren’t provided for the distruction. AFAICT, Bush has been silent on that issue. That’s not hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618/20 "2004-10-12T20:35:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Do you have a cite of Bush saying that destroying embryos in the i_n vitro_ process is OK? I don’t doubt he’d like to see that procedure banned if he could. And, the destruction of embryos is not essential to the _in vitro_ process. And, government funds aren’t provided for the distruction. AFAICT, Bush has been silent on that issue. That’s not hypocrisy. Sure it is. He has the bully pulpit, and if he is really against it, he should say so, especially when he was making the decision about stem cells. It’s absurd to say that IVF is not effectively killing embryos. Even if they were frozen, the chances that all would be brought to term are nil, and even if there was a desire, who would choose an older embryo over a fresher one. (I assume that there is some aging going on, even if frozen, and that there is risk of damage in the freezing and thawing processes.) If life begins when a cell is fertilized, then all birth control techniques preventing implantation are murder also. I can imagine he never thought of the consequences of his decision, but I can also imagine he considered the political consequences of telling infertile couples that their having a child should be banned. He is against abortion even to preserve the life of the mother, right? Isn’t that a bit more important than having a child instead of adopting one? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-hypocrisy-of-bushs-position-on-stem-cell-research/268618.md?page=2)