Once again, President Bush has vetoed a bill that would ease restraints on federally funded stem cell research. His stance is based purely on religious beliefs and isn't scientifically-based. The difficult question here is whether you consider a fetus life at conception. I struggled with this one most of my life, electing to agree with the fundamentalists because I couldn't see how a baby, just prior to being delivered couldn't be considered life; and once you make that step it was difficult to see where to stop - when is it life?
Some would say that it is life only once delivered, some when it has a heart beat or when "quickening" happens (when the mother can feel it move). In some countries/societies, the baby isn't considered life until well after birth. I struggled with all of these until recently when I read an article suggesting that we have a clear definition of when life ends - with the cessation of brain wave activity; why isn't the definition of when life starts based on the same premise - that life begins when brain wave activity is detected.
Given this perfectly reasonable scientific definition of the beginning and end of life, there is no reasonable argument against stem cell research. President Bush’s vetoing this bill is another example of him foisting religious views of right and wrong on the country and further is an example of just how out of touch he is with his constituency. From a Humanist standpoint, our views of right and wrong have to be based on scientific, rational reasoning and on eliminating pain and suffering for sentient, aware people – not on ill-defined and personal religious opinions.
