That Confusing Morality Thing

Editorializing against the President's stand against federally funded stem cell research, the NYTimes says:

The president's policy is based on the belief that all embryos, even the days-old, microscopic form used to derive stem cells in a laboratory dish, should be treated as emerging human life and protected from harm. This seems an extreme way to view tiny laboratory entities that are no larger than the period at the end of this sentence and are routinely flushed from the body by Mother Nature when created naturally.

How odd that a newspaper that can take threads of allegations (treatment of imprisoned terrorist soldiers) and weave a whole cloth of US condemnation can't see that someone might see complete DNA as evidence of the whole cloth of a human being. They have drawn a moral curtain tightly around themselves, refusing to believe evidence because it gets in the way of their beliefs.

In other words, they're no different than what they accuse Christians of being.

Dennis Prager stopped one such caller in his tracks yesterday when he asked if it would be OK to take an 8-month-old embryo for stem cell research. Indeed, what difference is there between eight days and eight months if it's life? The little puppies chewing on my shoes right now are about eight weeks old; were they any less alive nine weeks or 20 weeks ago?