Is a Human Embryo a Human Life?

Bill Frist says he thinks so; but you couldn't tell that by listening to him speak on Friday.

He delivered a speech to the Senate announcing that he now backs federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research. Frist broke with President Bush's position that federal dollars should not be used to bankroll the destruction of embryos.

It should be noted that Bush has NOT banned embryonic stem cell research. The issue here is whether tax dollars should be used to support it.

Frist said:

I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete -- yes, immature -- but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.

Our development is a continuous process -- gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect -- the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.

WHAT?

If Frist believes that an embryo is a human life that deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, why would he support funding its destruction?

His position is completely illogical.

I wonder what sort of embryonic stem cell research Frist envisions that would manage to preserve the dignity of those human lives as they are destroyed.

His reasoning is preposterous.

Frist argues that the "human embryo has moral significance and moral worth," that life begins at conception, while calling for research that would kill that life.

An editorial in Saturday's New York Times applauds Frist's change of mind and ignores the moral inconsistencies that allow him to support increased funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The Times says that Frist "showed courage and common sense."

I see neither courage nor common sense in Frist's choice to be guided by expediency rather than principle.

According to the editorial, "Such research has the potential to provide cures for a range of diseases someday, but it is anathema to the religious right because the stem cells are extracted from microscopic embryos that are destroyed in the process."

Notice how the Times qualifies the embryos as "microscopic." In other words, the editorial attempts to strip the embryo of its humanness by pointing out its tininess to its readers.

Also, notice the use of the term "religious right" as a label to paint opponents of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as out of the mainstream.

As Frist argues, although small, an embryo IS human life. Unlike the Times, he believes it should be treated with dignity--except in those instances when he wants it to be "respectfully" destroyed for research purposes.

The Times writes:

Although critics often contend that advances with adult stem cells make research on embryonic stem cells unnecessary, it is notable that Mr. Frist, a physician and a researcher by training, disagrees. He described embryonic stem cells as "uniquely powerful" because they have the capacity to develop into any kind of tissue in the body, potentially enabling them to meet medical needs that adult stem cells cannot.

It's funny how selective the Times is as far as commending Frist's credentials as a physician.

In the case of embryonic stem cell research, his medical degree gives his opinions greater weight. However, at other times, Frist is considered a crackpot doctor. The Times brutally criticized him for speaking as a doctor in the Terri Schiavo case.

Then, he was unqualified and irresponsible. Now, he's insightful.

In this very editorial, the Times reminds its readers of its own flip flop in assessing Frist by calling him the "transplant-surgeon-turned-lawmaker who was last seen catering to religious conservatives by questioning whether Terri Schiavo was really in a persistent vegetative state."

In other words, when Frist supports a liberal agenda he's wise. When he takes a pro-life position, he's nuts.

It comes as no surprise that the New York Times is so nonsensical.

It does come as a surprise that Bill Frist would make such an incoherent speech on the floor of the Senate.

Read Eric Cohen and Bill Kristol's great column, "Frist's Stem Cell Capitulation."

It explains that Bill Frist "did the wrong thing at the wrong time."