The Great Debate

P.J. O'Rourke is the last conservative I would have expected to come out as a champion of the pro-life cause. I always thought of him as the Republican Party's resident libertarian: always on hand to make some wisecrack or another about the dangers of the government meddling in our lives.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read his latest column, a searing attack on Obama's stem-cell sophistry. Fatherhood turns even the most committed libertarian into a pro-lifer, I guess.

I don't really buy the first part of his argument, when he writes:

Let's look at the various things science has "known" in the past 3,000 years.

Lightning is the sneeze of Thor.

The periodic table consists of Earth, Wind, and Fire and a recording of "Got To Get You into My Life."

The world is flat with signs saying "Here Be Democrats" near the edges.

You can turn lead into gold without first selling your Citibank stock at a huge loss.

Hey, you leave science out of this, P.J.! Just because it's been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should ignore it forever. After all, if a politician lies once, does that mean we should assume that he's lying every time he opens his mouth thereafter?

Wait, I actually know how O'Rourke would answer that one.

But regardless. The strongest argument against Obama's stem-cell policy is that it's anti-science, that it's built on ideology and not on scientifically verifiable facts.

Obama ignores the enormous breakthroughs that have come about through research on adult stem cells. Instead, he prefers to stick it to everyone who believes that creating embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them is wrong.