It wasn’t written to project a particular point of view, but rather present both sides from which the listener can make their own decision.
One example is this set of lines:
“Ethic inquisitions breed/Antagonistic views/Right wing soundbyte premonitions/In a labyrinth of rules
Are you justified/Are you justified/Are you justified/Justified in taking/Life to save life/Life to save life/Taking life to save life
This embryonic clay/Wrapped in fierce debate/Would be thrown away/Or otherwise discarded/Some of us believe/It may hold the key/To treatment of disease/And secrets highly guarded
Are you justified/Are you justified/Are you justified/Justified in taking/Life to save life/Life to save life/Taking life to save life”
The first, second and fourth stanzas all sound at first listen like they’re taking the Pro Life side of the argument, because the standard Pro Life argument against stem cell research is that it makes use of aborted fetuses, which Pro Lifers consider to be tacitly supporting murder. However, if you put stanza four in the context of stanza three (which is clealy from the point of view of the scientists), it becomes a double entendre – the accusation of inventing justifications is held up against Pro Lifers, who are attempting to trade the death of a sick person who could be saved by stem cell research for the life of the aborted baby.