A Line of Sight is currently featuring two articles focused on the politics surrounding stem cell research, and we want to know what you think about the issue.

In “Saving lives without sacrificing life,” Congressman Phil Gingrey, an OB-GYN physician from Georgia, lays out a compelling look at the options to conduct stem cell research without destroying embryonic stem cells.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue, but the truth is they don’t have to. Alternatives exist that can sidestep these ethical concerns. We don’t have to sacrifice life for science and we don’t have to drag the American public through an unnecessary and divisive moral debate.

In “The hypocrisy of the embryonic stem cell debate,” former Congressman Bob Beauprez looks more closely at recent debates in Congress, where other options to obtain pluripotent stem cells (long-lived, adaptable cells) without destroying life are rarely mentioned.

I believe the case is quiet clear. This debate is more about the continuing federal government protected right to destroy embryonic and fetal life, as originally determined by Roe v. Wade 40 years ago, than it is about unlocking new science. If such were not the case, the supporters of DeGette’s legislation would broaden their scope to include research that addresses the same theoretical objective, but without crossing the great ethical boundary of destroying life in the process.

What do you think? Is it science or politics? Will stem cell research yield the benefits we’ve been promised?