Although there is much I like about President Obama, I find some of his ethical inconsistency puzzling. The President rightly proclaimed in his inaugural speech:
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man — a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.
This led the way to the Executive Order putting an end to torture by the United States. The logic is that even when torture would be an expedient process for saving lives, we will not give in to this temptation … because of our ideals… i.e. human rights.
There are news stories out, but nothing official from the White House that the President will rescind a restriction on the use of frozen embryos for stem cell research. (The U.S. is beginning research on such cells from embryos that President Bush allowed them to use.) Is it not expedient to use these frozen embryos which are already doomed to eternity in “deep freeze” or destruction to save people’s lives? Of course… but at what price? Is not the sanctity of human life an ideal that lights the world? Why should we give up this ideal for expedience sake? Science is showing us that there are other forms of stem cells that can accomplish this. We can be compassionate, advance stem cell research and preserve the sanctity of human life.