Clarification is needed: did the court find in favor of the plaintiffs, or did it simply rule against a motion to dismiss thus allowing the case to go to trial?

Now just so we're all clear on what exactly an embryo is, the dictionary definition for a human embryo is "the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development." A plain ole fertilized egg is a zygote. An embryo is the next step, and then after the eighth week of pregnancy you have a fetus.

As for stem cells, they don't just come from embryos. They can be harvested from blood, bone marrow, and umbilical cords discarded after childbirth. I highly doubt anyone has any moral objection to any of these forms of stem cell treatments.

Embryonic stem cells are a political issue because they got tied up in abortions. I look at it this way though, the only logical reason to disagree with the harvesting of embryonic stem cells is that this activity provides some kind of justification for the continued legality of abortion. Abortions are legal, and embryonic stem cells are harvested as a result of this legal activity. Abortions are not performed for the sake of harvesting stem cells, they are performed for the sake of aborting a fetus. As long as abortion is legal in some way, shape or form, there will be aborted fetuses from which to harvest embryonic stem cells. Plain and simple, embryonic stem cells are a result of abortions, not a justification for them.

But we're dealing with morals here, and no one ever accused the human race of being logical, especially when it comes to morals.

 

Apparently we are looking at conflicting information. I didn't write the definition, I'm just going by what it says.

 

I've got no problem (nor does the current policy) in doing stem cell research using marrow, or blood, or anything of that matter. None what so ever.

 

Might as well be specific then and say embryonic stem cells instead of just stem cells.

And perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to what exactly your objection to embryonic stem cell research is if it is somehow different than the one I outlined above.

 

It's pretty simple.

First you have a zygote, which is simply a fertilized egg.

Then you have some other thing which I forget the name of because I don't have my high school biology textbook handy, which is a zygote which has divided into multiple cells but has not yet implated itself in the uterine wall.

Once whatever that multi-celled cluster thing implants itself in the uterine wall you have an embryo.

After the eighth week of pregnancy, the developing organism is hereafter referred to as a fetus.

 

Blastocyst
If i remember my high school biology correctly. Though I might just be making that up. Bah, too lazy to do a google search.

 

Ya, that's it! :thumbup:

 

On a side note:
I'm plantation under normal circumstances happens typically within the first 24 hours of being fertilized. AKA, it goes from zygote to embryo very quickly.

Anyways, it seems that charging the clinic with essentially a murder charge seems excessive. However, from the perspective of the parents whose fertilized egg's were lost, this is absolutely devastating, as their potential baby is gone forever. For people undergoing these procedures, that means that they will have to redo the procedure, which carries many risks for the woman; for her personal health, and her ability to bare children.

Another words, it's like telling a heart surgury patient, "oops, we screwed up the first bypass. We're gonna have to do it again."

 

I have personal experience with this, as my wife and I went through several cycles of in vitro, so I can say with some insight that the people in question are devastated by this. But, and I believe the ruling just stated they have a cause of action, this is a scary deal here. While I am opposed to it, I believe abortion should be legal, and if this ruling goes to what I see as its logical end, this would not be the case, in Illinois anyway. Benjamin, where are you on this one?