California Stem Cell Prop 71 Is Favored In The Polls

[NATO AIR]

the stem cell wars continue.. there's a prop 71 on the ballot that would invest 3 billion dollars for california to fund stem cell research...

um, not sure how to feel about this... i see where a lot of opponents are coming from saying it seems like a real financial risk at a time when california needs to be fiscally responsible... so i'm gonna lean with those folks.

however, i also see where people who believe it could lead to advances are coming from too.

what do you all think?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6236144/
Calif. stem cell plan gets Reagan-era aide backingBy Leonard Anderson

Updated: 8:29 p.m. ET Oct. 12, 2004SAN FRANCISCO - George Shultz, Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, voiced support Tuesday for California's initiative to float a $3 billion bond issue to fund stem cell research.

"I have lots of friends I respect and who are proven scientists and innovators. They are wildly excited about what may be discovered," Shultz, now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, told a forum on the research, which uses cells taken from human embryos.

"I don't see anything wrong with California taking this up," Shultz said.

The question of stem cell research, a divisive issue in the U.S. presidential campaign, received heightened notice with the death Sunday of "Superman" actor Christopher Reeve, an advocate for spinal cord and stem cell research since he was paralyzed in a riding accident nine years ago.

When former President Ronald Reagan died, his son Ron and widow Nancy spoke in support of lifting federal restrictions on the use of human embryos. The Reagans believe stem cell research could have helped find a cure for the former president's Alzheimer's disease.

The California ballot measure, which goes before voters on Nov. 2, would sell tax-exempt bonds to set up the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and fund 10 years of stem-cell research in the state.

The money would dwarf other U.S. public funding for the research. Republican President Bush disapproves of the use of human embryos as a source of stem cells and in 2001 sharply limited federal spending on research involving stem cells taken from human embryos.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry supports research on stem cells.

Critics say the cost of the California initiative is too high.

California State Sen. Tom McClintock, a Republican, called the proposal "a $3 billion gift handed out to biotechnology companies around the world" and said the bonds could lead to further deterioration of California's weak credit rating.

A California Field Poll issued Sunday showed Prop. 71 is backed by 46 percent of likely voters and opposed by 39 percent.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Stem cells...the new and improved Aids issue.

It's an upgraded hybrid with the following liberal components:

1)supports abortion (kill human life in the embryonic stage, maybe later stages too)
2)the homosexual appeal (think the Ron Reagan connection (such irony) and Jr. himself )
3)affects a minority group (think handicapped)
4)has the Hollywood element (think Superman and Christopher Reeve)
5) holds the necessary bleeding heart component (who doesn't feel sorry for sick people?)
6) has liberal snob appeal - (such a nice little known about subject - so easy to pontificate/fool the ignorant - who cares about speaking on the boring well-known subjects of heart disease and cancer which cause suffering to overwhelming numbers of people?)
7) it's a vote-getter (think all of the above components)

There are probably other factors but these are enough to make liberals flock to the "cause".

(If the research is on adult stems cells only, fine, but I do not agree with creating human beings and then killing human beings to provide body tissues to others. However, this is what the liberals are supporting.)

 

[NATO AIR]

what was the problem with the AIDS issue in the past?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

what was the problem with the AIDS issue in the past?

Nothing in the beginning. However it turned into a political football, much like this questionable stem cell reaseach appears to be headed.

Because of the politicizing, the aids disease has unfairly sucked up vast amounts of CDC budget money from our hard-earned tax dollars that should have gone to help in other areas. What diseases do people in the U.S. suffer from most? It is not aids, never has been.

In the 2004 CDC budget, the amount of funds earmarked for aids actually matches the amount of money being spent on terrorism preparedness and emergency response. This is outraegeous. But that is where liberal pc political pressure has taken us today.

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/FY04 Approp-factsheet.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm

 

[dilloduck]

Nothing in the beginning. However it turned into a political football, much like this questionable stem cell reaseach appears to be headed.

Because of the politicizing, the aids disease has unfairly sucked up vast amounts of CDC budget money from our hard-earned tax dollars that should have gone to help in other areas. What diseases do people in the U.S. suffer from most? It is not aids, never has been.

In the 2004 CDC budget, the amount of funds earmarked for aids actually matches the amount of money being spent on terrorism preparedness and emergency response. This is outraegeous. But that is where liberal pc political pressure has taken us today.

http://www.cdc.gov/fmo/FY04 Approp-factsheet.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/factsheets/death_causes2000.htm

AMEN---libs love hopeless causes and demanding the disease-de-jour be funded without them ever having to soil their OWN hands. "FUND THIS CRAPPY DISEASE- WE CARE BY DEMANDING YOUR TAX MONEY TO RID US FROM THIS UGLINESS " (we aren't going to actually DO anything though--it's not our bag . We just bitch)

 

[Mainframe]

Im glad you dont live in California.

Stem Cell research is needed.. whether you like it or not, it is.

But that would negate the need for for a lot of medicines, which would seriously harm the pharmaceutical companies. boo fucking hoo.

If you think this its merely "experimental", your mistaken.

In fact, I read an article where in Europe this guy lost his jaw to cancer or something, but grew a new jaw in his rib area (in a flap of flesh) and they put it in and its functional! that's just the beginning.

There is proof in stem cell research working, there was never proof in AIDS cures.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Im glad you dont live in California.

Stem Cell research is needed.. whether you like it or not, it is.

But that would negate the need for for a lot of medicines, which would seriously harm the pharmaceutical companies. boo fucking hoo.

If you think this its merely "experimental", your mistaken.

In fact, I read an article where in Europe this guy lost his jaw to cancer or something, but grew a new jaw in his rib area (in a flap of flesh) and they put it in and its functional! that's just the beginning.

There is proof in stem cell research working, there was never proof in AIDS cures.

Ah, California - the liberal land of fruits and nuts. (Isn't it past time for an earthquake to drop it into the sea?)

I don't think you clearly understand the implications of embryonic stem cell research. If you think growing a new jaw in one's rib area is just spiffy, think what else can happen. The potential ghoulishness is incomprehensible (Halloween will never be the same). Liberals would probably be just fine with the creation of human beings from which to harvest various tissues, parts, etc.- thinking that to be just spiffy too. (think The Matrix )

The whole idea of embryonic stem cells sounds rather innocent at first, even humane. It starts with a tiny human embryo - to some it's just a glop of cell tissue - which grows a little bit more tissue to be used to help someone with a medical problem. Who does that hurt you say? Never mind that you are killing one human being to help another. (Liberals believe in any means to obtain their ends.)

At what point does the growing of tissue end? What or who defines the limitations, if any? Do you let the embryo develop eyes, ears, hands, jaws? How large do you allow the human embryo to grow? Into a baby? A child? Into adult size? Frankenstein was small potatoes compared to the possibilities here.

Since liberals support the killing of a human baby as it actually starts to leave its mother, I can readily see where liberals would support the raising of human embryos, babies, children, and even adults for the harvesting of body parts because they could claim that the baby/child/adult was never actually "born".

Think cloning. Liberals would probably think it would be a great idea to clone oneself and keep a spare human being on hand to match exactly any body parts that one might need. What the heck, keep several. At 50 trade in your old heart for a new one. Live forever!

This is not to say that I oppose stem cell research - using adult stem cells does not kill anyone. Using embryos does. Liberals already support the killing of embryos and babies, and potentially older human beings, and their beliefs fall right in line with their support of embryonic stem cell research which is just another form of killing human beings. Their respect for life is abysmal. (unless it's a tree)

As Bush has said, we need to be a society that supports LIFE. Liberals support death.

 

[wade]

Eagle,

You have little or no idea what stem cell research is about. It is not cloning, it is the manipulation of the cell dna before the cell(s) has(have) become descripted. I.e., before the cell is programmed to be a finger bone cell or a liver cell.

The whole point is that the stem cells are not yet defined as any one type of cell, so we hope to be able to cause them to define themselves as we like. If we need pancreatic cells, we could culture a dish full of nothing but pancreatic cells with the desired dna strand on them, then using dna slicing techniques remove that strand and place it in a retro-virus, and then inject that into the diabetic patient to cure his diabetes. Because nothing but pancreatic cells would be involved, your concerns about "ghoulish" atrocities are unfounded.

There is a real concern along the lines you have presented, but that is not the issue with stem cells or stem cell research, which involve nothing more developed than fertalized ovums or maybe, perhaps, simple zigots. The concern would be that, if I need a new heart, I could have myself cloned to produce a perfectly compatible heart in the clone which I would then have translpanted into me. But that is a different science than stem-cell research, and that science is already mature to the point that such a thing could be done today. It is entirely possible that there are people in the world that have clones being raised for the purpose of providing spare parts - but it takes a long time to raise a clone to maturity, so it is still pretty unlikely. If some way to age such a clone much faster than normal were developed, then it would probably become a thriving business in some foriegn country, and our rich would avail themselves of it you can bet on that!

Stem-cell research is about life, not death. As long as there are laws against creating fertalized ovums specifically for stem-cell research, no lives are being lost that were not lost already.

 

[wade]

As for it being a risk for California - well maybe, but probably not. If it passes, this will probably ensure that California is the leader in Bio-Tech for at least the next decade, probably the next 5 decades. And that will be worth far far more than a few billion dollars.

 

[Mainframe]

Ah, California - the liberal land of fruits and nuts. (Isn't it past time for an earthquake to drop it into the sea?)

I don't think you clearly understand the implications of embryonic stem cell research. If you think growing a new jaw in one's rib area is just spiffy, think what else can happen. The potential ghoulishness is incomprehensible (Halloween will never be the same). Liberals would probably be just fine with the creation of human beings from which to harvest various tissues, parts, etc.- thinking that to be just spiffy too. (think The Matrix )

The whole idea of embryonic stem cells sounds rather innocent at first, even humane. It starts with a tiny human embryo - to some it's just a glop of cell tissue - which grows a little bit more tissue to be used to help someone with a medical problem. Who does that hurt you say? Never mind that you are killing one human being to help another. (Liberals believe in any means to obtain their ends.)

At what point does the growing of tissue end? What or who defines the limitations, if any? Do you let the embryo develop eyes, ears, hands, jaws? How large do you allow the human embryo to grow? Into a baby? A child? Into adult size? Frankenstein was small potatoes compared to the possibilities here.

Since liberals support the killing of a human baby as it actually starts to leave its mother, I can readily see where liberals would support the raising of human embryos, babies, children, and even adults for the harvesting of body parts because they could claim that the baby/child/adult was never actually "born".

Think cloning. Liberals would probably think it would be a great idea to clone oneself and keep a spare human being on hand to match exactly any body parts that one might need. What the heck, keep several. At 50 trade in your old heart for a new one. Live forever!

This is not to say that I oppose stem cell research - using adult stem cells does not kill anyone. Using embryos does. Liberals already support the killing of embryos and babies, and potentially older human beings, and their beliefs fall right in line with their support of embryonic stem cell research which is just another form of killing human beings. Their respect for life is abysmal. (unless it's a tree)

As Bush has said, we need to be a society that supports LIFE. Liberals support death.

Actually, I wont waste my time with an answer for you, wade did well. You got some serious hate issues, especially with liberals.

And by the way, Im no liberal. Moderate, yes. Liberal, no. Yes I live in California and fuck you for hating on it. :finger:

Sorry everyone else, normally Im not aggressive, but when you start insulting my home, then its gloves off time.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Eagle,

You have little or no idea what stem cell research is about. It is not cloning, it is the manipulation of the cell dna before the cell(s) has(have) become descripted. I.e., before the cell is programmed to be a finger bone cell or a liver cell.

The whole point is that the stem cells are not yet defined as any one type of cell, so we hope to be able to cause them to define themselves as we like. If we need pancreatic cells, we could culture a dish full of nothing but pancreatic cells with the desired dna strand on them, then using dna slicing techniques remove that strand and place it in a retro-virus, and then inject that into the diabetic patient to cure his diabetes. Because nothing but pancreatic cells would be involved, your concerns about "ghoulish" atrocities are unfounded.

There is a real concern along the lines you have presented, but that is not the issue with stem cells or stem cell research, which involve nothing more developed than fertalized ovums or maybe, perhaps, simple zigots. The concern would be that, if I need a new heart, I could have myself cloned to produce a perfectly compatible heart in the clone which I would then have translpanted into me. But that is a different science than stem-cell research, and that science is already mature to the point that such a thing could be done today. It is entirely possible that there are people in the world that have clones being raised for the purpose of providing spare parts - but it takes a long time to raise a clone to maturity, so it is still pretty unlikely. If some way to age such a clone much faster than normal were developed, then it would probably become a thriving business in some foriegn country, and our rich would avail themselves of it you can bet on that!

Stem-cell research is about life, not death. As long as there are laws against creating fertalized ovums specifically for stem-cell research, no lives are being lost that were not lost already.

Sorry Wade, but "ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma (tissue rejection) is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning.""

I have said before that I am not against adult stem cell research. It has already shown much more promise than ESCR. It is morally wrong to raise and then kill a human being for medical science, no matter what stage of life that human being is at. If stem cell research is supposed to be about life, as you say, then why bring death into the picture? You were once a zygote yourself, remember?

If you think I got carried away with my Halloweenish ghoulish imaginings, think again. For instance, are you aware of today's baby parts market? Just put selling baby parts into google and you will find all sorts of ghoulish stories that are real. Combine this with embryonic research of humans and God knows what will result. It's too early to say.

As for California, I think it is a beautiful state. Used to live there. However, the liberals have ruined it politically, imo. This political environment harbors much evil and I am afraid they will lead the charge to support biotechnology that is immorally-based. That's a door I never want to see legally opened.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1136766/posts

 

[wade]

Sorry Wade, but "ESCR (embryonic stem cell research) is known as the gateway to human cloning, since one proposed way out of this potential dilemma (tissue rejection) is to create cloned embryos of patients being treated as a source of stem cells, a process known as "therapeutic cloning.""

I have said before that I am not against adult stem cell research. It has already shown much more promise than ESCR. It is morally wrong to raise and then kill a human being for medical science, no matter what stage of life that human being is at. If stem cell research is supposed to be about life, as you say, then why bring death into the picture? You were once a zygote yourself, remember?

If you think I got carried away with my Halloweenish ghoulish imaginings, think again. For instance, are you aware of today's baby parts market? Just put selling baby parts into google and you will find all sorts of ghoulish stories that are real. Combine this with embryonic research of humans and God knows what will result. It's too early to say.

As for California, I think it is a beautiful state. Used to live there. However, the liberals have ruined it politically, imo. This political environment harbors much evil and I am afraid they will lead the charge to support biotechnology that is immorally-based. That's a door I never want to see legally opened.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1136766/posts

Human cloning is already totally doable. It does not require anything we don't already know how to do. Simply take the target ovum and replace its dna with that of the desired subject and walla, you have a clone. It's really pretty easy, relatively speaking.

The whole point behind embronic stem cell research is to find a way to make the cells grow only into the type you want. If this can be done, there are two avenues to creating cures, the first would be to transplant modified dna from the intended patient into the cells and then force them to be the type you want, lets say liver cells, so you can grow a new liver for the person. The other way would be to use it to create a large amount of proper dna which can then be sliced off and implanted into the existing cells of the subject. Both methods rely on the fact that the embrionic stem cell has not yet defined its type. Which parts of the genetic code will be active and which dormant has not yet been determined.

The crux of the argument comes down to when you consider it morally wrong to use the cells. Your position is evidently that the moment of conception defines a new life, even if the cells are then placed in a freezer and will never be alowed to mature. My position is that it does not become meaningful human life until the moment that at some level it can think "I am", which I believe to be at the point the cerebral cortex becomes active.

However, because there is some small possiblity I am wrong, I do not support the creation of fertalized ovum specifically for stem cell research. However, if there are leftover ovums from legitimate fertilitiy treatments, I think there is nothing immoral about using these - they will never mature anyway. The potential benefits to humanity are huge, and the loss to the immature ovum is nil - it was doomed never to be born anyway.

Wade.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Human cloning is already totally doable. It does not require anything we don't already know how to do. Simply take the target ovum and replace its dna with that of the desired subject and walla, you have a clone. It's really pretty easy, relatively speaking.

The whole point behind embronic stem cell research is to find a way to make the cells grow only into the type you want. If this can be done, there are two avenues to creating cures, the first would be to transplant modified dna from the intended patient into the cells and then force them to be the type you want, lets say liver cells, so you can grow a new liver for the person. The other way would be to use it to create a large amount of proper dna which can then be sliced off and implanted into the existing cells of the subject. Both methods rely on the fact that the embrionic stem cell has not yet defined its type. Which parts of the genetic code will be active and which dormant has not yet been determined.

The crux of the argument comes down to when you consider it morally wrong to use the cells. Your position is evidently that the moment of conception defines a new life, even if the cells are then placed in a freezer and will never be alowed to mature. My position is that it does not become meaningful human life until the moment that at some level it can think "I am", which I believe to be at the point the cerebral cortex becomes active.

However, because there is some small possiblity I am wrong, I do not support the creation of fertalized ovum specifically for stem cell research. However, if there are leftover ovums from legitimate fertilitiy treatments, I think there is nothing immoral about using these - they will never mature anyway. The potential benefits to humanity are huge, and the loss to the immature ovum is nil - it was doomed never to be born anyway.

Wade.

Glad to hear that you do not support ESCR. Scientists have plenty of other material to work with without having to create and destroy human beings in the process.

 

[wade]

Glad to hear that you do not support ESCR. Scientists have plenty of other material to work with without having to create and destroy human beings in the process.

I do support it, but only using ESC's that would other wise simply go to waste. There are pleanty of such cells available to be used today, and if they are not used, within about 8 years of their being frozen, they will be dead. That's just a waste and a lack of respect for life.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I do support it, but only using ESC's that would other wise simply go to waste. There are pleanty of such cells available to be used today, and if they are not used, within about 8 years of their being frozen, they will be dead. That's just a waste and a lack of respect for life.

Wha?

Wade, you just said "However, because there is some small possiblity I am wrong, I do not support the creation of fertalized ovum specifically for stem cell research."

If you are just using an ovum (a female egg cell), new human life has not yet been created and this is not an embryonic cell.

When an egg (ovum) and a sperm unite you get a zygote which is the technical term used for before the fertilized egg cell starts to divide. A fertilized egg (or ovum) is also called an embryo which is the beginning of life.

 

[wade]

Wha?

Wade, you just said "However, because there is some small possiblity I am wrong, I do not support the creation of fertalized ovum specifically for stem cell research."

If you are just using an ovum (a female egg cell), new human life has not yet been created and this is not an embryonic cell.

When an egg (ovum) and a sperm unite you get a zygote which is the technical term used for before the fertilized egg cell starts to divide. A fertilized egg (or ovum) is also called an embryo which is the beginning of life.

Yes I know the technical terms, I should have been more clear.

I basically agree. And thus I do not support creating such life specifically to destroy it or use it for our purposes. However, if the zygot is a leftover from a fertility collection, and it is not going to become a human being no matter what, I think it is appropriate to use it for stem-cell research. The leftover zygots are the byproduct of invitro fertilization for those who would not otherwise be able to concieve. As long as they are doomed never to mature anyway, I see no moral issue in using them for research which might spare suffering for millions, perhaps billions, of living human beings.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yes I know the technical terms, I should have been more clear.

I basically agree. And thus I do not support creating such life specifically to destroy it or use it for our purposes. However, if the zygot is a leftover from a fertility collection, and it is not going to become a human being no matter what, I think it is appropriate to use it for stem-cell research. The leftover zygots are the byproduct of invitro fertilization for those who would not otherwise be able to concieve. As long as they are doomed never to mature anyway, I see no moral issue in using them for research which might spare suffering for millions, perhaps billions, of living human beings.

Leftovers?

These "leftovers" are human beings in their embryonic stage of life.

 

[wade]

Leftovers?

These "leftovers" are human beings in their embryonic stage of life.

When a couple seek invitro-fertalization to overcome infertility, the mother is given drugs to cause her to mass ovulate. Because of the expense, pain, an risks involved in the collection process, it is necessary to collect multiple eggs at this point. These are then fertalized in a "test tube", and then examined to make sure they are not flawed. Then a passing ziogot is implanted in the mother or surrigate mother, but very often this process fails and the zigot is miscarried. The backup zigots are frozen until needed, and the process is repeated until successful or all the eggs are used up. For some reason I do not understand, it is generally not very successful to store unfertalized frozen eggs and then try to fertalize them at the time they are needed.

Once a baby is produced, perhaps several, there are often a dozen or more of these zigots left over. They can be stored for less than a decade, after which they die. These are the zigots I believe are approriate for stem-cell research. They have virtually no chance of ever progressing beyond the zigot stage. The true waste is to just let them die, rather than using them to improve the health and life of others.

If I were such a zigot, I'd rather be used in this manner than simply allowed to die. First off, I would rather help my fellow man if I can, especially when it is at no cost to me. That's why I have specified myself as an organ doner. Second, this is the only chance there is that any of my genetic material might survive me (a small consolation I agree).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When a couple seek invitro-fertalization to overcome infertility, the mother is given drugs to cause her to mass ovulate. Because of the expense, pain, an risks involved in the collection process, it is necessary to collect multiple eggs at this point. These are then fertalized in a "test tube", and then examined to make sure they are not flawed. Then a passing ziogot is implanted in the mother or surrigate mother, but very often this process fails and the zigot is miscarried. The backup zigots are frozen until needed, and the process is repeated until successful or all the eggs are used up. For some reason I do not understand, it is generally not very successful to store unfertalized frozen eggs and then try to fertalize them at the time they are needed.

Once a baby is produced, perhaps several, there are often a dozen or more of these zigots left over. They can be stored for less than a decade, after which they die. These are the zigots I believe are approriate for stem-cell research. They have virtually no chance of ever progressing beyond the zigot stage. The true waste is to just let them die, rather than using them to improve the health and life of others.

If I were such a zigot, I'd rather be used in this manner than simply allowed to die. First off, I would rather help my fellow man if I can, especially when it is at no cost to me. That's why I have specified myself as an organ doner. Second, this is the only chance there is that any of my genetic material might survive me (a small consolation I agree).

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a practice that carelessly creates human embryos that may not ever have a chance of maturing. There are other infertility procedures such as the TOT and the GIFT procedures. TOT (tubal ovum transfer) is where ova is taken from the fallopian tubes and placed in the uterus which makes it more accessible to the sperm. GIFT (gamete intra-fallopian tube transfer) is the procedure where both gametes (sperm and ova) are collected and the physician places the gametes using a laparoscope into the fallopian tubes of the women where natural fertilization takes place. These methods may not percentage-wise be as successful, but they allow for a more normal birth and do not destroy life in the process.

I am against IVF "test tube babies" as you can tell. As you pointed out, there are "leftovers" which will likely die. These are still human beings - at their most vulnerable stage of life - and to then take them for the purpose of growing tissues for others to use is grotesque and immoral imo. If we have such a cavalier attitude toward the life of a human, no matter how small it is, it is easy to see how this cavalier attitude can affect other future decisions to be made in the future frankenstein world of medical science. If a human being is allowed to be "used" at the cellular/tissue level, what is to stop human beings from being "used" at later stages of development as well? Where do you draw the line? Most moral people draw it at the very start of life. An embryo is a tiny human being in the making.

Using embryos is treating human beings as research material. This echoes what the Nazis did during the Holocaust when they also used human beings for research. There is ethically no difference. And the ends do not justify the means.

http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/preconception/fertilityproblems/4094.html
http://www.wramc.amedd.army.mil/education/pat_edu/womenhlth/infertility/infertilitytreatmnt.htm

 

[wade]

Wha?

Wade, you just said "However, because there is some small possiblity I am wrong, I do not support the creation of fertalized ovum specifically for stem cell research."

If you are just using an ovum (a female egg cell), new human life has not yet been created and this is not an embryonic cell.

When an egg (ovum) and a sperm unite you get a zygote which is the technical term used for before the fertilized egg cell starts to divide. A fertilized egg (or ovum) is also called an embryo which is the beginning of life.

But if that "embreo" will never develop beyond the zigot stage, and is doomed to destruction anyway, I see no moral issue with using it for the betterment of mankind. I do not believe that life becomes sacred until it becomes self-aware, and as I've stated before, I believe this occures when the cerebral cortex becomes active, which is probably not earlier than about the 5th week, maybe later (I'd have to do some research to pin down how many weeks into development this occurs).

Since there are quite a few such zigots available, I think this is an appropriate avenue for aquiring the stem cells, as long as they are created for fertility treatments and are legitimate extras.