In reading it, I was trying to figure out how he would attempt to reconcile his support for embryo-destructive research with being pro-life–that is, with his belief that human beings have rights from their earliest moments. Other self-declared pro-lifers have tried to square this circle. Would Frist, like Orrin Hatch, deny that human beings that aren’t in the womb are human beings? Would he, like Joe Barton, say that human embryos would, if they could, volunteer themselves as sacrifices the way soldiers do?

Nope. Frist doesn’t bother trying to explain himself. Here’s the passage in full:

“I am pro-life. I believe human life begins at conception. It is at this moment that the organism is complete — yes, immature — but complete. An embryo is nascent human life. It’s genetically distinct. And it’s biologically human. It’s living. This position is consistent with my faith. But, to me, it isn’t just a matter of faith. It’s a fact of science.

“Our development is a continuous process — gradual and chronological. We were all once embryos. The embryo is human life at its earliest stage of development. And accordingly, the human embryo has moral significance and moral worth. It deserves to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

“I also believe that embryonic stem cell research should be encouraged and supported. But, just as I said in 2001, it should advance in a manner that affords all human life dignity and respect — the same dignity and respect we bring to the table as we work with children and adults to advance the frontiers of medicine and health.”

So: I believe that taxes are too high and should be lower. I also believe that taxes should be raised, in a manner consistent with the dignity of taxpayers. Does what Frist said make any more sense than that?

The speech in full is a logical train wreck. He says that he still believes what he believed in 2001: that the research should be federally funded with certain restrictions. Then he says that the main funding bill doesn’t meet his conditions. Then he says he’ll support it anyways. Then he says that he’s pro-life and supports alternative courses of research that don’t kill human embryos. Then he reiterates his support for embryo-destructive research. It’s as though (at least) two different people were giving two different speeches.