I’ve posted some examples if people want even more details than Sister Toldjah graciously provided.

(2) No human blastocyst may be produced by fertilization solely for the purpose of stem cell research.

Doesn’t this necessarily invalidate the possibility of “cloning embryos for the purpose of destroying them”? Seems to me like it does.

I call for a DNA check. Fish? Muskrat? Nope. Sorry, but I’m against using unborn humans as lab rats.

I maintain my question to all those in favor of embryonic — excuse me, perhaps we should call it blastocystic stem cell research. Why not use cloned or even aborted embryos to alleviate world hunger, if you think they aren’t human? I eagerly await your answer.

Well, back when I took highschool biology, it was taught as a science not an ideological indoctrination tool.

You’re playing the “depends on what the meaning of “is” is” game. As though naming a human embryo something other than a human actually changes anything. You are as guilty of New Speak as any and all of the other liberals and Democrats out there, attempt to use language to obscure rather than enlighten, which is what people tend to do when what they are describing is unpalatable to the majority of people. We didn’t “murder” anyone, we just performed some retroactive abortions! Makes as much sense as your argument that this “blob” isn’t a potential person.

Science isn’t the enemy. Ignorance is. Educate yourself. ”

Try learning to READ before you attempt to educate others on the definitions of words, pal. If you think the “science is your friend” crowd isn’t asking to clone embryos, you better think again. If they weren’t asking, the definition of cloning in A2 would be much more specific.

Keep your head in the sand. Ignorance is bliss, eh? It makes no difference to me what you think. People who want to learn are the people I’m interested in talking to.

embryo: In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development

Note that the ball of cells you create in vitro following somatic cell nuclear transfer is NOT an embryo OR a human being. It is a bundle of undifferentiated cells that has ZERO percent chance of ever becoming anything remotely human unless implanted in a surrogate. Anyone who thinks this is the equivalent of killing a baby wouldn’t pass high school biology.

Every day, women all over the world experience spontaneous abortions in the first month of pregnancy without ever realizing they were pregnant, having shown no signs of pregnancy or a disruption in their cycle. Those fertilized eggs actually had a chance of becoming human beings…and yet we do not cry for them. Where is the outrage? Where are the people clamoring to find ways of reducing the rates of early-stage miscarriage? How can people care so much about undifferentiated cells that could never have become a human being, but not about 20 and 30-day old fertilized eggs that are flushed down the toilet unknowingly by women every day?

If you’re going to throw loaded words around, at least bother to look them up before you go saying things like: “You can create a cloned human embryo as long as you kill it during research.” No one’s asking to create/kill embryos for this research. They’re creating blastocysts. This isn’t a matter of semantics (try looking up the definitions). It’s a matter of scientific ignorance on the part of Americans across the country who are increasingly taught that scientists are the enemy, and who have no interest in getting informed.

Science isn’t the enemy. Ignorance is. Educate yourself.

How sick has america become?

The Michael Steele campaign has taken its cue from the Fox ad and replied with an ad of their own.  The ad is positive in nature and uses the same core concept:  Provide a victim that can speak with moral authority.
As it is in response to a …