At the end of World War II, women had proven their ability to keep the countries war production up. The women who ended up "barefoot and pregnant" made poor choices for fathers. I know because I was one of those "poor choices" as my father fought in Korea and came home changed into a pedephile. Would I have preferred my mother to conveniently have me sucked out of her womb piece by piece and never have a chance at life?

I lived through the abuse having faith that my father would not always have power over my life. Perhaps many of you came from the generation before me who fought during World War II or the Korean war. That generation lived through the depression and learned to pinch pennies. Unfortunately, they were determined to make their children's lives better and gave their children all the things they had to do without.

The main point of my post above is part of what Shari posted. She stated her opinions well, until she ended with:
"How ethical is it to have created 40,000 excess embryos from in vitro fertilization (IVF), knowing they would eventually end up in the trash? The surest way to prevent the destruction of these embryos is not to create them in the first place, but I've yet to hear Mr. Bush oppose IVF or suggest it would be more ethical for couples to adopt children already here and waiting for families to love them.

It seems to me that Bush's stance speaks for itself and has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with arrogance and hypocrisy.
"

Her judgement of George Bush was came from guesswork and not facts. If she is able to confirm the George Bush never was against abortion or invitro fertilization and its results, then proof should be provided not just assumptions. No one can speak for me about stem cells but me when I go to the polls, including Mr. Fox. While I have great admiration for his willingness to use his fame to make a difference; I do not agree with what he considers what a positive difference is. I don't support stem cell research for my own sound reasons.

Vicky