 |
 |
Hello, Charlotte Mancuso wrote: > Ironically, I don't think that incinerating them or having to get > permission from the "parents" to destroy them has ever been an > issue. I also don't hear anyone suggesting that these couples give > up the chance of having a child. Good point. This has gone unmentioned in current debates on embryonic stem cells. IVF was very controversial when it started, but it is now accepted by everyone but the Vatican. To be consistent, and the Vatican folks are very into logic, you must also condemn IVF, because of disposal of the left-over embryos. Another consideration: A very large number of embryos are lost in early pregnancy by spontaneous miscarriage. But you don't hear the right-to-lifers bemoaning this as a great loss of life and declaring it to be a health crisis. Inconsistencies like these suggest to me either that people have not thought things through or else that there is a hidden agenda. You asked > why did Senator Specter scuttle his own stem-cell research bill Sen Specter is in a difficult position, as he is going against the views of his party, but I've heard he is also a principled person. And he has been a great friend to the Udall bill and efforts to cure PD. S.2015 could open the whole right-to-life question for prolonged debate on the Senate floor, and the problem is how to narrow the focus to just the subject of the bill itself. As I read the Congressional record transcript, and I am unfamiliar with Senate procedures, in order to bring the bill to the floor for debate and a vote, Lott asked for unanimous consent to limit time for debate and to limit the number of amendments to 1 from each party. As majority leader, he controls what gets brought to the floor. There was of course no unanimous consent. Hang in there, Phil Tompkins