Consequences of Putting Science Before Ideology

Yesterday, president Bush vetoes a bill allowing the federal government to fund embryonic stem cell research. In an AP report, "Bush vetoes embryonic stem cell bill", Deb Riechmann writes:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., said if she is elected president, she will lift restrictions on stem cell research. "This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families," she said.

Does Senator Clinton really want to put science before ideology?

That is what the Nazi's did; doing medical experiments on prisoners and the less desirables of society (as defined by the Nazi's) in order to better the needs of their families (i.e. the Aryan race). For an understanding of the horrors of letting science be the arbitrator of ethics, see "The Nazi Doctors" by Robert Lifton. The issue isn't about putting ideology before science but rather is the ideology a legitimate grounds for scientific ethics.

Second, Clinton's response is to Bush's statement:

"If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line." (emphasis added)

It is a scientific fact that a human being exists from the moment of conception. So Senator Clinton's position is either that these tiny humans can be destroyed in order to benefit others or she is saying these are not really human beings and thereby denying science.

Either way, her stated position leaves her no way to argue against the actions of the Nazi's. She unknowingly echoes the Nazi concept of lebensunwertnes Leben:

Some Life is Unworthy of Life