The president was correct when he refused to use our money on questionable research that is ethically repugnant to many.
Thus noted the "secretary, California Nurses for Ethical Standards" respecting federal spending of stem cell research. But, as with not funding abortions (even when maternal health might be seriously at stake), this is playing favorites with certain moral beliefs. [And "many" in this case is clearly not a majority, not even relatively close to one by some polls.] Even before Roe v. Wade, some judges recognized the various nuances of the moral/religious nature of the abortion decision:
"There remains the moral issue of abortion as murder. We submit that this is insoluble, a matter of religious philosophy and religious principle and not a matter of fact. We suggest that those who believe abortion is murder need not avail themselves of it. On the other hand, we do not believe that such conviction should limit the freedom of those not bound by identical religious conviction. Although the moral issue hangs like a threatening cloud over any open discussion of abortion, the moral issues are not all one-sided. The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson stated the other side well when he suggested that `The most deadly of all possible sins is the mutilation of a child's spirit.' There can be nothing more destructive to a child's spirit than being unwanted, and there are few things more disruptive to a woman's spirit than being forced without love or need into motherhood."
Same here. According to the religious and moral beliefs of many, apparently a majority, it is "ethnically repugnant" to not support research (on something many scientists and others would label not even developmentally an "embryo" that was destined to be destroyed anyway*) that has potential to save, better, and maybe even lead to new life for many full fledged persons.
So, why should the morals of a minority group win out? As with those religions that accept that abortion is a moral choice (or perhaps even a moral obligation) in various cases, is one disputed morality to be made law? Sometimes, especially when compelled by the Constitution, one disputed moral path is favored. But, other questions remain open to grand debate, best left to individual decision-making. If nothing else, both sides make "moral" choices, even if people differ on how to make them.
Funding of stem cell research and related areas in such a difficult area, clearly ultimately the responsibility of the funding party. Thus, the national government in this case. All the same, we cannot justify the President's choice just by saying some minority believes the choice is ethnically repugnant w/o taking into consideration the moral calculus of the rest of America. For them it is morally acceptable, a positive good. So, why should the minority win out?
And, when individual moral decision-making involving intimate personal decisions are at stake, why should the government favor one side over the other? This was the wrong of the Terri Schiavo mess. The choice was familial and personal, even if a minority supported the parents choice. The fact a minority was upset does not make individual moral choices not our own to make. If enough are concerned, we have every right to ensure the choice is fairly made, but the state and courts did so in that case.
I fear "morality" and similar concepts are too often given a selective cast, while even a bit of concern by even some small group ignore the yes moral rights of others (even a majority) to make their own choices. Sometimes, the rights of minorities should be guarded, but not when they nix the rights of the rest of us in the process.
---
* In fact, another letter to the NYT noted:
Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research have it backward. We who value life should rejoice that a human embryo, slated for being discarded, evades complete destruction when a part of it is endowed with potential immortality in a cell culture.