On Fox News Sunday earlier this week, there was a debate of sorts between former NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney over the legislation pending before Congress regarding stem-cell research. Neither Romney nor Esiason sought out a prominent role in the human-cloning/stem-cell-research controversy–both had their roles foisted upon them. Romney became embroiled in the issue as a result of Harvard University’s ambitious plan to clone human embryos for the purpose of stem-cell research; Esiason is part of the national conversation because his son, Gunnar, has the lethal genetic disease cystic fibrosis (CF).

While Romney takes a middle road regarding the use of human embryos for stem-cell research (proposing that “left-over” frozen embryos from IVF clinics be used for such purposes), Esiason is more broadly supportive of such plans. While he is against human cloning for reproductive purposes, he supports so-called “therapeutic cloning”–the creation/cloning of human embryos for the express purpose of gathering their stem cells for medical research and then discarding whatever remains.

During Sunday’s debate, host Chris Wallace asked Esiason how he “balanced out science and legitimate moral concerns.” Esiason responded that “when you are affected by a disease like we are, then certainly that’s the balance that tilts you in favor of stem-cell research.” Later in the show he added: “Unfortunately, there are people that are making decisions (on this issue) that may not have this type of effect in their own lives and that’s unfortunate.”

Since Boomer Esiason’s son was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis in 1993, Esiason has admirably dedicated much of his life to battling the disease. Over the past twelve years, he has made himself perhaps the nation’s foremost spokesman for the cystic-fibrosis community and has raised tens of millions of dollars to fight the illness.

Given his praiseworthy efforts, it is unpleasant for me to have to disagree with his stance on this issue and the way he has chosen to take it. But I think I have a little credibility in doing so: I am 37 years old and have cystic fibrosis. I’m at a stage in my life where finding a cure or control for CF is a matter of some urgency. Nonetheless, I do not support embryo cloning for stem-cell research. Creating life for the purpose of destroying it, as Governor Romney put it on Sunday, is on the other side of “a very bright ethical line” that we should not cross.

The central issue in the debate on human cloning for stem-cell research should be when life begins or what exactly constitutes life. If you hold the views of the typical NARAL activist, the issue would be rather easily resolved: A cloned embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells and certainly wouldn’t warrant enough concern to curb the pursuit of a promising area of medical research.

If you believe, however, as George W. Bush does, as Mitt Romney does, as John Kerry does, as I do, and as much of America does that life begins at conception, then the morality of the matter is rather stickier. The Romney middle road that proposes using “leftover” frozen embryos for research purposes is probably appealing to some such individuals, certainly repugnant to others. Perhaps Romney’s position should prompt a potentially difficult conversation regarding a process that leaves “leftover” embryos in the first place.

But the rhetorical tack taken by “therapeutic cloning” proponents often seeks to prohibit such a conversation. Their thinking often implies that unless you or a loved one have grievously suffered you’re not entitled to have a voice in the debate. That’s why individuals like Ron Reagan and Michael J. Fox have been ushered to the forefront of the stem-cell controversy: Their proximity to illness purportedly endows them with heightened moral stature and insight. Someone opposed to “therapeutic cloning” often finds his opinion preemptively rebutted by the ad hominem irrelevancy that he has not been sufficiently close to illness for his views to warrant a fair hearing.

The logic here is similar to that of the pernicious “chicken hawk” attack, which holds that those who have never served in the military are not entitled to an opinion regarding military affairs. These lines of argument are a misdirection play: They steer the conversation away from the debate’s fundamentals while attempting to weaken the other side by personal denigration.

To a dismaying extent, the entire debate on this issue has also been reflective of the narcissism that characterizes so much of our society. Because the potential benefits of stem-cell research are allegedly great, many embryonic-cloning supporters have been all too willing to ignore the ethical ramifications of their plans.

Believe me, I would love for there to be a cure for cystic fibrosis. I love life and, at 37, I don’t think I’ve gotten my full taste of it yet. But how we live is a lot more important than how long we live. As we debate this issue, I hope that elementary truth is not forsaken.

–Dean Barnett writes about politics and other matters at www.soxblog.com.