During today's debate over the stem cell bills that were before the Senate, both of Pennsylvania's Senators spoke. First, Rick Santorum expressed his confusion over why the majority of the U.S. Senate was not going to apply the constitutional label of "person" to frozen, five day old, fertilized eggs that will eventually be destroyed by in vitro fertilization clinics. Then, Arlen Specter rose and provided an excellent explanation that we can only hope cleared up Rick's confusion. We've put them both together in one convenient video piece for you:

Click image to watch clip
Stem cell research ONLY on Muslim embryoes!
All these jack asses distance themself from the death and destruction that their voice has caused. They stand by this bullshit that we are stopping terrorism as a way to cleanse their consciences. It's pathetic, but it's what they are.
So I'd bask in his "nasty byproduct-ness" while he's still aroundfor we will never see his "man on dog" like again.
/a small sniffle and tear falls
Anyone who panders to religious zealots to get "votes" while the lack of adequate scientific research continues and really sick human beings die as a result, is EVIL, EVIL, EVIL!
I have been fighting cancer (non hodgkins lymphoma) for three years. Trust me, stem cell research is necessary if for no other reason than to give us hope. Perhaps nothing of substance will come of the research, but certainly nothing good will be accomplished by the destruction of embryo's.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn psychotic with no regard to the suffering of others!
I'm a liberal, and you don't think I'm a person. You want that I die?
Of course, we'll need to revisit the laws on menstruation and masturbation...but the Republicans can deal with that in 2008.
Does anyone know a good source of baby names? LOTS of them?
christian neo-con republican
american couple that tries and
tries to have a baby through
in vitro fertilization, and AFTER MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS, NO baby 'takeS', are really just a
couple of filthy abortionists....now
i get it
These two positions are irreconcilable. If the embryo is a US "person," it has the full complement of rights under the Constitution. Once this legal fact occurs, even attempts at in vitro fertilization become grounds for serial murder, because the process involves the creation of many embryos with the knowledge that most of them will perish in the process.
These embryos must also be counted in the census, because otherwise the states in which they reside will be deprived of adequate proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Because the embryo-persons cannot be destroyed without due process of law (e.g. charging them with a capital crime), the states then have the perverse incentive to create as many as possible in order to receive greater representation and other benefits.
Though nothing could legally prevent people from mass-creating embryos at will, it will necessarily become illegal to keep them frozen for long, because this will be an unreasonable restraint on its liberty interest under the Constitution. Every embryo everywhere, whether in a petre dish or otherwise, must be given every possible opportunity to grow into a baby. In order to prevent mass-death of those embryo-persons without human hosts, women will need to be conscripted, against their will if necessary, to carry them to term. This will be made possible because the full-scale life interest of the embryo-person will legally outweigh the woman's right to be free from pregnancy.
Also, because these embryos are full "persons" under the Constitution, their existence will need to be accounted for in all instances, in order to prevent their accidental or intentional death at the hands of researchers and potential mothers. To protect these persons' vital life interests, women of childbearing age and ability will need to submit to periodic, mandatory pregnancy tests. A woman who even inadvertently causes her embryo to die in her womb could be held criminally liable for murder or manslaughter.
In essence, childbearing and life as we know it would turn upside. If these seem like extreme scenarios, so is the classification of embryos as persons, which makes the scenarios naturally and legally inevitable.
Dangerous doesn't even begin to describe the mindset of people like Santorum.
He defends destroying the lives of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire if it saves American lives, but he has the gall to preach about "protecting innocent life" even if it means ill Americans may die.
Interesting circular logic there. I guess it is okay for "innocent life" to be destroyed in the name of "saving human life" so long as those innocents aren't 'Mericun.
Do you know how much that would cost his local Virgina school district as his female object, I mean Karen, cyber-schools them in their $500,000 home????
About 9,000 (cost per pupil) times 400,006 (the snowflakes and his own 6 children) = $$$$ 3, 600, 054, 000 per year
Would the school district be able to borrow money from foriegn nations to pay for this debt or would the tax payer foot the bill?
Here are some math problems, math nerd...
Based on statistics, What percent of the 400, 000 adoptees would grow to adulthood and:
1. be gay
2. get an abortion
3. be liberal
4. be a wife that works outside the home
5. be a single mom
6. have man on dog sex
Ahh the implications run wild...