A lapse in coherence

This is uncharacteristic for the Wall Street Journal, a publication I respect and appreciate for the reporting and writing. They’ve been one of the better sources of analysis on the Middle East war lately, for instance.

But then came this, the WSJ editorial “Believe It or Not, a Constructive Senate Debate” on stem cell funding. Well, I don’t believe it. Yes, it was a constructive debate which saw senators from opposite sides on this thing coming together to find a way to go forward that’s morally acceptable to everyone. But I can’t believe the usually intellectual journal (which can usually follow an argument through to its logical conclusion) printed this:

Our own view is that the embryos from which stem cells are collected have the potential to be–but are not yet–human beings.

What?! Based on…what? Even pro-abortion folks have to admit (especially under oath) that after conception (fertilization) this new creation is of the species homo sapiens. That’s the formal term for a human being. It’s just less developed than they are, but still a human being.

Then the WSJ looks for cover from popular opinion?!  

This is the dominant view across U.S. society, which is one reason there is little controversy over fertility treatments, in which embryos are routinely created and discarded.

What’s the proof that “this is the dominant view across U.S. society?”  

Private stem-cell research on these discarded embryos remains legal, and, contrary to much political spin, private funding is plentiful.

Okay, so the Catholic World News’ eminently pithy Diogenes sums up the quagmire this unwittingly exposes:

now suppose your “view” is that the embryo is a human being. (It’s certainly a being, and it is human, so…) Then presumably you should want to raise some controversy over “fertility treatments, in which embryos are routinely created and discarded.”

Why would it be acceptable to discard embryos in the fertility clinics but not in the research labs? And if it’s not acceptable in either case, why is the pro-life movement concentrating its rhetorical fire exclusively on the stem-cell research?

Proponents of stem-cell research keep asking why, if we’re so concerned about the destruction of embryos, we have quietly allowed in vitro fertilization to become so broadly accepted. Good question.

Good point. Really good point.