Like it or not, there are 70 or 80 ALREADY CREATED embryo’s that are frozen and sitting someplace in a research lab.
President Bush likewise agreed to have those donated for research.
Romney did NOT say we should be creating more embryo’s, and neither did President Bush.
Sometimes, leaders are called on to make hard choices.
Are you also out protesting and railing hatred against President Bush?
Your hatred for Romney goes so deep...
You know, that's the most common line used by Obama, the most liberal politician on abortion there is, as to why women get abortions (have to "make hard choices").
Like it or not, there are 70 or 80 ALREADY CREATED embryo’s that are frozen and sitting someplace in a research lab. President Bush likewise agreed to have those donated for research. Romney did NOT say we should be creating more embryo’s, and neither did President Bush.
A half-truth. Even if Romney hasn't been calling for the creation of additional surplus embryos, he's still advocating & calling for the parents of these embryos to deepen the number of embryos "donated" to be dissected. (Bush has never done that)
When Romney told Katie Couric 3 months ago that a "parent" of an otherwise adoptable surplus frozen embryo (in fact he used the word "adoption") could be "donated to research" and concluded that was perfectly "acceptable," then it shows he's still got quite a ways to go...ESPECIALLY since he said the embryonic stem cell issue was THE VERY ISSUE that "converted" him to the pro-life side.
You can't get more "pro-choice" then a politician saying that a "parent" can acceptably "donate" their offspring to be "dissected" to death.
The fact that this doesn't bother many pro-Mitt FReepers tells me a lot about their own priorities about life in the womb.
Again, since his comment to Couric was only three months ago, what's really changed other than the fact he's now had three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years?
Romney fuller comment to Couric, Dec. 5, 2007: lmost 6 months later: ...surplus embryos...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."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html