Say No To EMBRYONIC Stem Cell Candidates

While much of the data points to advancements from ADULT stem cell research, EMBRYONIC stem cells have provided no projected additional benefits to date despite considerable efforts. Yet the pro-abortion crowd and Democrats have been beating the drum demanding government funding for the destruction of human embryos (previously conceived humans) for research for some time now.

We know why, ...for as long as that Embryo is considered just a mass of cells, (and not a human being) abortion is safe and sound in the minds of pro-abortionists. If it were simply about curing disease, Adult stem cells show promise but get no support from the left thus exposing their agenda.
Most conservatives, I submit, would agree with the following statements.

We know that every one of us started life as an embryo. An embryo is a human organism. An embryo is a human being at the earliest stage of development.

The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”

No self respecting conservative would vote for one of these pro-abortion, pro-Embryonic Stem Cell liberals....right?

Well hold on there sparky, you better take another look at ALL of your top Republican Presidential Candidates. Pew Forum: Candidates on Stem Cell Research.

How about Rudy Guliani's position on destroying human embryos for science:
“Giuliani supports loosening restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and generally broadening such research,” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

“John McCain and Giuliani said they support embyronic stem cell research although they both hedged their answers by saying that was true only as long as cells weren’t being created for the express purpose of destroying them,” WaPo’s Politics Blog.

See also here, here, and here.

And consider the following exchange between Giuliani and Chris Wallace of Fox News:

WALLACE: The reason I ask is when you were asked in the last debate about stem cells, embryonic stem cell research, you said you could support it except when it was a matter of creating a life to take a life.

The implication there seems to be that you think of that frozen embryo as a life.

GIULIANI: There are rights that have to be evaluated, and then . . . .

WALLACE: But can I ask you directly: Do you think of that frozen embryo . . . .

GIULIANI: I don’t look at it that way. I don’t think it’s for me to decide. I can’t decide when life begins. All that I can decide is, you know, what are the constitutional issues? What are the legal issues? How do you deal with these things?"

So Rudy Guliani and John McCain support embryonic stem cell research, but how about recent pro-life convert Mitt Romney?
Here is how the Governor of Massachusetts dances around this issue very carefully but still manages to step directly into the mess and support embryonic stem cell research funded by the government. Romney opposes stem cell research that involves CLONING, but NOT stem cell research from "other sources" just like McCain and Guliani.
From an op-ed piece written by Mitt Romney himself:

"Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos. Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I support that research, provided that those embryos are obtained after a rigorous parental consent process … Known as altered nuclear transfer, this method could allow researchers to obtain embryonic stem cells without the moral shortcut of cloning and destroying a human embryo. A bill that includes methods such as these and bans all human cloning would receive my full support".

In other words, it seems, Romney was opposed to cloning, not embryonic stem cell research, as such.This is not consistent with his statement that, "He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research".

Just for the sake of conversation, where does the media's favorite new conservative Mike Huckabee stand on embryonic stem cell research?
Huckabee supports using "surplus" embryos from in-vitro fertilization for research just like McCain, Guliani and Romney.

Here is a list of all the candidates (Democrat and Republican) on this issue... Only 4 of the 17 presidential candidates are against embryonic stem cell being used for science experiments.

Only one of those 4 remaining candidates has served in the Army Rangers (yes, Vietnam) and is currently the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has built a fence between Mexico and the US, has sponsored the FAIR TAX bill, proposes a mirror tax on China and other trade partners to even the trade deficit and has a son serving in the Marines in Iraq as we speak.

Only one of these 17 candidates has been called "The Republican Wing of the Republican Party" by the Missouri Republican Assembly....

That candidate is Duncan Hunter.

The Pew Forum says...
"Duncan Hunter supports the use of adult stem cells, harvested without destroying human embryos, as integral to the pursuit of regenerative treatments and cures for disease. He opposes the use of embryonic stem cell lines for research. He voted against the proposed Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, which would have expanded the stem cell lines eligible for federal funding for research.
"Hunter has made ending abortion a top priority. As president, he would support a constitutional amendment making all abortions illegal. He has sponsored numerous anti-abortion bills in Congress, including the Right to Life Act, which would have conferred all rights of personhood at the moment of conception. Another, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006, would have required abortion providers to inform pregnant clients that a fetus feels pain after 20 weeks and to offer anesthesia for the fetus".

Remember these facts as you make your decision on selecting your next Presidential hopeful in the upcoming primaries.
The man (or woman) who will be leading our country forward for the next 4 or 8 years.
Leading us toward a more secure, independent America and away from abortion and socialism or otherwise?

Remember Duncan Hunter for President.