Another great article that reveals the embryonic stem cell debate for what it is, hypothetical questions on theoretical cures – which may be achievable in 40 plus years – being treated as a reality we must deal with today.

Confronted with that question, the U.S. House of Representatives voted last month to provide federal funding for experimentation on these embryos, despite the threat of a presidential veto. As Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., put it, the only embryos that would be destroyed for medical research are those that “would otherwise be destroyed. That is, embryos that held the promise of life but are certain not to fulfill that promise.”

It’s a persuasive argument that many well-meaning people find hard to reject — but one that is constructed almost entirely out of myths. The choice we face is one very different from that portrayed by its advocates.

Start with the claim that 400,000 frozen embryos otherwise would go to waste. The truth is that most of them are anything but “surplus.” According to a 2003 survey by researchers at the RAND Corp., a California think tank, 88 percent of them are being stored for their original function: to make babies for their parents.

…

It says parents must elect to discard them “prior” to the consideration of embryo donation” — and only later decide to donate them for research.

Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of pro-life activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, says none of the embryos in storage qualifies under this standard. Why? Because clinics don’t structure their consent process that way. Almost all of them ask parents to decide from several choices at the outset, before any embyros have been created. Clinics can adopt this new two-step procedure, of course — but it would affect only future embryos, which defeats the supposed point of the bill.

Read the whole thing.