a false description of "a false choice"

From a section of Obama's speech on stem cells and his recent "executive order"-- ironically, entitled "A False Choice" by the C-J in their re-print of the speech...

...in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research....

A few thoughts here:

First, Obama is assuming that the only category for concern is cloning-- or he is carelessly (purposefully?) conflating concerns with cloning about concerns for embryos as life.

Second, there is no necessary conflict between "sound science and moral values", but there is in this case. "As a person of faith", he is willing to ignore the cost of human life in the pursuit of the benefit of relieving human suffering-- or is he ignorant in ignoring the possibility of those costs.

Third, it's odd and amazing that he reduces this to a matter of "consensus"-- as if moral issues should be decided in that manner. This is a particularly troubling position for someone who is part African-American. In the Old South, "consensus" determined that slavery was ok. We can determine "tastes" as a matter of politics (although it is best, when possible, to leave such things to markets). At times, consensus in a democracy will lead to debate over debatable moral issues. But the matter is not "solved" by consensus; it is decided (at least temporarily) by consensus. You simply cannot comfortably leave ethics and morals to consensus.

Fourth, he conflates moral support for an activity with a desire to subsidize it. Allowing people to do something troubling is one thing. Forcibly taking money from people-- including many who are ethically troubled by that decision-- is another.