Actually I am suggesting they try to create 1 embryo at a time (or as many as you are going to attempt to implant - though the risk of multiple births and the increase in complications related to that would lead me to advise implanting 1 embryo at a time), not just try to create one embryo and if it doesn't work scrap the whole thing. I'm not saying harvest only one egg or anything like that. There should be no increase in risk of ovarian hyperstimulation as the differences occur outside of the woman's body. The technology to freeze unfertilized eggs has already been proven so there is no increase in the chance that another harvesting of the eggs must be done. The only difference would be that instead of storing frozen embryos and then tossing them or saving them indefinitely on ice the cryo-facility would be storing frozen eggs that could be fertilized later.
This is indeed great news heading into the dog days of summer -- now I can continue to make my embryonic baby smoothies. All I have to do is wait outside the lab until they throw out the extras! Blue eyed blueberry baby twist is my fav.
If you don't agree with Abortion why would you want to endourse anything that abortionist would claim is why Abortion is soooooo good? From what I gather They against Abortion and all things derived from it I'm not in complete disagreement Rocket River
I guess StupidMoniker never got a blow job or jerked off either. Cause, you know, that stuff's murder.
Bush Bars Media From Stem Cell Veto Today, President Bush will veto his first piece of legislation – a stem cell research bill that “could lead to treatments that save millions of lives and improve the quality-of-life for millions more.” Apparently, he’s not too proud of it. Moments ago at the White House press conference, Tony Snow announced that no press would be allowed at the signing: SNOW: The president will, however, before he delivers remarks this afternoon, veto the Castle bill. Here’s how it works, because I know a lot of you have had questions. There will be no photographers, no ceremony. What the president will do is, in his office, he will sign a veto message, he will hand it to a clerk, who will convey it to a clerk of the House, and then you go through the formalities of announcing a message from the president, and at some point the House will vote on the veto. QUESTION: Is there a reason why he’s not having photographers in, at least? SNOW: Because he doesn’t feel it’s appropriate. He’s signing a veto. 67 percent of Americans support embryonic stem cell research. The same percentage believes “It would be terrible if cures were delayed because of policies that make embryonic stem cell research difficult.” http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/19/bush-bars-media/
This is why he hid like the child he is. Wink at your base of 29%, read some flowery language in front of a bunch of adorable babies, and hope nobody else notices.
The fallout from the Decider's first veto, since being elected President, continues: Bush veto could hurt GOP Decision on stem-cells bill could hurt heartland candidates WASHINGTON (AP) -- After waiting 51/2 years to make good on a veto threat, President Bush used his first to underscore his politically risky stand against federal funding for the embryonic stem cell research that most Americans support. Some political strategists say Bush's high-profile stance on such an intensely emotional issue could hurt the party's congressional candidates in November in heartland places like Missouri. "This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others," Bush said after rejecting calls that he change his policy. "It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect." The veto puts some Republicans in the uncomfortable position of having to chose between the wishes of their conservative backers who consider embryonic stem cells to be early human life and those in greater numbers who want to use the cells for research that could one day save lives. (View poll data that suggest most Americans support expanded research) "I think history will look very unkindly on this veto," said Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate Connecticut Republican who helped pass the legislation. "I believe the president is very sincere in vetoing this bill, but I think that he's been captured by his own ideology and taking his ideology to an extreme." "I think it will hurt" the party in November, said Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pennsylvania, who supported the veto. But he said Bush and Republicans who were allied with him were acting on moral principle and not politics. "I'm willing to roll the dice on that." In vetoing the bill Bush made good on a promise he made in 2001 to limit federally funded embryonic research to the stem cell lines that had been created by the time. Rallying conservatives Republicans working to maintain majorities in Congress say stem cells will not be the biggest issue on voters' minds in November and that the economy, war and terrorism will be more important. However, Democrats warned that voters would not forget Bush's veto. "Everyone knows someone who needs this bill," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic senatorial committee. "We don't have to do much work on this bill. It'll speak for itself." There could be a silver lining for Republicans. The president's opposition to embryonic stem cell research is a popular move among his most conservative supporters -- the same bloc that has been angry over Bush's immigration policies. Richard A. Viguerie, a conservative direct-mail fundraiser, said Bush is in "serious trouble" with his base. "If he were not to veto this legislation, you could see the administration come unraveled very quickly," Viguerie said. "It would really wreak havoc with his ability to govern with the conservative base there." The hope among Republican strategists is that the stem cell veto will reinvigorate conservatives to get to the polls in the midterm, when turnout is traditionally lower. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee plans to fund ads on the issue in the fall as Democrats work to take control of the House with the November elections. Leading targets could be Republicans who are running in suburban districts, such as Peter Roskam near Chicago and Mike Fitzpatrick of the Philadelphia area. Impact in Missouri Strategists on both sides say the debate could have the biggest impact on the Senate race in Missouri, where a measure protecting embryonic stem cell research is expected to be on the ballot. Democrats chose their candidate in Missouri, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, to deliver last weekend's national radio address touting the potential lifesaving cures of the research. Incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent struggled over his position for months before announcing in May that he would oppose the ballot measure. Talent's position put him on the side of anti-abortion and religious groups but against the state's biggest business and medical groups, which have lined up behind the initiative. The state's Republican governor supports it, as does former Sen. John Danforth, an Episcopal priest who lost a brother to Lou Gehrig's disease and has taped ads touting the measure. "I think a lot of people are going to vote on this issue," Danforth said. He bristled at the suggestion that it could motivate conservatives and help the party. "I served in elected office as a Republican for 26 years," he said. "Is somebody telling me I don't count? My brother doesn't count? What counts is that religious theory that says what takes place in a lab dish takes precedent over my brother?" Keep D&D Civil.
General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack. General Jack D. Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began? Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack. General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory? General Jack D. Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm. General Jack D. Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Hmm. General Jack D. Ripper: I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake. Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No. General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence. Keep D&D Civil.
I suppose that is one interpretation. I suppose menstruation is murder too then. Women really are evil.
SM; First off let me say I respect your passion and understand your position, even if I don't agree with it. Logically if you consider life begins at conception then anything that deliberately killed an embryo would be murder. That aside though I think you're cutting this too fine. As another poster noted the invitro fertilization process isn't as refined as you say one and the reason why multiple embryos are created is that its difficult to just create one embryo at a time since there are many potential abnormalities with any one egg or the sperm used to fertilize it. Further the freezing process while getting better isn't perfect and many eggs, along with frozen embryos, are lost in the freezing process. Further while you could create an embryo there's no guarentee that that embryo could end up being implanted because another problem could occur with the mother or that the embryo itself has an internal defect that mike make it viable to a certain state but not enough to implant. In the end life is still created only to be discarded. Its simply not practical to do what you are suggesting and if that was the case there would likely be very few invitro fertilizations.
