Skip to comments.Michael J. Fox is a Cannibal
Posted on 10/20/2004 10:42:20 AM PDT by MisterRepublican
Michael J. Fox is a famous TV and movie star. He is witty. He is charming. A few years ago, we learned he has Parkinson's disease.
PD is a slowly progressive neurological disorder, characterized by tremors, shuffling gait, a masklike facial expression, "pill rolling" of the fingers, drooling, intolerance to heat, oily skin, emotional instability and defective judgment (although intelligence is rarely impaired).
PD is currently incurable, although there are several methods to slow its advancement, including drug therapy and surgery.
PD is tragic, particularly in Fox's case, because it rarely afflicts persons under 60 years old.
Yet everyone faces tragedy at one time or another, in one form or another. A person's moral fiber is revealed in tragedy.
So we learned through Fox's affliction that he has either extremely poor judgment or a diabolical character flaw. He supports human embryonic stem-cell experimentation, thus contending that some humans are subhuman and expendable for others' personal gain.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
HassanBenSobar, There are different kinds of stem cells. Embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and stem cells that are taken from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby. The experiments done from the embryonic cells are usually fiascoes with sometimes heinous results. The experiments done with adult and umbilical stem cells have been producing very promising and exciting results. Research on embryonic stem cells is not only immoral but dangerous and a huge waste of time, money and resources that could be used on the other highly promising stem cell research. Life begets life and death begets death. We each must choose life over death because the consequences have eternal scope. Your father needs eternal life since his life on this earth may not be long. If he does not know the LORD please help him find him before it is too late. Let him know that Jesus paid for everyone of his sins and all he can do is except what Christ has done for him when he died on the cross in his stead. Let him know that merely by trusting Jesus with his whole heart he will receive eternal life and spend eternity in a place whose glory cannot be compared to his brief life on this earth. Help him to give his heart over to the LORD of life and he will soon be much happier then you and I can begin to imagine. Praise the LORD. May your dad find the peace that passeth all understanding. Even if he seems beyond the point where he can understand this the LORD will open up his understanding if you plead for him in your prayers and help him to find his way to true light and life. Maybe you know he is already saved and it is you who must confess your sins and ask the LORD to forgive you and cleanse you of all unrighteousness so that someday you will join him in heaven for all eternity. I will definitely pray for you and your dad.
> how about when life begins? Which is inarguably at conception.
It is in fact quite argueable, as life was clearly there *before* conception.
>Soul enters with sperm, BTW.
> But to remove organs when the "donor" is still alive is murder, cannibalism, and barbaric.
Indeed so, but quite irrelevant to this discussion. Even if you are referring to stem cells taken directly from a 64-cell gamete, those are NOT organs.
Precisely. Those who can't see it are blind.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
A sane voice at last. I will freep til my last breath.
This has been my question. If Socialized medicine is so good, and countries who have it are so much better than the USA...why isn't Fox cured? Why hasn't Canada cured him. I don't believe Bush's prohibition extended to the "fine" medical community in Canada!
Fox is still sick, of course, because it is all LIES! He is proof of it. Socialized medicine, is no good, and neither is Embyonic stem cell research!
I watched about 30 seconds of Family Ties the other evening, and they were bashing Reagan. I think that's the longest segment of that crappy show I ever watched. Oh, wait, they had one where a young Tom Hanks was a drunk or a druggie or something and he punched the midget. I watched about 3 minutes of that one.
If you are for this, then you pay for it.
It is reprehensible that money is constantly taken out of our paychecks to pay for immoral behaivor. We are forced to participate in sinful acts. The government does not allow us our freedom of conscience. We are forced, by the government, to approve of immoral acts, and to actually finance them! We are forced, by the government, against our will to finance acts which are against our sincerely held religious beliefs. That is wrong! And I for one, thank our President for standing up for our right not to be forced to pay for this sin.
If you and Mr. Fox want to do this, it is bad enough that our laws allow it, and people are sick enough to offer up their children for research...well, you pay for it. Let it be on your heads. Leave me out of it!
What we are against, is the forcable rape of our values and morals by other people who do not share them. You may argue all day and all night for this type of research. I say, go ahead and do it. Just don't take the money out of my wallet to do it! There are no laws which forbid it. Take your argument to other people like Oprah and Ted Turner. They have much more money than I do. Why not yell at them, because they are not financing this "research". They don't have a problem with it. I do. Leave me and my money alone.
JMF was a nice kid from Canada who got too much too soon. He snorted enough coke to kill half the westside.
What they don't tell you is there seems to be some connection between coke and Parkinsons.
It would be more altruistic of Fox to come clean and warn kids of this generation to stay away from the stuff, rather than push legislation that destroys the next generation.
I believe he has had it much longer than Michael J. Fox, but I don't hear him (the pope) calling for embryonic stem cell research.
TOUGH STOUGH said: The above argument has always been my number one argument for decryig the foulness of disposing of life in it very beginning stages, and for establishing when human life begins. Well said. I couldn't agree with you more fervently!
cpforlife.org says, FALSE.
The Catholic Church condemns IVF absolutely.
As I said in my post #53, Eggs are inseminated and embryos are cultured. The eggs are inseminated in a laboratory ("in vitro"). The eggs are incubated overnight examined the next day to see if any have been fertilized. Any fertilized eggs are allowed to develop for at least 2 additional days in the lab before being placed in the uterus. Some embryos may be frozen and stored for later use, if the couple prefers.source
This clearly indicates that it's optional whether or not to freeze any remaining, viable, embryos. IMO, this also implies that one may choose to implant all viable embryos if one so chooses. In other words, it should be law to implant all viable fertilized eggs at once. Thus, that removes that impediment to this procedure. As to the question as to whether or not the technician is "playing God" by deciding which fertilized eggs are viable for implantation, this is simply, imo, an over dramatization of the actual case. A simple microscopic examination of the eggs will determine if they are undergoing cellular division, and thus, will determine if they are alive or not. It's not a question left to the individual person, it's simple biology. Therefore, with all due respect to the Church, I believe they are wrong on this here. I don't see anything wrong with determining that some eggs are simply dead, and therefore, no point in implanting them into the uterus. Note, I would say that any non viable fertilized eggs should be destroyed, so as to prevent any possibility of "harvesting" them for research.
"Dead is dead", as another poster on this thread pointed out. Again, there is no gray area here; there's no "playing God". And indeed, as GovernmentShrinker pointed out, the entire process of IVF actually produces more life, as it optimizes the time when the uterus is most ready to accept implantation, and therefore, gives a couple the greatest chance to produce a baby (even more so than sexual intercourse). Additionally, it's shown that at least as many, if not more, fertilized eggs are naturally aborted, then die in this procedure. Therefore there is no reasonable argument that can be forwarded which would say, "This procedure kills more fertilized eggs then nature would".
I suppose one could argue (as the Church seems to be doing) that since the entire procedure is "unnatural", that it's heretical. While there may be some certain logic to that, if one were to adhere to that dogma, then one couldn't endorse the use of artificial limbs for amputees, one couldn't endorse the use of hearing aids for nearly deaf people, one couldn't endorse the use of propecia for balding men, one couldn't endorse any "medical procedure" that circumvents the "natural order of things" to give a patient the ability to do something that they wouldn't "naturally" have otherwise.
I would rather be consistent in my belief that amputees should be given a chance to have limbs again, that the deaf could hear again, and even that the bald could have hair again (I may have a certain personal stake in that last one, but I'm crossing my fingers that that will not be the case! hehe) therefore, I don't see anything wrong with IVF for the same reason, i.e, giving someone the ability to do something, even if they can't do it "naturally".
One additional note, in a post to me, GovernmentShrinker noted that sometimes many more fertilized eggs that are viable may be produced, than can be implanted. I believe 26 viable eggs was the example he gave. I maintain, without being an expert in the procedure, given the average number of viable/non viable fertilized eggs produced with the procedure, there must be some "optimal range" of eggs that can be extracted from the ovaries to give a reasonable amount of viable fertilized eggs for later implantation, that will still not be cost prohibitive for most couples. That is, there must be a number of eggs that can be extracted, which, after it's determined which have survived, will produce a number that can be all implanted at once. I mean, 26 fertilized eggs that were viable? I would question how many were extracted from the ovaries to begin with in that case! I suppose one could argue that that would still increase the cost prohibitive value of the procedure for some couples. I would simply say, I can't imagine reducing the amount of eggs to an optimal number for 100% implantation of viable fertilized eggs would increase it by THAT much (although I could see how it could increase it by SOME). It would still be a fair compromise though, in my opinion.
I'm guessing though, that what I've said here will not be acceptable to either cpforlife.org, or GovernmentShrinker, for different reasons though of course. ;) They (and you TOUGH STOUGH, if you want) can have any last words that they (you) desire. I'm satisfied that I've explained my position as clearly as possible. Any further disagreements will simply have to be academic at this point.
> If you are for this, then you pay for it.
What, you mean kidney transplants?
What they don't tell you is there seems to be some connection between coke and Parkinsons.
Gosh, who woulda thunk it (Lol)
All those brain transmitters, so little time
REALLY good point!
The question of stem cell research is complicated, no pun intended. Some say there have been cases of cancer where stem cells were used. Obviously not good. It's like Solomon suggesting he cut the baby in half to satisfy both women who claimed to be the mother. Everyone suffers. We need to do some long, hard praying about this. There should be some other way.
However, I would also say that a fertilized egg is a person, and you would not, am I correct?
I agree with the church's position on IVT. It is my understanding, that eggs are not fertilized one at a time, but rather that several are fertilized and the best is implanted. Some are discarded. However, even if eggs were fertilized one at a time the church would still have moral objections, because the egg is fertilized outside the womb in an unnatural environment.
I think it is obvious tinkering with life at it's beginning or ending stages, sets up potential for great abuse.
Oh yes. I've been around here since early 1998. No way will I get chased away because of a difference of opinion. But I agree with Tuckrdout...that I don't want government to fund the research. Government was not created to be a tax collector. Just the opposite. It was created to keep the government out of our lives.
Not just in favor of, Ahnold is setting up to spend California taxpayers' money to fund the cannibalizing of ALIVE EMBRYOS for their stem cell body parts.
At what age in their lifetimes would new human beings no longer be fair tissue sources for cannibalizing to treat older humans?
You understand that there are several types of "stem cell" research going on: fetal, adult, umbilical cord, and so on. President Bush is the first president ever to allocate federal money and resources for doing fetal stem cell research. Also, note that all researchers have been able to do with fetal stem cells is make tumors. Adult stem cell research has resulted in many treatments.
This "fetal stem cell" discussion is only made a big deal in order to further legitimize abortion.
"... I think capacity to suffer and capacity to survive independently of another human host, are both relevant considerations ..." Ah, then you won't mind if I zap you with Pavulon and intubate you, then anesthetize you to the point of no feeling or suffering, then extract any useful body parts and unplug the remains. You're one piece of liberal work, you are!
Ripping the stem cells from the Embryos kills the alive embryos ... a caustic fluid is used to take away the protective perimeter of the embryo. The stem cells are 'taken' once the embryo has been KILLED, chemically.
How do you know they don't suffer? Besides, embryonic stem cells show less promise than umbilical cord and adult stem cells. Evidently embryonic can't be as easily controlled. China is also doing research and a man that was given embryonic stem cells grew a femur in his head. Kinda gives new meaning to the term "bonehead". Anyway, there ARE PD sufferers who are being helped by their own cultured stem cells. Fox has refused to try it.
Also, Charles Krauthammer, who also has medical training besides being a Fox news panelist, said that researchers are stumped at the moment. It's not a lack of funding for embryonic but lack of ideas that has halted research. And I know all this because it fascinates me and embryonic cannibalism horrifies me. Oh and the prevailing belief is that IF there's any benrefit to be had from embryonic research it's at least 50 years away.
What does the term, "human life" mean to you?
I do say that human life begins at conception, yes. I do say that the fertilized egg is a person, yes.
The fertilized egg is given just as much a chance to survive in the petri dish as it is in the womb. Again, as GovernmentShrinker said (and he is right), more fertilized eggs survive from IVF than in nature. So it's even more of a "life producing environment", not less. And as I said before, dead is dead; it's not a value judgement, it's not a personal decision. The only fertilzed eggs thrown away are ones that are dead: the ones that anyone with vision can see that are not undergoing cellular division. It's a black or white issue. It's not killing the babies, it's letting nature take its course with them, just as nature would if they were in the womb. (because it's a medical fact that not all fertilized eggs survive, this happens in nature; the only difference is it's not happening in the womb, it's happening in a petri dish) That's hardly a significant difference, imo. If you, or anyone else, want to disagree, fine. I'll just never understand why.
As for the "unnatural enviornment" argument, I dealt with that in my previous post. Basically, the entire science of medicine is "unnatural", so if we're to throw away something as "heretical" simply because it's "unnatural", then you can't even take an aspirin for a headache. (i.e, Christian Scientists).
The basic reason I posted this to you was to answer your two questions. I merely re-iterated what I posted before also, in a more basic form. The last word is yours though.
folks, we are talking about cells the size of 1/1000th of a human hair...cells that would be DESTROYED ANYWAY.
Why not use them to SAVE lives and cure diseases?
"My body was once an *unfertilized* egg, too. "
I make no pretensions to being a trained biologist.
What I do remember from high school biology, however, is that my body was never an unfertilized egg.
Unfertilized eggs were a part of my mother's body -- they had her unique DNA. I was no more an unfertilized egg at one point that I was one of my mother's eyelashes.
When my dad's sperm (also with his unique DNA) united with my mothers ovum, a new creature came into existence -- ME.
One second before fertilization, I did not exist. At conception, a process began that could (and ultimately will be) terminated with my own death.
Please correct me if I am wrong about this.
By the way, the argument that "I was once an unfertilized egg is really just the flip-side of the pro-abortionist canard that if those of us who thin abortion is wrong were truly consistent, we would be out to save all sperm.
> By the way, the argument that "I was once an unfertilized egg is really just the flip-side of the pro-abortionist canard that if those of us who thin abortion is wrong were truly consistent, we would be out to save all sperm.
And of course, if the *anti-abortionists* were consistent, they would be argueign for embryo transplants into themselves rather than abortion. All those frozen IVF-created embryos... can I assume that you (assuming you're male) would pay to have them transplanted in your wife?
I don't think you have it quite correct.
It is, as far as I know, impossible to "prove" when a "soul" comes into being.
I know of no scientifically valid test that could be used (and recognized) to demonstrate the point at which a "soul" comes into being an enter a human body.
I believe very strongly in the existence of souls, and I also believe that there is a triune God of the universe who is a Spirit who created and sustains the universe.
Can I offer a scientific proof for trhe existance of a God whos is three in one? I have several pieces of evidence, but I am quite sure they would not withstand the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. That is not the same things as saying that God does not exist as a triune diety. It only say that science will not prove for you.
Same thing with souls and when they enter the human body.
I would suggest, however, that it is really up to you (or, if not you, then those who support abortion-on-demand (as long as an "understanding phsyician feels that the mother's health could be in jeopardy if the pregnancy were not aborted) to show why aborting a human life (for certainly human zygotes, human embryos, and human fetuses are all human. And they are all life.
They are, from a scientific point of view, not too much different from you or me. In fact, both you and I were, at one point in our respective lives, a zygote, an embryo, a fetus, a two-year-old child, a sixteen year old, and a twenty-one-year-old.
And, if we are both lucky, you and I will someday be 80 year old human. Our eyesight, hearing, and mental capacity may not be the same at 80 as it was for each of us when were were 20, But the lack of hearing in an 80 year old does not negate his or her humanity.
Similarly, I wojuld suggest that the fact that a fetus does not have, for instance, a fully formed opposable thumb, does not render him or her something "less than human" It seems to me that one is only able to posit the situation that unborn children are not "human life" or not "human beings" if one injects into the argument a notion that "human life" or human beings" require something more than (1) having the identifiable characteristics of human, as opposed to say, feline life, and (2) being alive.
Why not use them to SAVE lives and cure diseases?"
With all due respect, think of how you woulde come off if your argument were this:
"Folks, we are talking about old feeble people who are sick and who are going to be dying soon anyway. Why not kill them and used them to SAVE lives and cure diseases?"
Or this argument: "Folks, we are talking about young children who have very serious illnesses that are going to kill them soon anyway. It makes not sense not to kill them now if doing so would save lives and cure diseases."
I think both of THOSE arguments are monstrous. Human beings are worthy of the highest respect and dignity. We just do not kill some to cure diseases for others. Any research that does that is monstrous -- the "cure" -- killing some humans -- is worse than the diseases it purports to overcome. Look at the monstrous barbarity our own government carried out against a group of black men ion the South in the 20th century. They wanted to see what would happen if men, without their knowledge or consent, were injected with syphillis.
You don't treat humans that way, unless you have first concludes that some humans are not worthy of the same dignity that you yourself have simply because you are a member of the human species.
I don't care if the human cells -- cells which, by the way, every person reading this once was -- are 1/1000th or 1/10000000000th the size of a human hair. YOu don't destroy them to do research. You just don't
By the way, I am not Roman Catholic. I'm Presbyterian.
> I know of no scientifically valid test that could be used (and recognized) to demonstrate the point at which a "soul" comes into being an enter a human body.
None exists at this time. This is not to say that none will exist in the future (measuring the mass of the moon was at one point an impossibility; now we can measure the mass of planets around other suns). However, it is not good jurisprudence to base important laws upon things that cannot be proven, or even demonstrated.
>They are, from a scientific point of view, not too much different from you or me.
Actually, not true. Early enough in embryonic development, the embryo has no nervous system. Prior to a nervous system, there is no pain, there is no awareness. Whether there is a "soul" or not is something I leave to the sort of people who like to argue how many angels can dance on John Edwards pinhead.
> And, if we are both lucky, you and I will someday be 80 year old human.
It is perhaps unwise to automatically assume that reachign 80 years of age would be "lucky." Death is hardly the wors tthing that can happen to a person. A life wasted and devoid of success, family, respect and love would be incredibly sucko... and merge that with a body being consumed by disease... death would be a boon.
> Why not kill them ...
We are not, so far as I know, talking about creating embryos in order to kill them and harvest their cells. We are talking about embryos that have already been killed. So your analogy does not hold, any more than someone opposed to kidney transplants would have a valid arguement about Americans murdering people for their organs.
I thought what we were talking about was using embryos that were created as part on an in vitro fertilization process.
You know, the process where a couple want one or perhaps two of their own biological children. So they create seven or eight "just in case".
Suppose, though, that the couple only needs two embryos. What to do with those other "excess" ones??
Let's kill them and harvest their cells!
Old, useless embryos. Not "really" human. Gonna die anyway.
Besides, the couple is probably paying the IVF facility a fee to keep the useless gonna-die-anyway embryos alive.
And no doubt, the IVF needs
bedspace more room to store the additional "just-in-case embryos.
That's the solution -- kill the useless and the unwanted who are gonna die anyway. Who needs them?
As far as I know,people who are organ donors (and I am one) do not have to be worried about someone deciding that they are useless, Organ donors are not killed or euthanized.
Actually, not true. Early enough in embryonic development, the embryo has no nervous system. Prior to a nervous system, there is no pain, there is no awareness."
I also understand that newborns cannot write sentences on the internet.
Would you say that since infants lack something the rest of us "real humans" all have, that it is "actually, not true" that, from a scientific point of view, newborns aren't too much different from you and me?
"... folks, we are talking about cells the size of 1/1000th of a human hair ..." No, the exploitation of embryo stem cells is 'talking about' an alive being at his or her earliest age, from whom the body parts (stem cells) are trageted for extraction which will KILL THE EMBRYO. But that was a nice try to rationalize with mischaracterization, intentional or not.
> Would you say that since infants lack something the rest of us "real humans" all have, that it is "actually, not true" that, from a scientific point of view, newborns aren't too much different from you and me?
Newborns (with very few exceptions) have nervous systems and can feel pain. This separates them from early embryos which have no nervous systems. It's quite a clear distinction, and no number of silly strawman arguements will change that.
IF you can't do better than that when debating a fellow conservative, how well do you think you'll do agaisnt someone who disagrees with you?
> I thought what we were talking about was using embryos that were created as part on an in vitro fertilization process.
I thought we were talking about aborted embryos. Eh.
> Suppose, though, that the couple only needs two embryos. What to do with those other "excess" ones??
Implant them within the anti-abortion protestors outside.
It's possible that *males* could carry embryos to term, with the proper medical intervention; thus, the guys holding the signs can finally start doing something more worthwhile than marching up and down, shouting like maniacs and making Conservative look like rubes.
If you have a better solution for what to do with the very large number of frozen, unwanted IVF embryos... let's hear it.
I would really like to share with you, in a serious, reasoned, intelligent discussion, my own thoughts about what to do with the very large number of frozen, unwatned IVF embryos.
Regrettably, however, I make it a practice to engage in such discussions only with people who demonstrate a desire to be a part of serious, reasoned, and intelligent discussions.
Frankly, your suggestion that anti-abortion protestors have their own right to reproductive "choice" removed from them, and that they be implanted, I guess against their own wills, with all those unwanted embryos to be tasteless and not funny. Not at all funny.
Tell me, did you decide to become an anti-choice zealot, at least with people who don't share your opinion on abortion, overnight -- or have you been in deep thought about your idea for some time? You might want to contact NARAL -- they might think it both funny and a good way to shut down protest of abortions.
"It's possible that *males* could carry embryos to term, with the proper medical intervention; thus, the guys holding the signs can finally start doing something more worthwhile than marching up and down, shouting like maniacs and making Conservative look like rubes."
Ah, yes. All those "males". I could almost hear the contempt with which your fingers typed that word. The only thing you forgot was to call them all "Rich, White, Republican males who enjoy pulling wings off of butterflies.
> they be implanted, I guess against their own wills
Who said against their wills? If it's the choice between either being implanted or the embryo going in the trash can, then it's put-up-or-shut-up time.
>All those "males".
You have a problem with the word "male?" Ye gods, man. Grow a pair.
> I could almost hear the contempt
It's not my responsibility what you hear.
Since you failed to produce a solution of your own, it's reasonable to assume you don't have one. It is again put-up-or-shut-up time. That "I have a plan" crap doesn't work coming from Kerry... no reason why it should work coming from you, either.
A profound insight into the obvious.
But so what?
Are you suggesting that the ability to perceive pain is what makes a human being a human being?
Why not the ability to speak so as to be understood? Why is that ability any more or any less an indicator or being a human being that the ability to perceive pain?
The biological fact is that both human embryos and newborns and teenagers and old people are human life. Not feline life. Not death. Human Life. And human life -- in all its forms -- embryo, fetus, newborn, adult, elderly -- has more in common with itself than it does with dogs or cats or whales.
You seem to want to suggest that human embryos are somehow a "separate" form of human life from human life that has a developed nervous system.
If you want to do that, fine. But please don't try to legislate or force your own particular view of human life on the rest of us. Your effort to "separate" or compartmentalize some forms of human life (whether because they do not have fully developed nervous systems or for any other reason) has no real basis in biological fact.
You simply assert -- and expect me to nod in assent -- that having a developed nervous system is an essential condition for being a human being worthy of dignity, respect, and also worthy of having its life protected.
Why you choose that condition, and not, as others might, the ability to compose sentences that communicate thoughts and ideas, as a necessary condition for being a human being, escpaes me.
I am unwilling to make your leap of faith -- because that is what it really is. You can no more prove that having a developed nervous system makes a human "thing" into a human "being". You simply accept it on faith, and expect the rest of us to follow along.
"It's quite a clear distinction,"
See what I mean.
It's a clear distinction -- between human life thaqt has a nervous system and human life that doesn't. But it is not clear at all what difference that makes in terms of being a human being. You accept that difference solel;y on faith.
"and no number of silly strawman arguements will change that."
A rather standard "argument" for lots of folks (and I notice this REALLY alot over on DU) who, when they cannot marshall the intellect to make a convinicing argument is to say that the other person has made a "silly strawman" argument.
It's that "silly strawman" thing that gives you away. YOu really are not fooling me. Which is why I respond to your taunt of "IF you can't do better than that when debating a fellow conservative, how well do you think you'll do agaisnt someone who disagrees with you?" by saying that I think I am doing rather well against someone who disagrees with me and who has shown me nothing to convince me that he is a conservative.
> Are you suggesting that the ability to perceive pain is what makes a human being a human being?
It's a start. YOUR definition seems to be nothing more than having the gene code of a human.
> YOu really are not fooling me.
> I think I am doing rather well against someone who disagrees with me and who has shown me nothing to convince me that he is a conservative.
I think the man has a desire for his life and like most liberals, they have a wall or moral disconnect that allows them to function by saying "WHAT BABY", WHAT LIFE" and so on.
It is also the continuation of humanism into society where people view God through their interpretation thereby creating a god, a false god to verify their choices.
Morality is so bent, it is no longer moral.
I completely agree with you that tax dollars shouldn't be used for this type of research. However, tax dollars shouldn't be used for any type of medical research or treatment that isn't clearly a national security issue. And as long as my wallet is being raided to provide zillions of dollars in free medical care to people who stuff themselves and smoke and abuse drugs and alcohol and have unprotected promiscuous sex, and to fund all sorts of medical research that could just as well be conducted with private funding, then I want embryonic stem cell research funded with tax dollars too. When I get to keep that portion of my money that's currently being spent by the government on medical research and treatment programs, then I'll have plenty of money to do my part to fund embryonic stem cell research.
I hate socialism!
I approve of stem cell research.
I see your point that an IVF clinic could choose to only extract or fertilize a few eggs from a woman who produced an unexpectedly large number. And most clinics whose policies I'm familiar with do offer patients the option of not fertilizing all the eggs that are retrieved. However, it's not an option that most patients are going to be interested in, when they're facing the huge cost of these procedures. They want to maximize their chances of having a baby.
If a woman produces say 20 eggs (and it makes no sense not to extract them all, since the quality/maturity of the various eggs can't be reliably determined until after they've been extracted and studied under a microscope), and chooses to have fertilization attempted on only 5, there's a very large chance she won't get a baby at all. And after she's thrown away 15 eggs that cost $10,000+ to get, and still has no baby, she's going to be wishing that she had had those eggs fertilized, and frozen however many extras were successfully fertilized, because then it would cost relatively little to go through the embryo transfer portion of the cycle again. Instead she's faced with starting over and trying to produce eggs again, but she may not have another $10,000, and by the time she saves up that much, she'll be older and have a smaller chance of success.
And many couples want to produce as many embryos as possible in one ovarian stimulation cycle, because they'd like to have more than one child. If they have extra embryos left over after having one, they expect to use them to try for another child, without incurring massive expense again.
Within the next few years, egg freezing is likely to become a reliable technology, and at that point, it will make sense for couples who have ethical issues with discarding embryos, to freeze extra eggs, and fertilize them later only if more embryos are needed. Right now, however, only a very small percentage of eggs survive freezing and thawing, and the rates are especially low in older women. It is an approach that is recommended only in case of young women who are undergoing cancer therapy which is likely to destroy their fertility, and who do not yet have a partner. There is a new company (Extend Fertility) that is pushing egg-freezing as a way to "buy time" to find a partner and have a baby, but the reputable doctors and professional associations in this field have denounced this practice as unethical given current technological limitations, since its unreliability means the company is selling false hope in most cases.
It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Unlike most people who hold your view on the status of fertilized eggs/early embryos, you are genuinely interested in facts. It's quite refreshing!