Easy for drjay1941 to say. His mother gave him an opportunity to speak his mind. So likened to the old commercial, "everyone stop and listen to sound advice" Just remember Governor Huckabee holds a picture of a little girl who is five years old in his wallet. She too would or could have been any one of these frozen embryo's. As Governor Huckabee tells us the story, the mother decided to share it, the little girl was a frozen embryo. Change is not a hand in changing a person's fate.... if you play GOD ...know it is "human fate" in history you play with. That privilage isn't ours. And when you want to OWN IT . BE PREPARED for science to abuse the executive order you gave to allow it. For man and woman have abused the right to abort a child through to the child's birth.

Thanks, Mary M., for reminding us that IVF plays a role in this discussion. One recent argument I've heard in favor of ESC is that "all those embryos are going to go to waste anyway." What a horror! The same person argued that by our current science we don't know when life begins. My answer: since we don't know, let's err on the side of caution. To "inadvertently" murder someone because we didn't know he/she was alive is a horrible thing to do! And to willfully create possibly alive persons but then keep them frozen in perpetual embryonic form -- well . . . .

The argument that federal support of stem-cell research using embryos to come rather than lines currently available is strangely equivalent to the exempting of religious organizations from propery and other taxes--whcih effectively places the burden of tax income on those tho do not belong to an organization so exempted, do not desire to belong, are opposed to the organization for any number of cogent reasons. There is a difference, however: the results of stem-cell research can indeed be clearly and reasonably made known in ways that offere inquirers the oportunity to check results. This is not quite the case with religious, tax-exempt organizations apart from the social effects which are, in the end, comparable to non-religious organizational efforts to work for the common good. Ideology of any sort, whether faith-based or non-faith based, is a poor basis for opposing research.

This is the clearest and most readable argument against ESC research I have read. The science in this article IS good. I majored in biochemistry and molecular biology and keep a basic running knowledge of these issues. There is NO need to conduct and fund ESC when we have uncontroversial and PROVEN benefits of using other stem cells. A pseudo-pious "we must not hinder science" argument for ESC research reflects either a thinly disguised cover for some other motivation or astounding ignorance. And yes, I agree that we need to look at IVF much more critically in the Christian community. I know a couple who only fertilized the number of eggs they were willing to implant and only implanted the number of embryos they were willing to bring to term. This is the most ethical you can get w IVF, but it still ends up smacking of utilitarianism. At any rate, thank you Mike Pence for your strong and clear-headed article and stand! Wish we had someone like you in Illinois.....

I agree with Rep Pence. Life begins at conception and as a consequence ESC research is morally wrong. However, I can see why those who disagree find the silence on embryos discarded at fertility clinics hypocritical. It appears that Christins are implying that the ends justify the means when it comes to infertility treatment, but not with embryonic stem cell research. And as much as I disagree with the ESC research crowd, I agree with their counter. Christians who advocate aganst ESC research ought to also mention that we need to approach the creation of embryos for infertility treatment with the same sacredness. That means creating only embryos that will be implanted. Yes, the cost of treatment will be higher if several rounds or attempts are required, but as a matter of integrity, we must be consistent in the practical application of our principles and beliefs. Otherwise, it becomes an argument between morally wrong choices vs inconsistent moral choices.