Sentences with phrase «embryo destruction»

On the one hand, «you could say there's a tension» that comes from separating embryo destruction from research on the resulting cells, says John Robertson, who studies law and bioethics at the University of Texas School of Law.

«There are perfectly ethical ways of obtaining stem cells to cure disease, which do not involve embryo destruction, so no matter what moral value one places on the human embryo, we do not need to use it.»

Partly as a legacy of the way the abortion decisions came about in this country and the degree to which abortion is important in American politics, killing and destruction - of - life questions have come to be regarded as the bioethical questions, whether it's euthanasia at the end of life or abortion and embryo destruction at the beginning.

HHS has read the law too narrowly, they claim; Congress intended to block not just embryo destruction but also «research which follows or depends upon the destruction of or injury to a human embryo.»

It wasn't until 1999 that his Bioethics Commission concluded that embryonic stem - cell research was a legitimate reason for embryo destruction, and thus favored overturning Dickey - Wicker.

While public opinion on stem cells is notoriously difficult to gauge, after the November 2007 breakthrough only the staunchest of ideologues were clamoring for public funding of embryo destruction.

But Bush resolutely refused (twice exercising the veto) to incentivize future embryo destruction by funding it with tax dollars.

When President Bush became the first president ever to fund embryonic stem - cell research, he set a clear moral line: the government would not be complicit in encouraging additional embryo destruction.

Bush sought to honor the spirit, if not, perhaps, the letter, of Dickey - Wicker by providing funding for embryonic stem - cell research without incentivizing further embryo destruction.

For the August 9, 2001 deadline under the Bush administration was imposed precisely to take away the incentive for private entities to engage in more embryo destruction.

Obama's policy is bad science because embryo destruction is no longer necessary for the types of stem cells doctors seek.

(Crucially, the question did not mention that the embryos would otherwise be discarded, nor that the actual deriving of stem cells, with its attendant embryo destruction, is privately financed.)

As far as I know, he hasn't appealed to any of Jesus» teachings to support his position on embryo destruction, abortion on demand, partial birth abortion, or born - alive abortion.

Benedict didn't create the link between IVF and embryo destruction; IVF opened that link, and Benedict is only pointing it out.

Designer babies, embryos on ice, cloning, and embryo destruction are a far cry from IVF used to produce a healthy newborn, and a logical connection between the latter and the former is hardly clear.