Stem cell research compared to war

To the editor: Contrary to the wishes of a majority of congress and most Americans, President Bush cast his first veto to prevent funding of stem cell research that uses excess embryos that would otherwise be discarded by human fertility clinics. According to the President’s press secretary, using the embryos for research instead of throwing them away would encourage “murder”. He gave as the reason for the veto, the President’s overwhelming reverence for human life and its sanctity. In the same news cycle, the media report that President Bush is in no hurry to stop the killing of men, women and children in Lebanon. Over three hundred civilians have been killed and many more maimed by Israel’s bombs, rockets and artillery shells aimed at cars, trucks, apartment buildings, buses and ambulances. The vast majority of these people have nothing to do with Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah. Bush takes the position that Israel should be given time to finish its job. He asserts that Israel’s right to self defense justifies killing of hundreds of innocent civilians in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon. Am I the only person to compare the positions the president takes in these two cases? Does he consider an embryo more important than a child who happens to live in Lebanon? What moral imperative requires Bush to condone the bombardment of Beirut and the attendant civilian slaughter? I wish it could be said that what is being done is the wise thing to advance the war on terror. It is not. Israel’s actions in Lebanon do not help the United States. On the contrary, they fuel rage in the Arab world that makes the undermining of terrorist more difficult. By condoning Israel’s attacks from the air on defenseless civilians, the administration shifts to the United States the same rage Arabs feel for Israel. We need Arab help to defeat the terrorists, and this will not help us get it. Michael G. Busche Sparta