> Last I knew, all successes have come from non-embryonic sources. Whether you believe destroying an embryo is ethical or not, why push the issue when there are alternatives? Why destroy embryos that may or may not be human beings when the more promising developments have already come from other sources?
>
> This is something that has baffled me from the start. Anyone care to answer?

If I remember (and my memory may be faulty; it wouldn't be a surprise), it is possible to use cells from the umbilical cord for stem cell research. This results in no harm to the baby and yields the ever-sought-after stem cells to research.

It is also possible to use the "leftovers" of test-tube embryos (don't you love my technical terminology here? I sound brilliant) that would be destroyed anyway. I personally believe that killing embryos is murder, but if it is something that is going to occur, it should at least be a sacrifice for a worthy cause (I like parentheses).

So, basically, I don't think there really IS much of a reason to oppose the research.

La"But my brain is off-duty on the weekends"Zorra