What is"an embryo that couldn't ever become a fetus"?

[napi21]

I wrote to both of my State Senators telling them I wanted them to support Embryonic Stem Cell Research. (Both my Sens are Pugs!) Anyway, I just received a response from one of them. He's theclip from that response that triggered my question:

Like many families in America, mine has been forever changed by terrible diseases that have robbed us of our loved ones too soon. Stem cell research is one of the most important issues we will deal with and I have tried to approach the debate in as careful a manner as possible. I understand both the potential and promise that such research holds as well as its moral implications. I have consulted preeminent scholars and researchers around the country who are on the verge of breakthroughs in several areas, and embryonic stem cell research could hold the key to their success. In every meeting or conversation I've had on this issue, I also have raised the moral implications that concern us all. Certain methods of obtaining embryonic stem cells could destroy a potential life in the process, and that is unacceptable. There are also concerns that this research could lead to human cloning or fetal farming, both of which I adamantly oppose.



I have worked during the past year to draft a solution that would allow this important research to move forward without compromising moral standards. My proposal is based on research that is being conducted at the University of Georgia in which embryonic stem cell lines are created from the natural byproducts of in-vitro fertilization. This byproduct material includes only those embryos that could never become a fetus. This is a good compromise because we receive the benefit of embryonic stem cells without destroying a potential life.



I sought to offer this compromise when the stem cell debate reached the Senate floor, but my proposal was not included in the final package of stem cell bills that were called up for a vote. I then voted against H.R. 810, which would have allowed federal funding of embryonic stem cell research that allows for the potential destruction of viable embryos, because I feel there is no need to federally fund research that potentially destroys human life when I know there is an alternative method of research that avoids the moral dilemma. I also made a promise during my campaign to support the President's position on stem cell research, and opposing H.R. 810 was in keeping with that promise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I THOUGHT I had heard all the stories on this issue...until today! What is he talking about?

[blogslut]

1. forgive the mispelling

supposed to be blastocyst

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. This research does NOT destroy life!!!!

That is a HUGE lie. We are talking about cells in a petrie dish. Embryo means 'early' not baby. These early cells need to be implanted in a womb to become life. If they are not planted in a womb or used in research, they are thrown away. Now how pro-life is it to throw a potential cure in the trash??

If this petrie dish of cells was really life, as these wingnut fundies are claiming, then every time a woman menstruates it is manslaughter and a man is committing mass murder when he masturbates.

Call them out on their stupidity. This is just like the Terri Schiavo case. Man, these people slept through Biology class or something. Their ignorance is positively astounding.

[Warpy]

3. The religious wrong has a pipe dream about implanting

all unused blastocysts into the uteruses of unwilling women.

They really think every fertilized egg can and should become a baby. They are too ignorant to know the dismal success rate for implantation of invitro fertilization. They have no clue how many naturally fertilized ova fail to implant. They have no idea in the world that the longer such cells are frozen, the less likely a successful pregnancy will result.

This is just what we get when the ignorant and superstitious think they can write laws for everyone.

[napi21]

4. I understand all that, but what is he talking about when he says

"by-products of in-vitro, and embryos that will NEVER become a fetus"? I guess I'm reading his letter wrong. I thought the by-products of in-vitro were the unused eggs, and the embryos that will never becomea fetus are the eggs that are NEVER implanted!!!

What am I missing here?

[Warpy]

10. Not much.

Some couples don't want to donate their fertilized ova to other couples. They quite rightly don't want their genetic offspring to be raised by strangers, never knowing where they are.

Those are the blastocysts that will never become babies. After a few years of waiting for the couple to change their minds, the storage facility tosses them out as medical waste, no longer viable. The couple has generally already given permission for them to be discarded.

[nickgutierrez]

5. He may be referring to a teratoma

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/stemcells.html

If the idea works, it would be an interesting compromise on this issue - with a pretty severe emphasis on "if it works". There are doubts.

Of course, banning embryonic research is silly, because the vast majority of those embryos end up being thrown out anyway... but we all knew that.

[aikoaiko]

6. morula

:)

[Cobalt-60]

8. he has his fathers eyes

Is this one registered yet for selective service?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Why do I suddenly picture The Little Engine that Could?

I think I can...I think I can...

[intaglio]

9. I think that a number of blastocysts

from the IVF proceedure are not suitable for implantation because of faults in the bundle of cells.

[napi21]

11. Well, if that's the case, I would think they wouldn't be suitable for

stem cell research either! Surely you wouldn't want to propagate faulty cells!