Complex moral and political dilemmas are often best understood through simple allegory. For example, Aesop’s Fables, Plato’s cave, and numerous New Testament parables explain to us what is right and what is just when even the most sophisticated analysis falls short. It is to these examples, and many others like them, that we turn to grant us moral clarity.

The House of Representatives will enter into just this sort of dilemma today when it considers whether or not to commit taxpayer funding to embryonic stem cell research. The story that comes to mind isn’t famous. In fact, I don’t recall how I learned it. But it is short, simple, and it explains why I will vote against this and all other measures that destroy innocent human life.

Imagine a settler in the 1800’s going far out into the woods alone with his rifle in search of a deer to feed his starving family. After waiting patiently for hours, he notices movement in the brush 50 yards away. It’s a deer. In a flash, he takes aim and prepares to fire. Then, he hesitates because something about the deer’s movement suggests that it might not be deer, but another hunter. Alone and miles away from any settlement, the odds of seeing another human are slim to none, but not impossible. Remember, his family is starving. If you were that hunter, would you shoot?

Even when the stakes are high and the odds are long, basic respect for human life compels us not to shoot. The same is true for stem cell research.

Stem cell research has the potential to treat or cure many life threatening or life-altering illnesses. The stakes are high.

However, one form of stem cell research, embryonic stem cell research, could potentially destroy thousands of innocent human lives. This type of research involves extracting stem cells from human embryos, destroying the embryos in the process.

Adult stem cell and neo-natal cord blood research methods – which do not imperil human life – provide the same life-saving cures to diseases that are thought to be available through embryonic stem cell research. These methods are responsible for over 70 medical breakthroughs. Embryonic stem cell research is responsible for none.

I strongly believe life begins at conception. I also recognize the point at which life begins is a highly contentious issue. But it is reasonable to conclude that embryonic stem cell research is tantamount to ending human life.

When the House takes up the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act tomorrow, it won’t be debating whether embryonic stem cell research should be allowed, but rather who will pay for it. It’s not a question of whether to shoot or hold fire; it’s a question of who should pay for the gun.

Millions of Americans recoil in horror at the thought of embryonic stem cell research because it results in the destruction of innocent human life. There is no reason these people should be forced to pay for a procedure that they find so morally objectionable. But that is exactly what Congressional Democrats intend to do when they pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act today.

Under current law, embryonic stem cell research can still obtain funding from private businesses, individual citizens, research institutions, or even state governments. These organizations are better suited to pay for such a controversial activity because, unlike the federal government, they do not compel universal payment by force. State governments answer to much narrower constituencies and all private contributions are, of course, voluntary.

Given the presence of credible alternatives and widespread availability of alternative funding, there is simply no good reason that the House should force every American, consenting or not, to foot the bill for this rifle.