Every Friday for the past couple of months, I have tackled controversial issues such as gay marriage, reproductive discrimination, the draft, politics in the classroom, the filibuster, the pope and even nothing (these tend to be my more forgettable pieces). Thus, for the last column of my freshman year, I thought I’d dirty my hands in the definitive controversial issue of the day: life.

At this point, it strikes me as undeniable that embryonic stem cell research holds possibilities for saving human lives. If an avenue exists that could lead to treatments and cures for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cancer and even quadriplegia, why has that avenue not been traveled down? Ironically, we have the “Culture of Life” to thank. George W. Bush, in his lame-duck days of pre-9/11 presidency, drew an ethical and moral line between adult stem cells and the more malleable embryonic ones in hopes of preventing “a culture that devalues life.” Out of the goodness of his heart, however, he permitted the continued research on the existing 60 stem cell lines — apparently these embryos, unlike all others, were not living humans. Fortunately, the president, in defense of his restrictive policy, was able to fall back on this concession in succeeding years — unfortunately, all these lines have been contaminated to such a degree that renders them useless.

The question of when life begins is so complex, and a dead horse beaten so badly, that addressing it here would be senseless. Instead, let me just state that the embryos that would be used in stem cell research would be voluntarily donated by couples who have undergone in-vitro fertilization. Furthermore, if not implanted, these surplus embryos would otherwise be discarded, regardless of whether or not they are considered human life. And if they are to be tossed away, shouldn’t at least some (life-saving) good come out of them?

At a press conference on Tuesday, Bush, surrounded by children born from such “surplus embryos,” refuted this assertion, arguing that each of these bundles of undifferentiated cells has the potential for human life. Nobody would argue that the potential is not there, simply that the potential for developing treatments that would save millions more must also be considered. And while it is wonderful that many infertile couples have opted to use such surplus embryos, the truth is that the vast majority are being thrown out. And if these embryos are indeed human lives that must be saved, why don’t I see droves of pro-life activists lining up outside fertility clinics waiting to get implanted?

And then there is the question of capital punishment. As a rule of thumb, the majority of those who subscribe to the “culture of life” — who would classify themselves as pro-life — are ironically pro-death (penalty).

Recently an Indiana man on death row requested reprieve so that his liver might be donated to his ailing sister. The issue was resolved on Wednesday: not only was his plea for a postponed execution denied, his liver died with him. Was he really such a threat to society behind bars that he could not be kept alive a moment longer with the chance of saving another life?

And what about all the innocent individuals mistakenly executed? It is understood that many dozens of Americans have been wrongfully put to death, whether due to negligence or simple human error. Regardless, however, it would seem that if the “culture of life” had any integrity, it would abhor the death penalty if only one man had ever been erroneously executed.

As the American death toll in Iraq climbs, one cannot but ask how those who classify themselves as pro-life are so often also pro-war. Most estimates put the civilian Iraqi body count at well over 10,000 — yet the “culture of life,” in all its idealistic patriotism, marches on undeterred.

And this brings me back to embryonic stem cell research — hopefully not too much of a stretch. Many conservatives have argued that the government should not be allowed to use tax dollars to fund such controversial research — research that inherently undermines their deepest convictions and religious tenets. Well then in response I will say, without reservation, do not use my tax dollars to fund a war that inherently undermines my deepest convictions and religious tenets. And for that matter, find some alternative funding for lethal injections, the electric chair, and firing squads. And please, don’t presume to live in a “culture of life” if you support the condemnation of countless individuals in the courts, on the battlefield, or in hospital beds.

One day, Kalani will beat the dead horse of when life begins. E-mail him at kalani08@stanford.edu