The webpage above the Michigan Citizens for Stem Cell Research and Cures (MCSCRC) says,
"According to a survey conducted in 2003, there are approximately 400,000 unwanted pre-embryos in the United States. (Source: Hoffman, D.I., et al. 2003. Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertility and Sterility 79: 1063-1069.) These pre-embryos are no longer needed for fertility purposes and remain frozen or will be destroyed."
400,000 unwanted pre-embryos? Really? Take some time and type their source ("Cryopreserved embryos in the United States and their availability for research. Fertility and Sterility") into Google and see if these 400,000 embryos are all "unwanted" and "no longer needed for fertility purposes." The first thing that pops up for me is this webpage from the RAND institute (the organization which commissioned the study) summarizing the research by Hoffman et. al by saying,
- Nearly 400,000 embryos (fertilized eggs that have developed for six or fewer days) have been frozen and stored since the late 1970s.
-Patients have designated only 2.8 percent (about 11,000 embryos) for research. The vast majority of frozen embryos are designated for future attempts at pregnancy.
They then have a graph which shows that 88.2% of these 400,000 embryos are "being held for family building." 400,000 unwanted embryos? Not quite.
Now maybe I shouldn't say that the MCSCRC is lying here because it's fairly obvious they didn't create this false information and even though their home page claims they are dedicated to "educating our state’s residents about the stem cell research process" they may need to take some time to educate themselves besides just copying and pasting information.
Notice also the different definition of the term "pre-embryo" and embryo on this webpage. According to MCSCRC's glossary page (which is also taken word for word from the KU Medical Center's glossary page) embryos are really only embryos after they've been implanted into a uterus while before they get implanted they are "pre-embryos." I wonder why the research isn't called "pre-embryonic stem cell research" then?
Robert George recently described how the scientific community rejected this term which is used to try to create a political smokescreen.
It's also interesting how this language from the MCSCRC (taken from the KUMC) differs from the language of Andy Meisner's legislation. Meisner's legislation, which is being promoted by the MCSCRC, also uses definitions which aren't scientific as in this case where Meisner defines a "fetus" as "the product of conception from implantation until delivery." But isn't that what MCSCRC (or KUMC) calls an embryo? This is another problem for the proponents of embryonic stem cell research who deal in deception and word smithing. They use completely made-up definitions which have no standing or backing in the scientific community and these definitions which have no standing or grounding (besides how they can be used to deceive) often collide.