As president, George Bush has the ability to veto bills passed by Congress, but in his six-year tenure he has only done so one time. The reason for this is likely the amenity between him and Congress thus far, but one may predict this cooperation to fizzle soon enough due to the Democratic take-over of the legislative branch. The one veto that Bush did make was for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act early last year. The proposed act would have reversed the law banning the use of Federal money for research involving stem cells obtained by the destruction of embryos.

While I am uncomfortable from the start with science's dependence on government aid, if government money is going to be used to support scientific research, research involving embryonic stem cells (ESCs) should not be an exception. ESC research shows a lot of promise in the medical field with potential to treat people with cancer, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and many other insufferable ailments. The thing about ESCs is that they are the precursors for all the cells in the body with the ability to differentiate into any of the 200 different cell types. As a treatment, stem cells introduced into an area of cell damage could begin a regenerative process that may repair the seemingly permanent damage an individual may have suffered.

These incredible healing possibilities have been stifled by the alleged ethical issues surrounding this type of research, but a look at the facts can show this to be a non-issue. Opponents of ESC research claim that it involves the instrumentalization of a human being, because an embryo must be destroyed for the cells to be obtained. This 'pro-life' view is typically based on the religious assertion that human life begins at conception, and that the life of a developing embryo, at any stage, is equivalent to any human life. The problem with this view is that it must be accepted on faith alone, because there is nothing about a cluster of 100 cells that suggests it is human. These blastocysts, from which stem cells are obtained, have no shred of consciousness and are incapable of language, thought, or emotion, i.e. anything human. By any rational standard a blastocyst is less human than a tadpole, and is certainly far from deserving the same rights as a human being.

The only remaining argument is that blastocysts are different from other forms of non-human life because they have the potential to become human. But potentiality is still a state of non-being, and it seems the argument would have to expand to include sperm and egg cells as potential embryos. Many, like President Bush, are allowing irrational beliefs to stand between men and treatments to end human suffering. Hopefully this new Congress will be potent enough to override any presidential veto that threatens stem cell research, not simply for the sake of science, but to show what it truly means to be a proponent of life by refusing to sacrifice the actual to the potential.