Stem Cells Cultivated Free of Animal Contaminants

qewl writes "In a follow-up to this story, researchers at Massachusetts-based Advanced Cell Technology have created a new method of growing human embryonic stem cells that has overcome the major obstacle of animal contaminants to their use for human treatments. As President George W Bush has restricted federal funding of this research to limited cell lines existing since 2001, scientists have strived to find ways to keep the lines pure. Irina Klimanskaya and colleagues at ACT grew the stem cells from the beginning on a cell and serum-free mixture called an extracellular matrix. "The importance of this work, of course, is that by eliminating contact with animal and human cells, you minimize the risk of contamination with pathogens that could be transmitted to patients and the population at large," Dr. Lanza at ATC said."

Interesting logic

[by Anonymous Coward]

I see... so allowing, for the first time, any federal funding for embryonic stem cells is "restricting."

Re:Interesting logic

[nes11 (767888)]

Exactly. It's so funny how many thoughtless drones are out there that just can't comprehend that Bush is the first President to ever provide federal funding for stem cells research in the first place.

Re:Interesting logic

[jim_v2000 (818799)]

But Bush is evil! It doesn't matter if what he does actually happens to be good! It's still bad!

Re:Interesting logic

[Cat_Byte (621676)]

From here [nih.gov]. In November 1998, two different groups of scientists reported the successful isolation and culturing of human embryonic stem cells. Generally referred to as pluripotent stem cells, these cells have the ability to develop into most of the specialized cells or tissues in the human body and can divide for indefinite periods in culture.

What was it called before? I'm curious since 2 presidents before Bush would be around 1986.

Re:Interesting logic

[ckemp.org (667117)]

Perhaps... restricting relative to other countries? [cbsnews.com]

Re:Interesting logic

[ckemp.org (667117)]

Right, well then try this [npr.org] or this, [nature.com] then. Either way, the point is the same: we aren't moving at the same speed as others.

Re:Interesting logic

[by Anonymous Coward]

I can't comment on Nature, but NPR is just as liberally biased as CBS.

What the hell is it with you Americans. Most of you seem to decide on being either a democrat, or a rebublican, and then shut down any ability to process data that's not spoonfed to you. It seems like most of you just throw out any information from a person who doesn't agree with you. They're biased, no shit, they're human. Anything stopping you from taking the information they present, checking it against other sources, and making up your own mind on something?

Re:Interesting logic

[The Spoonman (634311)]

Anything stopping you from taking the information they present, checking it against other sources, and making up your own mind on something?

Ever think that might be what has already happened? For some of us at least, we've seen the information provided by the major networks, reviewed it with third-parties and, where possible, first-hand knowledge. We've then formed opinions based on that. The problem is, you do this enough, and you start to see that yeah, maybe they ARE biased. And, the problem reall

Re:Interesting logic

[geneing (756949)]

Please, stop listening to "propaganda". Read the full story is below. I would say that if Gore became president the funding for stem cell research would be much less restricted.

From Wikipedia: "In 1995, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, prohibiting federal funding of research that involves the use of a human embryo. Privately funded research lead to the breakthrough which made embryonic stem cell research possible in 1998, however, prompting the Clinton Administration to develop federal regulations for its funding. Preparations for this funding were completed in 2001."

Re:Interesting logic

[aussie_a (778472)]

Whether this makes you happy or not, the majority of Americans are not amenable to the idea of killing undeveloped babies for medical research.

You know by mentioning this when people discuss using embryos for stem cell research, you make it sound like this is the case. However this isn't the case. They want to use embryos that were killed for other reasons, which they're not allowed to do.

Creating an embryo just to use it for medical research is quite different to using an embryo that is already dead, and wasn't created for the medical research.

Re:Interesting logic

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Embryonic stem cells come from living embryos that are killed in the process of extracting them.

You're been mislead by the meme that's been going around for about 4 years now that embryonic stem cell research depends on aborted babies, but that's untrue. The babies used for embryonic stem cell research come from two sources: Either they're created in vitro purely for their stem cells, or they're created as part of an ethically unsound "mass-production" technique for in vitr

Re:Interesting logic

[geneing (756949)]

You take my reply out of context.

Parent said: "allowing, for the first time, any federal funding for embryonic stem cells is "restricting."

I pointed out that this is "compaign soundbite" "spin" "propaganda" - call it what you want. The real story is different. Bush came up with the most restrictive rules for stem cell research funding, short of banning it.

You yourself resort to semi-truths and "spin". You say "These are human babies." These are embryos that would be destroyed anyway. They are not going to become babies, ever. They were not created for experiments by mad scientists. They come from fertility treatment. Why waste them?

I appreciate that many Americans disagree with me (although I'm glad that most of my fellow Californians agree with me.) However, I think they would agree with me if they got the full story rather than "propaganda".

Re:Interesting logic

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

Bush came up with the most restrictive rules for stem cell research funding, short of banning it.

Um. He also came up with the most permissive rules for stem cell research ever. Half-empty, half-full.

You say "These are human babies." These are embryos that would be destroyed anyway.

First, "embryo" is medical jargon. That's why I say "baby." It's a matter of simplicity of language. Second, they would not be "destroyed" anyway. (I think you mean "killed" here.) The ones that are created specifically for

Re:Interesting logic

[BWJones (18351)]

Incorrect. Stem cell research has been going on for years in the U.S. and other countries. Bush is just the first president that has said anything about it because stem cell research became politicized round about when he was running for office.

Re:Stem cell research was always permitted

[RsG (809189)]

And I have a clue-by-four with you name on it...

Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortion. Got it? They come from fertility clinics that specialize in IVF. When you do in-vitro, there are leftover fertalized eggs that usually get flushed. These eggs are the only source of embryonic stem cells in use.

Let me make this absolutly clear to you. NO abortion is involved, since no pregnancy occured. Conception (in this context) occured in a test tube, and the embryo was subsequesntly discarded.

Which raises the question; why do stem cell researchers get the hatred of the religious fundamentalists but IVF clinics do not? After all, the researchers are working from the castaways from the clinics. I've been told that some more logical religious conservatives have a problems with IVF for this very reason, what with the idea that life begins at conception, but they aren't the ones going apeshit on stem cells.

Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither. The right-to-lifers are essentially being given a bait and switch in order for the repubs to gain a voting bloc, there is no moral basis to Bush's opposition, and never has been. A leader with an inconsistant set of values has no right to try and stand on non-existant moral high ground, period.

Re:Stem cell research was always permitted

[jadavis (473492)]

Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither.

An interesting point, and some anti-stem cell people are surely confused about the topic.

However, IVF is not taxpayer funded. Period. You can do IVF, and you can do stem cell research, but not with my money. If you think it's so promising, start up a private stem cell research fund and I'm sure the legions of stem cell research supporters will donate left and right.

Many people in this country feel that stem cell research is on questionable moral grounds. The argument that "it was dead already" doesn't hold water. Encouraging more research creates demand for stem cells, and many Americans don't want to create such a conflict of interest.

IVF is less questionable for many Americans because the purpose of a fertility clinic is to create human life, not destroy it. There do not appear to be any conflicts of interest which would encourage the destruction of life.

And yes, I realize that some people expect lives to be saved by stem cell research. Then those people must weigh the issues morally for themselves whether it's a good idea or not. Many people have weighed against it, and so I don't think we should be spending their money to do it.

Aborted babies are not human beings

[Dancin_Santa (265275)]

They may be human, but without life they are no more "beings" than corpses. We have no qualms about harvesting organs from dead donors, but seem to have some knee jerk reaction to harvesting a few extremely useful cells from dead, young, human flesh.

You can't even say it's a "respect for human life" thing, because if that were the case those babies wouldn't have been aborted in the first place. The ban on harvesting of fetal stem cells is a huge setback to the progress of science.

While this development may be useful in the short term, hopefully in the longterm our politicians will be able to remove the blinders and fundamentalist yokes that they have placed on scientists in this century.

Stem cells save lives. What better way to honor those who died to contribute them than to pass on the benefits of their organs?

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[DLR (18892)]

Since you are obviously aware of things the rest of aren't would you please be so good as to inform us exactly when life begins?

Re:When life begins is not related to the issue

[DLR (18892)]

What I am trying to do, although I should have done it less sarcastically, is get people to think. Do we know the millisecond life begins? No, not even the day. So the preconceived notions of the parent post are what I am questioning, and inviting him (or anyone else) to defend. I don't expect many takers, because they don't know.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

That position can't work because, by that logic, anybody on a ventilator is no longer a human being. Christopher Reeve -- whose poor name has already been dragged through the mud enough on this; it's the cross he had to bear being the world's most famous quadriplegic -- could not breathe on his own, therefore by your reasoning he was not alive.

Premature babies often require the use of a ventilator for some time after they're born. By your reasoning, any baby that required a ventilator would not be alive.

Let's cut to the chase scene here, okay? There is no definition of the moment when life begins that can stand up to scrutiny. There's just no way to unequivocally define it, because there is no moment when life begins.

Let me say that again: There is no moment when life begins.

We all learned in high school about the theory of biogenesis, right? It's the principle that life comes only from other living things. It doesn't arise spontaneously. Rocks don't turn into turtles. It's a basic principle of biology. (The opposite of this theory, the theory of abiogenesis, is given as an example of a scientific theory that was once believed but that we now know to be false.)

Am I alive? Yes. Is my liver alive? Well, it's not an independent organism, but it's alive, sure. If you cut off its blood flow, it dies, so yes, it's clearly alive.

Is an embryo alive? Yes, obviously. It's not independent, but it's alive. If you cut off its blood flow, it dies. The cells that compose it cease to function, and it dies. So yes, an embryo is alive.

Life doesn't begin. It's a continuum, passing unbroken from mother to baby and so on through generations.

So it's long past time we stopped looking to science to tell us when life begins. Science has answered that question unequivocally: Whenever the first cell formed, maybe billions of years ago, life began, and it's been going ever since. (How that happened, nobody has the foggiest idea. But clearly it did, so either God did it or space aliens made it happen or some natural process that we don't understand yet happened and life was the result. Take your pick; they all end up in the same place.)

The question of when life begins isn't one for science. It's one for our values.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

If that was truly the case, it would be illegal to disconnect ventillators.

In the vast majority of cases, it is. The exceptions are very, very strictly defined by law.

If the end of life is legally judged by the cessation of brain activity

It's not. There are numerous criteria, and the specific combination varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The absence of a heart beat is always involved, the lack of spontaneous respiration is usually a component, and the failure to respond to reflex stimuli is of

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

Cows meet all of those criteria.

Right ... congratulations. You've just proven to everyone's satisfaction that cows are alive. Let's throw you a fucking parade.

Who has the blinders on now?

[DrKyle (818035)]

People don't have a problem with organ donation (for the most part) because 1: It is a decision made by the person who's organs they are to donate them and 2: It is obvious that the donaters life was not created for the purpose of donating that organ.

Contrast this with aborted tissue and you will see there are HUGE differences, can you guarantee that if aborted tissue is OK'd by the goverment that eggs won't be fertilized for the sole purpose of aborting and harvesting them? I find it so amazing the lengths people will go to to devalue human life, blaming religion for hindering science. I'm sure some of the people reading this will think I'm a crazy prolifer too, well I'm not, in fact I have a PhD in genetics and understand better than 99.999% of the population the potential benefits of stem cell research. Stem cells ARE going to be the miracle cure they've been hyped up to be, but unlike scientific revolutions where lives are not at stake, we need to make sure to take the time to consider all the ramifications our decisions will have to ensure we don't end up doing a lot of harm just to speed things up a few years.

This has nothing to do with aborted babies

[qewl (671495)]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but embryonic stem cells are harvested from left over in-vitro cells (and harvested at the blastocyst stage) that would otherwise be discarded. This has nothing to do with abortion or fetuses!

Haven't you even been listening?

[bloggins02 (468782)]

One is destined to become a child

No, NO, NO. You don't even have to "open your mind" to understand this, just freakin' pay attention! The embryos we're talking about here are from failed IVF trials. They aren't destined to become children, they're destined to be incinerated.

the other is destined to be grown in a petri dish and then harvested like a crop of corn

Which is, obviously, much worse than burning it to a crisp and throwing it away, forgotten forever.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[ortcutt (711694)]

Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, a member of the President's Council on Bioethics council, once noted that:

If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[SenseiLeNoir (699164)]

True say.. i am hardly "very" religious (and I am Hindu.. not christian)

But I strongly disagree with abortion (except in cases of rape, but even then, i woudl leave that descision up to the victim, and not advice either way).... Maybe its because.... i nearly was aborted myself (due to questionable advice given to my mother, who luckily had her own mind in the end)

Also..... It is not hyprocritical, that htose who get to discuss the rights and wrongs of abortion, are those who are born....

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[ohithere (662779)]

Stem cells are commonly harvested from fertilized embryos, long before they enter the fetal stage. The whole point and promise of stem cells are that their DNA has not differentiated any of its expression/repression of genes. We all know that your DNA is the same throughout your body, but what makes a difference is what genes are expressed in each cell. That is what leads to cell differentiation in the body and the main reason why stem cells are so powerful. These plain, all encompassing cells can be grown in certain controlled conditions in order to obtain whatever kind of cells your body needs, theoretically. The problem with using an old stem cell line is that with each separation, the DNA mutates a litle bit. A couple of base pairs are cut off of each end of the DNA strands with each cell division. This loss of base pairs from the end of each strand of DNA during the replication of DNA are what eventually lead to the aging of cells.

About the rejection of cells by the body, your body decides whether or not a cell is "natural" from the genes that are expressed by the cells as well as different proteins that come out from the surface of cells. At no point does a macrophage enter a cell and check every little bit of DNA to see if it "matches" or not. Why would they be able to do organ transplants if that were the case? With a larger number of stem cell lines to choose from, there may be a greater chance for cells to be similar to each other.

Keep in mind that there are many places to harvest stem cells, from many stages of human life. There are the embryonic stem cells, fetal stem cells, placental stem cells, childhood stem cells and adult stem cells to choose from. However, as the body ages, a smaller percent of cells in the body are actually stem cells. Now, say you harvest the stem cells of an adult seeking treatment for a medical condition and send them to a lab to grow. Do you have any idea of how much difficulty there would be in setting this up on a large enough scale to treat diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's? Do you know how long it would take to grow enough stem cells to be a viable treatment for a patient? Now, if you could establish cell lines with the thousands of frozen embryos are there frozen at fertility clinics around the world with no hope of ever becoming a child, you could create enough cell lines to be able to treat anyone. THAT is the power of the embryonic stem cell.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[mark-t (151149)]

It's the notion of "harvesting" that I think offends people the most with regards to stem cell research. For people who are against abortion, it's bad enough that abortion is even allowed (in their view), but allowing stem cell research would result in some people specifically getting pregnant for the very _purpose_ of aborting the baby.

Re:Aborted babies are not human beings

[jadavis (473492)]

Well, somebody makes a decision at some point, and somebody makes money at some point. The person who makes the money will try to influence the person who makes the decision. There is an obvious conflict of interest there. You can't just magically seperate the two with a law.

Catholics..

[Cryptnotic (154382)]

This is more toward the grandparent poster:

There are also many Catholics who do not believe everything the Church says without thinking about it and there are many who quietly disobey the official Church teachings without fear of punishment from God. There are many Catholics who know about Martin Luther, who wrote that no one, no Church, can stand in the way or be required between a man (or woman) and God. And of course, there are Catholics who know that following Catholicism isn't the only way to live your life, and thus they are free to listen to everything with a "grain of salt", so to speak.

Before the trolls come out...

[by Anonymous Coward]

1) George Bush was the first president to fund embrionic stem cell research. Part of this was timing (Clinton was the only one prior that could have), part of it was presure, but he deserves some credit.

2) There is no restriction on adult stem cell research whatsoever.

3) The only restriction on embrionic stem cell research is that federal funding is limited to existing lines. Private research is unencumbered, and no legislation against it is likely. The funds are limited as a result of ethical issues which are not limited to religious people, and are not permanently banned (All it'll take is another executive desicion).

Now that that's been cleared up, hopefully this thread can be filled with meaningful discourse...

Re:Before the trolls come out...

[ortcutt (711694)]

Oh. I guess the totally unnecessary restrictions that he put in place are OK then.

Where's the -1 informative option???

[Cryptnotic (154382)]

We can't let the truth get out there. It will be damaging to our position.

Mod this guy down, for Ford's sake!!!

Right...

[cameldrv (53081)]

Those are some nice republican talking points. Meanwhile, look at the situation. Most early stage medical research is funded by the NIH in the U.S. The lines that are eligible funding are practically useless due to viral contamination. Thus, for all practical purposes, the major source of potential funding for embryonic stem cell research has been cut off. Bush's ban was clearly religiously motivated, and I know of no non-religious person that thinks a clump of cells has moral status.

What the actual effect of Bush's ban has had is to push funding for this research to the states, which is highly inefficient, because now you have professors moving to different universities in order to be eligible for state funding. Furthermore, you have state politicians trying to decide how much funding this research should get, in a completely uncoordinated manner. Also, you now have some citizens paying taxes for research that benefits the entire country, while others get a free ride.

This would not have happened under a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administration, and the ethical objections are certainly not held by a majority of the population.

Cool!

[RyanFenton (230700)]

It's very cool that we're overcoming these obstacles. It's just too bad these are the obstacles we have to overcome to get to useful public (not private) research.

It's kind of like the current general up-beat news about the middle-east. It's great that democracy appears to be on the rise - but that does NOT imply wisdom in what lead us to the current circumstances.

We just have to move foreward as best we can, and hope we can grow beyond our limitations.

Ryan Fenton

Example of Dronig below

[by Anonymous Coward]

The Pope visits Washington and President Bush takes him for a ride down the Potomac on the presidential yacht. They're enjoying themselves when a gust of wind blows the Pope's hat (zucchetto) off and out onto the water. The Secret Service begins to launch a boat but Bush waves them off saying, "Wait. I'll take care of this."

Bush steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water, walks out a ways and picks up the hat. Back on board, he hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning the Washington Post carries the story complete with photos under the heading BUSH CAN'T SWIM.

Re:Example of Dronig below

[ortcutt (711694)]

My impression of the Mainstream Media is that they are more than happy to give Bush a reach-around whenever he wants one. The sad thing is that you need to watch a fake news program to see anyone who doesn't drink the administration kool-aid.

The original source of that joke

[kevinatilusa (620125)]

was a similar comment made by Lyndon Johnson ("If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read "President Can't Swim").

Interesting that people are now modifying that quote to talk about bias form the Liberal side now.

This is good news...

[jone1941 (516270)]

But let's not miss the bigger reality. If we do not allow scientists access to funding in promising new fields, some other country will. Sitting back and trying to feel out the "morality" of new scientific research is simply going to put the U.S. behind the numberous countries willing and able to look past there "beliefs". Just my $0.02.

Meanwhile in Russia...

[TheNarrator (200498)]

Here goes the karma sacrifice.
The Russians, who are quite clever, have figured out how to use non-embryonic stem cells to cure spinal cord injuries.
Article [pravda.ru]

Six spinal patients of one of Russian private clinics agreed to participate in a special experiment, which was based on the above-mentioned method. Patients' own stem cells were injected in the place of spinal cord rupture. A positive result was registered with five of the volunteers: they could feel their legs, even move them a little, pelvic organs retrieved their functions too.

You know that it's interesting that this guy has treated people with stem cells and cured spinal illnesses with the patient's own stem cells! Meanwhile people are talking about embryonic stem cells which haven't yet cured anybody yet. I'm not a doctor but won't these embryonic cells be rejected because they've got different DNA then the person being treated?
I don't really care either way on the abortion issue but this whole thing makes me think that the side effect of successful embryonic stem cell research will be to reward people montetarily for having abortions or at least make people feel good about aborting.

duh...

[Cryptnotic (154382)]

I don't really care either way on the abortion issue but this whole thing makes me think that the side effect of successful embryonic stem cell research will be to reward people montetarily for having abortions or at least make people feel good about aborting.


That's why the pro-abortion people are in support of embryonic stem cell research.

Re:duh...

[brunes69 (86786)]

The idea that stem cell research will either hurt or harm the abortion "cause" is ridiculous. People are going to have abortions regardless. They have had them for hundreds of years, and will continue to have them, no matter what the law says. You don't need any incentive to make people have abortions.

And no one is going to go out and purposefully get pregnant and abort the child to make money, since no money would ever be paid, due to an ample supply of cells from the people I outlined in my previous point.

President Bush

[jeffkjo1 (663413)]

It is important to note that while President Bush has limited federal funding for stem cell research, that is all he has done. There is no federal ban on stem cell research, the only ban is on federal funds being used in such research. Our country's medical companies and educational institutions are free to do their own research.

Hello, McFly...

[walgurf (230232)]

Why does it always HAVE to fall back to the Imperial Federal Government to fund everything with MY money?

Let it be done by private organizations, who are faster, more efficient, and FAR more effective.

Stem Cell research has not been limited

[by Anonymous Coward]

Bush has simply limited federal funding. Private research is not restricted in any way. Should American Tax dollars go towards something that a very large subset of the popualtion does not support?

I do not believe Bush has an agenda here. He is just doing his job.

Re:stem cell progress

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

You know, if I pulled out the quote from the top of your comment and replaced it with something from Dr. Mengele, the result would be basically the same.

Are researchers who extract stem cells from undeveloped babies equivalent to Dr. Mengele? No, I personally don't think so. But I'm humble enough to concede that I might be wrong. It's possible --just possible -- that the next generation will look back on the slaughter of embryos as a crime against humanity on the same level as the Holocaust. The fact that

Re:stem cell progress

[Leo McGarry (843676)]

I'm just stating that if progress (define it as you will, ultimately it is defined by those doing the experimentation) can be made, it will be made.

Um. I know you were stating that. And I'm arguing with you. Didn't you notice?

Step one: Let's stop calling it "progress." Calling all experimentation "progress" attaches a positive connotation that's not warranted. Some experimentation results in progress, some doesn't. So let's call it what it is: Experimentation.

We have rules of ethics that govern experim

Re:Liberals simply don't get it

[ortcutt (711694)]

No. It's conservative people that don't get it. No one disputes that the embryos are living organisms. The question is whether embryos are morally-significant persons. I made this point up thread, but if you really think that blastulae with 10 cells are morally-significant, then you need to face up to our nation's biggest medical emergency, the millions of blastulae which are naturally miscarried every year.

Harvard government professor Michael Sandel, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics once noted that:

"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions: Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research combined."

Wow... and this during wartime.

[Concern (819622)]

Apparently yes. How about this: an even trade. No federal funding for stem cell research, no federal funding for oil wars in the middle east. Let Haliburton get private funding if they want it so bad.

Stem cells from embryos headed for the medical waste bin are "sacred" and we protest that the government should not pay for stem cell research, even though it could literally revolutionize medicine. Meanwhile the lives of unambiguously alive, adult men and women in our military (and we quietly footnote, foreigners as well) are bravely sacrificed in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction (no, not in Iran, which actually has them), freedom and safety (no, not in Sierra Leone, or China, which make Iraq look like Virginia), to stop Osama from striking again (no, not in Afghanistan or Pakistan, where he actually is)... wait, are we still pretending its not for our energy supply? Not for nothing, but...

How we fight such a dubious war while crying crocodile tears over embryos we destroy by the truckload daily at IVF clinics... while still claiming to be moral, even religious crusaders is inexplicable to me. But this is the moral vortex we live in now. How anyone thinks they keep it straight I have no idea.

So yes, of course the government controvertially sacrifices lives with "confiscated" cash every day. Stem cell research would be a relief, frankly. This is leaving aside that our supposed care over embryos is often an insincere facade for culture warriors that were only recently opposing birth control the same way.