“Yes, those embryos that are referred to commonly as surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable. It should not be made against the law.”
From the TOP OF THE PAGE! Who do you think you’re kidding?
I'm sure the medical researchers will just examine it and poke it and prod it but will not harm it it any way. It will live happily ever after in the laboratory.
Mitt's statement is clear. It would be better for Romney supporters to either declare they agree with it, or declare that they don't but intend to vote for him anyway. That would, at least, be honest and straight forward because this statement simply can't be spun.
SO I presume you want to ban the use of all embryos.
But your candidate has not proposed banning all embryonic research. He opposes government funding, just like Romney does, but has NEVER pushed for a ban as Senator, and is not pushing for a ban as President.
So his position on the legality of this research is identical to Romney’s — no funding, no banning.
But I’m certain you’ll still be voting for your candidate, and will defend him as a conservative, just as I will still support my candidate and defend him as a conservative.
This isn’t as bad as the fact that both our candidates support abortion in the case of rape and incest. But you go with the candidates you have. If I had a candidate who supported killing babies because their father was the brother of their mother, or because their father used alcohol to get his mother’s permission for sex, I wouldn’t be calling another candidate liberal and unfit for president because he won’t ban the private use of discarded embryos in research, something my candidate won’t do either.
But I don’t expect consistancy or logic to make any difference here.