Columnist just doesn’t get it

In today's Washington Post, columnist Michael Kinsley insists that human embryonic stem cell research "is often described as a moral dilemma, but it simply is not." He also writes of the relative lack of moral opposition to in vitro fertilization, and the fact that nature plays a role in "the casual creation and destruction of embryos in normal human reproduction."

Well, Kinsley is off the mark. We are positive he is aware that the act of taking a stem cell from a human embryo results in the death of that human embryo, and is thus an act of killing.

There are indeed national pro-life organizations ? American Life League being one ? that understand that consistency is required of us. We oppose all in vitro fertilization and believe strongly that it should be outlawed. It is, after all, a practice that leads to the direct killing of human embryonic children for a wide variety of reasons, including killing the "imperfect."

In normal human reproduction nature is the arbiter; not man. There is a huge difference between an act of nature and a direct act of killing. We are positive Mr. Kinsley is aware of this. We are also positive that he knows we work very hard to support adult and cord blood stem cell research because we, like him, look forward to a day when diseases like Parkinson's can be eradicated ? but without murdering innocent embryonic people in the process.