A house catches on fire, and you have a choice — save a toddler or save fifty embryos.  Progressive thinkers, like Andy Arnold, use such hypothetical persuasion to support their desire for embryonic research.

This emotionally-charged scenario asks us to choose between a toddler or embryos, when in fact, the debate calls for no such choice.  Actually, the ethical dilemma is not even one of saving lives.  The debate over embryonic research is not about saving, but sacrificing lives.  The researchers would form a theory, take hundreds of embryos to test and retest his theory, and have no guarantee for any success.  In reality, lives are being sacrificed for the betterment of others.

Rather than giving an emotionally charged hypothetical scenario, let’s use an analogy from history.  In the 1930s and 40s, Nazi doctors experimented on life they viewed as lesser.  Whether trying to test for natural immunities against tuberculosis or treatment for war time nerve gases, the Nazis were not afraid to sacrifice one life for the health of another.  This sacrifice was done in the name of advancing “the superior race.”  Unfortunately, while most Americans condemn Nazi ethics, many embrace the betterment for some, no matter the sacrifice.

Embryonic research does not ask which life to save, but whether or not to sacrifice.