Pro-life groups are hailing President Bush's veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research as a great victory.

The vetoed bill would have allowed the government to support research using human stem cells to find cures for such diseases as Alzheimer's, diabetes and Parkinson's, as well as to treat spinal cord injuries. Stem cells are capable of mimicking other cells and scientists believe that they hold tremendous potential for allowing the body to literally repair itself.

The government currently funds research using 19 lines of stem cells, but some researchers say those lines are unfit for use because they were grown on mouse cells, creating the potential for transmitting a mouse-borne illness to humans.

The crux of the debate is the use of stem cells from human embryos. A vocal faction of pro-lifers take the stand that an embryo is equivalent to a fully developed human life, and they argue that destroying them just to harvest stem cells for research is unethical. Bush stressed the point by appearing at a photo opportunity with children who were "adopted" as embryos.

It is an emotional argument. Nobody wants to see a child killed by some mad scientist, or even a sane one with noble intentions.

But is that what would happenfi The embryos, after all, were not created for the sake of extracting stem cells. These are simply the leftover embryos from fertility clinics -- embryos destined for destruction anyway. In the clinics, many eggs are fertilized in the hope that one will grow. When one is chosen, the others are discarded.

Fertility clinics have been treating such rejects as medical waste for years with little objection from those who believe life begins at conception. It was only after scientists looked to the discarded embryos for stem cell research that the volume of protest has been turned up.

But if an early embryo should enjoy the same protections as a more developed fetus or a fully grown individual, then for sake of consistency the anti-stem cell faction should also be arguing to ban all fertility clinics. In vitro fertilization should be seen as unethical, since science is manipulating nature.

Politically speaking, that argument won't carry the day.

On the other hand, a good case can be made that using a fertility clinic's rejected embryos for stem cells is the best course. Instead of being wasted, the cells would help scientists discover ways to improve the quality of life for all mankind. Rather than facing total death, the embryo (or part of it) would live on.

Utah Sen. Orrin G. Hatch has shown many times in this debate that the strident pro-lifers are on the wrong side. He argues persuasively that until an embryo has latched on to a mother's uterine wall it cannot be considered a viable human being. To argue otherwise suggests that certain forms of contraception are murder.

Unlike abortion-on-demand, under which even a fully formed fetus is seen as mere tissue growth that can be excised at any time for the mother's convenience, stem cell research does not diminish the value of human life. "This research enhances, not diminishes human life," Hatch noted during debate.

Hatch is not the only anti-abortion conservative on this side of the issue. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are among conservatives who support stem cell research. Even the LDS Church, which has taken a strong position against abortion, has not issued any statement for or against embryonic stem cell research.

By making a fuss over embryos destined for destruction anyway, anti-abortion groups are hindering the progress of humanity.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A8.