There is a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, there’s a cooler with 100 embryos. In another room, there’s a baby. You have only enough time to go to one room for a rescue. Which do you save, the baby or the cooler?

In some of my prior comments on this issue, I’ve argued that the veto had more to do with privatizing medical research and denying federal funding than with any moral concern over saving human lives. If this had truly been a moral issue, President Bush had only two alternatives: sign the bill so that life-saving medical research could be supported through federal funding; or seek a ban on all embryonic stem cell research. He did neither. What a moral dilemma. Or maybe there is one other alternative: it’s possible that he truly and morally believes embryonic stem cell research is wrong, but he falls short of seeking a ban to avoid alienating the majority of his political party.

At any rate, during his post-veto photo-op on the stem cell bill, Mr. Bush claimed essentially that human life is present in those stem cells and it’s sacred. That’s an assertion he must make at the outset in order to raise a moral concern about embryonic stem cell research so that he can base his only veto in office on the more attractive “moral” issue rather than concerns over federal funding, which is what the bill sought.

Many supporters of stem cell research see a basic flaw in Mr. Bush’s premise. We simply do not believe the genetic blueprint we all call an embryonic stem cell is a person.

In opposition, Mr. Bush and the religious right, assert (as a uniquely Christian concept), that human life begins at the cellular level. This is problematic for two reasons: he’s establising public policy based on one religion, which is patently unconstitutional; and there are no references in the Bible defining the beginning of human life as cellular nor even sacred. In fact, the troubling biblical versus I cite above suggest the opposite.

There is one other thing to consider. Whether or not you believe human life is present in a stem cell, there is one inescapable fact: embryonic stem cells not used for invitro fertilization or life-saving research become medical waste. What a waste! That means that Mr. Bush’s veto achieved only two things: it privatized medical research and failed to save any lives whatsoever. This act is contrary to basic human morality in that it places the value of money above the value of human life.

Going back to our pro-choice, pro-stem cell research riddle, I think we can agree that few people would allow the living, breathing baby to burn to death. Morality dictates we save the life that’s here, breathing and conscious. Despite the President’s statement during his post-veto photo op that all life is sacred, he would let the baby burn, literally. The evidence of that is in Iraq and Afghanistan. By not calling for a cease fire in Israel and Lebanon, he continue the trend. All the burnt and broken babies are the proof of that!