Radical Ideology

Yesterday President Bush promised to veto any bill that loosens his restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. You'll recall that in 2001 the president said, in a compromise position, that federal funds would only go to research that worked with existing stem cell lines. On Friday, he reiterated that position in plain terms, saying that he is against promoting "science that destroys life in order to save life." Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who has fallen into the bad habit lately of calling radical anything and anyone with whom he disagrees, was at it again, saying "radical ideology [should not] stand in the way." I guess ad hominem attacks are the way to go when you don't have the facts on your side. What's so radical about recognizing the scientific fact that human embryos are developing human life and wanting to protect that life? Contrast that cautious approach with that of Reid, who, knowing human embryos are human, wants to destroy them anyway to harvest their stem cells–even though such cells are readily available through cord blood and other ethical sources. The question naturally comes to mind: Which man–Bush or Reid–harbors a radical ideology?