"Truman actually produced democracy and freedom and peace, whereas you want credit for your hopes."

Just read an excellent article on Slate.com. The article puts forth a simplistic argument and one that isn't really novel in that even I, in one of my mostly nonsensical rants, have said it. Namely, that Bush's foreign policy doesn't jive with his domestic stance on stem cell research. For all that I've heard it before, it was nice to see someone in the media publish it. Refreshing, even.

"But it is hard —indeed, I would say it is impossible —to reconcile Bush's absolutism over alleged human life when it is a clump of unknowing, unfeeling cells with his sophisticated, if not cavalier, attitude toward the loss of innocent human life when it is children and adults in Iraq.

In all discussions weighing the cost of something-or-other in terms of human life, a philosopher pops up at this point and says that the crucial difference is a matter of intentions. Terrorists purposely target innocent civilians. We try hard not to kill innocent civilians, even if we know it can't be avoided. They're worse, even if our score is sadly higher.

But are stem cells any different? Stem-cell researchers don't want to kill embryos. They know that the deaths of embryos are a consequence of what they do, and they think that curing terrible diseases is worth it —just as President Bush thinks that bringing democracy to Iraq is worth it. In the case of stem cells, there is the added element that the embryos in question will be killed (or pointlessly frozen indefinitely) anyway if they are not used for research. And —oh, yes —there is still the question of whether a clump of a half-dozen cells you can't see without a microscope is actually a human being in the same sense as a 6-year-old girl blown up as she skips off to kindergarten in Baghdad."

Quite highly recommended.