[...]
By now, we all know the crucial question about embryonic stem cell research. Advocates have put it plainly: Should we let unused frozen embryos residing in fertility clinics be dumped down the drain -- or should we use them to cure diabetes, Alzheimer's, paralysis and other health scourges?          

Confronted with that question, the U.S. House of Representatives voted last month to provide federal funding for experimentation on these embryos, despite the threat of a presidential veto. As Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., put it, the only embryos that would be destroyed for medical research are those that "would otherwise be destroyed. That is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to fulfill that promise."            

It's a persuasive argument that many well-meaning people find hard to reject -- but one that is constructed almost entirely out of myths. The choice we face is one very different from that portrayed by its advocates.            

Start with the claim that 400,000 frozen embryos otherwise would go to waste. The truth is that most of them are anything but "surplus." According to a 2003 survey by researchers at the RAND Corp., a California think tank, 88 percent of them are being stored for their original function: to make babies for their parents.            

Just 2.2 percent of the embryos have been designated for disposal, and less than 3 percent for research. The latter group amounts to about 11,000 embryos.            

When the president had a White House event hosting parents who adopted embryos from fertility clinics, his critics ridiculed the suggestion that this approach could accommodate 400,000 embryos. Finding parents for 11,000 embryos, however, is not so far-fetched. Every year, 125,000 adoptions take place in this country.            

In that case, Bush's solution doesn't sound implausible at all. As a recent article in the online magazine Slate noted, embryo adoption "is a thriving business these days, for many reasons. For one thing, donated embryos are cheap" -- cheaper than in vitro fertilization, and cheaper than conventional adoption. In addition, the idea has caught on among "pro-life" Christians who feel a religious duty to help save these embryos.            

What's more surprising is that the House bill may not actually make use of these "excess" embryos. It says parents must elect to discard them "prior to the consideration of embryo donation" -- and only later decide to donate them for research.            

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says none of the embryos in storage qualifies under this standard. Why? Because clinics don't structure their consent process that way. Almost all of them ask parents to decide from several choices at the outset, before any embyros have been created. Clinics can adopt this new two-step procedure, of course -- but it would affect only future embryos, which defeats the supposed point of the bill.            

The biggest myth, though, is that scientists will be content with using existing, leftover embryos. The 11,000 embryos, according to the RAND study, would yield no more than 275 stem cell lines. For the task of curing major diseases, an article in Scientific American last year said "hundreds of thousands" of lines may be needed -- which "could require millions of discarded embryos."            

But there is no prospect of having millions of discarded embryos. So what will advocates of embryonic stem cell research do when their needs exceed the supply? They will ask for government subsidies to produce additional embryos for experimentation.            

Actually, that's not what they will do -- it's what they've already done. Last year, California voters approved $3 billion in state funding for stem cell research, including experiments on embryos created through "therapeutic cloning." That ballot initiative had the enthusiastic endorsement of such groups as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation.            

So will advocates of the federal bill accomplish their agenda and see Americans get used to the idea of destroying human embryos in research? Why not, we all sat back and let the feminists convince the politicians that murdering the unborn was "every woman's right to choose," even though it was a deadly(to both life and national conscience) and irreversible choice!

Yes, if we're willing to sit back again, and let our national integrity and moral fiber continue to erode while failing to recognize the rapidly developing breakthroughs in stem cell technology that have the potential to make fetal-derived embryonic stem cells a moot issue.

It very well may be a "small step to get the public to accept what they really want -- creating human life in order to destroy it." Yet having been forewarned and having already experienced the slippery slope from legalized abortion to legalized murder by judicial fiat - euthanasia,  and knowing all too well "where this train is going" - hopefully we will all "just say no" and not get on board.

Hat tip - A Physicist's perspective