Which are going to be destroyed anyways. They use the “left-overs” that fertility clinics otherwise throw away as medical waste.

Why are the clinics not offering up these embryo’s to other infertile couples. Having available, already fertilized embryo’s would be a lot less expensive and painfull than having to harvest your own wife’s eggs. (Few insurance companies pay for invitro.)

Is there a federal law that makes such “adoptions” illegal?

/

This debate should already be over.

Mr Purple on January 18, 2009 at 6:36 AM

We have Pelosi and Biden touting their Catholicism and proclaiming that Life is still a matter of debate. To Democrats and nefarious criminals everywhere, such “debates” will never be over until you plant the scoundrels where they belong.

Obama is doing this the right way. I’m certainly willing to wait for Congress to overturn the worst existing United States policy, the Mexico City policy which forbids giving money to family planning groups who also do abortion, if it means that no future president can implement it again by executive fiat.

thuja on January 17, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Do you actually believe the Mexico City policy is the “worst existing United States policy?”

Interesting.

It’s a small number, but part of the argument against “use them for stem cells, or they end up in the garbage.”

Embryonic stem cells are not genetic matches. You would need a similar screening process for organ transplants to find compatibility.

Using adult cells not only has shown more promise in research – but the cells are identical matches.

Really one of the big overlooked factors here is tissue culture techniques. Embryonic cells and adult cells can most likely be manipulated to do equivalent functions with proper culture media and techniques.

Oh, and no ethical issues.

Obama wants Congress to act on lifting stem cells ban

Under this scenario, the stem cells created have a beneficial effect for living humans and their families. What’s the downside?

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM

I keep telling you the downside.

you cheapen human life. You’re essentially trading one life for another. This isn’t like taking a hair follicle or some of your own marrow and regrowing it… we’re talking about talking about taking a fully fertiilized human egg a wholly separate life that’s begun growing and slicing it up and turning it into your lower intestine.

In fact, we’re NOW talking about mass producing human fertilized eggs (wholly separate lives) for the very purpose of making spare body parts.

The irony here is that adult stem cells can deliver the pluripotentiality of hEsc products now, with much more stability. There is little reason now to fund embryonic stem-cell research, which is one of the reasons why hEsc projects can’t find enough private financing. Bush didn’t block hEsc research, as some claim, but only federal funding for research into new lines, and since that time, it’s been shown as unnecessary — and hEsc has never actually led to any therapeutic solutions anyway, while adult stem-cell therapies have had considerable success.

Yup — been that way since even before the $6B boondoggle known as Prop 71 passed here in California.

Always the moral semantics with liberals. Such a bloodthirsty and gruesome lot.

chunderroad on January 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM

No liberal here. Pay attention chunder.

Except they don’t, and it’s been proven. “What if? What if?” Always the moral semantics with liberals. Such a bloodthirsty and gruesome lot.

chunderroad on January 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM

The discussion is about cells that already exist and will otherwise be thrown directly into the garbage. Catch up.

If they can cure cancer and alzheimers I say produce them at the quantity required. Any stem cells produced for this purpose would not have been created or existed otherwise. Under this scenario, the stem cells created have a beneficial effect for living humans and their families. What’s the downside?

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Except they don’t, and it’s been proven. “What if? What if?” Always the moral semantics with liberals. Such a bloodthirsty and gruesome lot.

You know.

Hussein supports Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood encourages black to kill their babies.

Ergo, Hussein wants to kill black babies.

Oh, the Hitler syndrome (since he was part Jewish but exterminated Jews).

What happens if you find that embryo stem cells can cure cancer and alzheimers?

You’ll need to mass produce them in far greater quantities than those extreme few created as the remains of in-vitro fertilization treatments.

Thus my point.

Skywise on January 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM

If they can cure cancer and alzheimers I say produce them at the quantity required. Any stem cells produced for this purpose would not have been created or existed otherwise. Under this scenario, the stem cells created have a beneficial effect for living humans and their families. What’s the downside?

DarkCurrent on January 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I’m aware of that. You’re slicing semantics here.

What happens if you find that embryo stem cells can cure cancer and alzheimers?

You’ll need to mass produce them in far greater quantities than those extreme few created as the remains of in-vitro fertilization treatments.

Thus my point.

“Well, if we can do something legislative

“do something legislative”?? Is that how they teach them to speak at Harvard Law? Pathetic.

And you’re so intelligent you’ve managed, in a zen-like way, to determine that destroying an embryo is not “aborting a life”.

Skywise on January 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Skywise, I think the point is that the embryos in question are already created as a product of in-vitro fertilization and will be disposed of regardless. The cells can be simply all be destroyed, or some can be used for purposes which may be beneficial to living people. Alternatively we could ban in-vitro fertilization, though ultimately fewer human lives lived would be the result.

You’re probably someone who thinks aborted babies are used. They’d be useless, the cells were already differentiated long ago.

Seven Seas on January 17, 2009 at 2:28 PM

And you’re so intelligent you’ve managed, in a zen-like way, to determine that destroying an embryo is not “aborting a life”.

Soylent green is people…