Embryonic stem cells are always a controversial topic, especially when politicians wrangle over whether the government should support the practice of harvesting them.  Some argue that only embryonic stem cells are valuable, while others have shown that research employing adult or umbilical-cord-blood stem cells has greater success.  This debate is not about facts, however, but about the very nature of the human person.

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives chose to support a full-scale funneling of tax dollars to pay for the direct killing of human embryos so that their stem cells could be used for research.  While you and I might see immediately that such a decision is inhumane, others would tell you that it is the only right thing to do.

Among the many political types, Hollywood figures, and media personalities who advocate killing embryonic children, the argument goes something like this: Extra embryos are not doing anybody any good right now.  Using them for scientific research is not only reasonable but necessary in our quest to find cures for such diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.  Those fanatics who oppose our position are cruel; they do not want to see suffering relieved.

Of course, there is no evidence that a single research project involving embryonic stem cells has produced a positive result, but even if such evidence existed, we still would not be permitted to kill innocent people for the good of others.

The real, and often overlooked, question is not whether scientists should be using human embryos, but where do all of these “leftover” embryos come from?

Every year, thousands of infertile couples try to “get pregnant” using various forms of reproductive technology.  In vitro fertilization is one of the most popular methods.  In every IVF treatment, several embryos are produced using maternal eggs and paternal sperm.  A single Petri dish could contain four, five, or more embryonic children, and only one or two of them will be used.  Those little ones who are placed in the mother in the hope that they will implant and grow will be those who pass the quality-control test.  Only those embryos deemed to be the most promising—that is, free of genetic problems—are used.  Those who fail the test wind up in a freezer someplace, or their parents “donate” them to science.

If this sounds strangely macabre to you or makes you feel the least bit uncomfortable, then you may be on to the real problem with current debates over embryonic stem-cell research, for, if there were no IVF therapy, there would be no “leftover” embryos to begin with.  The real problem, then, is the process by which these youngest members of the human family come into being.  In the world of reproductive technology, each little boy and girl becomes a mechanized product rather than a child conceived through the procreative process designed by the Almighty.

Until those involved in the political rush to “solve” the human-embryo-for-research question address the root cause—IVF—and deal with it by outlawing the procedure, ancillary problems are unsolvable.  What is at stake in this debate is not whether the U.S. taxpayer funds the killing of embryonic boys and girls but how man perceives his offspring, now and in the future.

If children are chattel, embryonic-stem-cell research is the tip of the iceberg.  If, on the other hand, they are God’s gift to marriage, then nothing should stop us from focusing on all the good reasons why IVF is immoral and should be outlawed.