Corrupted thinking

That's how I'd characterize the thinking of Charles Krauthammer as he tries to make a distinction without a difference between "research cloning" of human life, which he "deplores," and the use in research of "discarded" embryos created for in vitro fertilization (IVF), which he supports. Here's how he puts it:

The principle I suggested was this: No creating human embryos for experimentation. That means ``no" to all cloning. And that means ``yes'' to using existing, already created embryos such as the thousands of frozen and/or discarded embryos left over from IVF clinics -- embryos created for the purpose of becoming children but which, for one reason or other, were not used.

That's a mighty slippery dance around the same issue. How would "no experimenting on children unless they are orphans" sound? If you create a new life, which is what all human embryos are, for IVF, but eventually experiment on it, then you have in fact allowed a newly created life to be used for experimentation. There is no moral difference between that and making clones for experimentation, and calling the unused IVF embryos "discards" hardly suits the cause of moral reasoning that Krauthammer pretends to be encouraging.

The true thrust of clear moral reasoning must strike at the immorality of creating all those new embryos (new human lives) for IVF that are "not used" and are thereafter "frozen and/or discarded." Trying to accept that situation as a moral fait accompli while "deploring" experimental cloning is some very rich hypocrisy, and it needs to be deplored, and here I am deploring it.

The whole article is so full of this made-up distinction in its attempt to fend off Krauthammer's massive self-contradiction that it is rather shocking to see this line: "The Democrats were oblivious to this self-contradiction. " Or maybe it's not so shocking. In either case, the column is one big lie, told mostly by Krauthammer to himself.