To all those who have a family history of diseases, listen up. John Kerry is reaching out his hand and offering you a scientific fountain of youth. Simply reach back and vote for him in November, and he will cure Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.

You will never suffer and you will never face a debilitating disease like your parents or grandparents. However, there’s one small catch — depending on when you think life begins, this “research” may kill thousands of those who cannot hide or defend themselves.

These are the far-fetched promises of embryonic stem-cell research — an issue that has become a political tinderbox in the 2004 election. During last month’s Democratic National Convention, Ron Reagan, the former president’s son, made an emotional appeal to open the floodgates for stem cell research and prevent Alzheimer’s deaths like his father’s. The media has put stem cell research on the election-year backburner, but the research will have enormous impact on our culture long after the Swift Boat Veterans’ ship has sunk.

Here’s a quick primer on stem cells. There are two distinct types of research in this field. The first is stem-cell research, in which cells from living adults are stimulated to grow into new tissue. President Bush supported this type of research by giving $24.8 million in federal funds ($24.8 million more than Clinton ever offered).

The second type is embryonic stem-cell research. In this type of research, scientists use embryos that are the product of in vitro fertilization. When scientists match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are in the mother. These extra frozen embryos, if not used, will be destroyed.

Ron Reagan said only religious zealots wouldn’t use something that will go to waste: “It does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.”

Kerry and Reagan are making false assumptions. They state two things:

1) There is no legitimate moral issue here (although a lot of bio-ethicists would disagree).

2) This is a one-sided issue — pitting the enlightened scientists against fundamentalist nut cases on a witch hunt.

First of all, Ron Reagan needs to stop hijacking his father’s legacy to push embryonic stem-cell research. President Reagan, who has become the poster boy for stem cells thanks to his wife Nancy, authored the Personhood Proclamation in 1988, which declared the inalienable personhood of every American from conception until death.

Second, there is a legitimate moral issue here, and the issue is the difference between science and genocide. This entire ethical debate boils down to one question: Are embryos human beings? If they aren’t, why isn’t every lab in American using embryos to cure diseases? Why don’t we experiment on embryos at Iowa State in our biology classes?

Because deep down inside we know embryos are human beings, even though we try to morally sweep them under the rug. After conception, the zygote is an individual with a unique genetic blueprint. It’ll never become a human being because it already is.

From the beginning the new human directs its internal function and, as former research scientist Dianne Nutwell Irving says, “develops continuously without any biological interruptions … throughout the embryonic, fetal, neo-natal, childhood and adulthood stages — until the death of the organism.”

Just because in vitro embryos will die anyway doesn’t mean we should use them for research. What it does mean is in vitro fertilization should only be done with the number of eggs that can be safely carried by the mother, without risking destroying embryos.

Ethicist Greg Koukl’s argument is that we should treat them as people and do what we would do with a person in that situation: implant them in new mothers or allow them to die naturally.

If an embryo is not a human, embryonic stem-cell research is cutting-edge science. If an embryo is a human, it’s organ harvesting. Philosopher Francis J. Beckwith said, “If I have a bad eye and you have a good eye, can I forcibly take your good eye to make me better? No, because you’re a human being.”

Same goes for embryos.