Bush's first veto

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Thanks for the question.
Women don't become pregnant and then have their baby aborted to supply stem cells. That would be scientifically impossible. The cells would already have become differentiated long before the time that the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
The value of stem cells is that they have not become differentiated, that is...
they haven't become nerve, heart, mucscle, etc tissue.
Stem cells (undifferentated cells) come into existance at the early stages of development, stage eight mitosis. This is when the fertilized ovume has divided eight times. At that point, it is a cluster of cells called an embryo.
At the next stage of mitosis (cell division), a tube develops that will later become the heart. Next comes the beginnings of neural tissue.
The stage of development that holds promise is before this occurs.
Embryos are created in a petri dish, outside of the donor female, for inplantation. Eggs are harvested and fertilized invitro. The surplus have been stored in liquid nitrogen should the need for reimplantation occur.
Those that aren't needed are stored until they are no longer viable, then discarded.

OK, thanks for that clarification...in that case, I have no objection whatsoever! Do you recall the case I'm referring to? A woman wanted to abort her fetus/child in order to use something (thought it was stem cells) to help her ailing father. He was apparently a well-known scientist, perhaps a Nobel winner? Anyway, her argument centered around the fact that her father's life was more valuable than an unborn...raised the hair on the back of my neck instantly!