regardless of any religious questions, the whole idea of creating embryos for research is horrible in a brave new world kind of way. extra embryos from intro clinics are a different issue, but I agree that is the slippery slope.
On 7/21/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. The fear is scientist will create life in vitro for the purpose of > destroying it to get the cells. They say there are 400,000 frozen > embryos, already fertilized, in storage. Bush wants to let people > adopt them. So far, under the snowflake program, 81 children have been > adopted and are now alive. That's such a tiny fraction of the 400k > that it's not realistic. The problem is the frozen discarded embryos > might not suffice, so they might need to create fresh ones. They might > also want to create embryos with known genetic defects so they can > understand it better and cure that defect. I'm not even sure if I have > a problem with that but it does sound creepy and I can understand why > people think it's morally wrong. > > On 7/21/06, Dana Tierney wrote: > > I have not said anything about stem cells because I've been busy and > because, to be honest, I did not exect any kind of legislation to ever pass > to get to the veto stage. > > > > But here we are, andmy question is -- the opposition to stem cell research > comes from some secret conviction that if it is allowed women will > deliberately conceive so they can sell the fetuses? Is that it? > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211677 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
