The president acted on strong personal convictions in vetoing a bill that passed through Congress with solid bipartisan support. [...] But the president believes human life begins at conception, and that allowing fertility clinics to donate their surplus frozen embryos for stem cell research would be killing humans for medical experimentation.The president acted on strong personal convictions? What about acting on the will of the people? Isn't that why we call ourselves a democracy?
From a moral standpoint, this was a complex decision. Embryonic stem cell research offers hope for curing a wide range of neurological and genetic ailments. Most researchers are adamant that embryonic stem cells are far superior to adult stem cells for research.
And the discarded embryos are destined to be destroyed anyway, prompting many pro-life congressmen to ask, "If they can be used to possibly save lives, why not?"
The president should have followed their reasoning and withheld his veto.
Bush bases his conviction on religion and the belief that human life begins at conception, but that belief is not universal among religions. People of faith see this in numerous ways, so we'll never have a definitive answer if we continue to view this through the prism of religion. (Personally, as a Christian, I view all good medical advancements as a gift from God to alleviate our suffering.)
That brings us back to our democracy. The majority of people in this country want funding for stem cell research, so the issue should be decided democratically. Instead of acting on personal principle, the president should have acted according to the will of the people. Will that make some people unhappy? Of course, but that's our system of government. We all live under majority rule and the consequences of that rule.