PHILOSOPHER ON CALL : What my husband told the president.

The recent controversy over stem-cell research started with a big bang at our house. My philosopher husband, Daniel Callahan, was suddenly called to the White House to consult with George W. Bush and his aides. Our old friend Leon Kass, now appointed to chair a new bioethical oversight committee, had invited Dan to go with him.

At the meeting, in the Oval Office no less, President Bush was engaging, asked intelligent questions, and appeared genuinely interested in the issues. The discussion lasted for over an hour. It turned out that both Dan and Leon morally disapprove of funding more research that would involve further destruction of embryos. But could some compromise be reached that recognized the value of the scientific research? As all the world now knows, on August 9, Bush presented a compromise solution on national television.

In the meantime, Dan has been subjected to a micromedia blitz of interviews. So what did Bush say, and what did you say, and what is your own opinion? Naturally, we watched Bush's presentation with a good deal of suspense. I thought the president made a clear and fair presentation and demonstrated ethical seriousness. Of course, compromises never end all controversy or please all parties--including me, the pro-life wife of a pro-choice bioethicist.

I remain saddened that the cultural fight must go on, and on, to achieve full protection for embryonic human life. Human life is human life, like our own in all but development. Obviously, our permissive abortion laws have paved the way for the present attack on immature and vulnerable life. If a woman can kill the embryo or fetus within her womb for any reason, then why not destroy embryos for "a good cause"--that is, to further the much-hyped scientific research that may, someday, help cure disease?

I also see that the reproductive technology of in vitro fertilization has been abused. It seems morally acceptable to medically remedy and technologically assist a husband and a wife who could, but for their infertility, have children. But in order to make the technology more efficient and cost-effective, more embryos than can ever be used are produced and frozen. This practice leads to selecting, storing, and discarding embryos. In my opinion, we should never have reached a situation in which thousands of embryos remain in the freezer. A no-less-ominous byproduct of the new reproductive technologies is the existence of sperm banks, TV auctions by egg donors, and widespread sex selection of embryos in favor of males.

It took millions of years of evolution to develop in vivo fertilization and reproduction. This evolutionary process was advantageous because offspring could be better protected. Leaving fertilized eggs in the sand as some species do is, after all, an open invitation to predators. Leaving embryos in the freezer can be seen to be another kind of abandonment. If parents discard or donate embryos to researchers, then too bad. Creating embryos for research or cloning embryos to destroy them is worse.

I see this lack of protection for embryonic life as symptomatic of our culture's lack of care for all children, whether born or unborn. The ancient practice of infanticide, particularly female infanticide, was never thoroughly suppressed in Western culture, despite the opposition of Christians. Who cares to welcome a child for Christ's sake if it doesn't serve adult needs or desires? Children are still too often treated as property, and in many places around the globe they are sold into sexual slavery or condemned to sweatshop labor. In "developed" countries we see the emergence of thousands of child pornography Web sites. While women have won the status of equality (almost, at least in the West, out of reach of the Taliban), throwaway children are discarded from conception through adolescence.

All right; maybe I am unfairly blaming scientists for the culture's utilitarian bent and moral tone deafness. But researchers want to pursue the cutting edge wherever it leads. And scientists too are fallible, quite easily driven by personal ambition, self-serving bias, and the search for grant money.

I feel even more indignant toward those few bioethicists who bless the troops and approve almost anything short of torturing innocent children for fun. Surely, no ethicist can be on the payroll of a profit-making biotech company and retain his or her credibility. Abstract ethical knowledge doesn't protect persons from moral corruption or from being co-opted. And may a dire penalty fall on those bioethicists who make up special names for embryos, such as the "preembryo" or "embryoid bodies." One philosopher, in a Science article, even proposed a new label for those embryos no longer wanted by parents. By now we should understand how technical terms like "collateral damage" serve to disguise the fact that human lives are at stake.

Where to turn for relief? Hope springs from family life and love of the next generations. On the day that my husband was up early to prepare for the White House, Perry, our five-year-old granddaughter, appeared at our bedside. "I am too excited to sleep," she said, "because today is Pussy Willow's birthday party." Pussy Willow is our nanny's cat which was turning twelve. At the celebration later in the day, all the guests wore mouse ears, ate cheese, and sang the traditional greetings. Thus every new day brings its important adventures. Perry was thrilled by the kitty gala, while grandpa went to the White House to bell the cat. Meow, meow--let's keep life in perspective.