ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, May 23, 2005

Matt Blunt Makes NRO

Looks like Matt Blunt has hit the big time... the editors at National Review Online have an article about him. Oh, wait... I don't think he's going to be happy about it.

Gov. Blunt’s Weird Science
[...]
Unfortunately, his position is an incoherent mess.
[...]
Blunt is redefining the word ‘cloning’ for political convenience.
[...]
So Blunt’s argument has to be that embryos created through in vitro fertilization are “new human life” while embryos created through cloning are not. But there is no reasoned, and certainly no scientific, basis for this distinction. Blunt says that cloning doesn’t create a “fertilized egg.” But this is just another word game: The egg is not fertilized because instead a scientific process that mimics it has occurred. In cloning, as in natural reproduction or IVF, a new organism of the human species is created. (If it weren’t human, the researchers wouldn’t want it.)

Science could develop to the point where it would be possible to develop an embryo created through cloning into a baby — perhaps even without its ever being implanted in a womb. There are researchers interested in artificial wombs, and some interested in cloning babies. If we reached that point, and someone proposed experimenting on those babies, Blunt would have no ground for objecting: Sperm would never have met egg.

Has Gov. Blunt thought this issue through? Does he care about the merits? Or does he just want Missouri’s biotech industry to thrive and to be grateful to him? These are not, in themselves, illegitimate goals. But Blunt’s political “game playing” — to borrow a phrase — is not a good reason to allow the destruction of human beings in the early stages of development, however they were created.

Nor will the folks at Draft Matt Blunt 2008

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler