Unless they used eggs from the same host animal as before, they are unlikely to be genetically identical since the mitochondrial DNA will be different.

The mitochondrial DNA problem is one reason why embryonic stem cells produced via cloning are still rejected by the animal in which it is implanted.

These were not embryonic stem cells. This issue has typically been muddied to cause this confusion. They were adult stem cells. The reason to be against the use of embryonic stem cells is because they involve the death of the embryo, and contrary to popular opinion, any first-year textbook on embryology will inform you that an embryo is a human being.

What therapies have embryonic stem cells given us?,And what expectation is there for embryonic stem cells to be used in therapies? None. What therapies have adult stem cells given us? Well, it has made people with spinal injuries walk, for starters. Do a google search for: "Adult Stem Cell Grafts Help Paralyzed" for an example. If Christopher Reeve was alive today, he would have egg on his face for supporting embryonic stem cell research.

Now, with induced pluripotent stem cells being produced in vast numbers safely - just do a google search for "Scripps ipsc" - what is the point of any embryonic stem cell research? IPSCs can be generated quicker, cheaper, and by less-experienced personal (including medical doctors themselves). It has the one feature of embryonic stem cells for which they are prized - pluripotency - without the problems of embryonic stem cells - lack of sufficient genetic relationship to a patient (even with cloning, you don't get that). There is no therapeutic requirement for embryonic stem cells - and never was, by the way, as said by even James Thompson, the pioneer of embryonic stem cell research. There is no research requirement anymore with IPSCs.

So, I rephrase your question ... is there any reason to be for embryonic stem cells? I can think of a possible reason ... it gives drug companies a source that they can control. I am sure it is just a co-incidence that drug companies are spending billions on trying to influence political candidates to support embryonic stem cell research.

Peace is clearly getting easier to 'do'. Al Gore had to invent the internet!

It is ironic that everyone thinks the Bush government banned Human Embryonic Stem Cell (HESC) research when the Bush government was actually the first US government to allow Federal Funding for HESC research. Further, under the Bush Administration, State Governments were not limited by the law on federal funding for HESC. Otherwise, how can you explain the wasteful California Institute of Regenerative Medicine, whose mandate was to do HESC research with 3 billion dollars of tax payer money (which is now run by an Australian scientist, Alan Trounson, who has admitted that he lied to the Australian parliament in order to get Australia to support HESC - I still remember that fake video of the rat rhat he said was cured with HESC which was broadcast all around Australia), and which has been investigated for fraud and money laundering,

Of course, with private funding, which is the main source of funding in the area of stem cells, scientists could do whatever they wanted. It is further ironic that, during the supposed "Bush ban on HESC research", American scientists managed to somehow produce more papers on HESC than all other countries combined.

In truth, America has had a lack of laws to guide stem cell research in general and has only merely limited federal funding to approved stem cell lines. Obama has merely allowed the a;ready existing funding to be used for more stem cell liknes. This is hardly a cause for claiming the U.S. conducts ethically responsible research.

The dominant view prior to the emerging of Christianity was that women were inferior to men, and Christianity changed that. The early church fathers were quite explicit in the equal dignity of both men and women.

For example, Clement of Alexandria (3rd century) taught that a man could not force a woman to marry him or love him. St Augustine (4th Century) taught that the male and female had equal dignity. He also instructed that wives not tolerate infidelity from their spouses, and that husbands are under the guardianship of their wives. St Ambrose (late 4th century) severely criticized the dowry system because it treated women like merchandise to be sold for a price. "Slaves are sold under more tolerable conditions and possess more dignity, as they can often choose their own masters, but if a maiden chooses it is an offense, if not an insult.".

This was regularly taught by the early church fathers and the popes ... in other words, from the Seat of St Peter. Under "Peter's foundation", the salvation of man was due to both a man (Jesus Christ) and a woman. Without Mary (theotokos, the God Bearer), there would be no salvation. It is true that the Roman empire was very patriarchal. However, Christianity was not the Roman Empire and never was. That is precisely why they were persecuted for the first 3 centuries! Unlike other 'religions' like Gnosticism and Mithraism, Christianity refused to syncretise or 'merge' with the prevailing religion of the Roman empire.