I asked Robert Princeton George about that Massachusetts rep’s weird science (which was heard a bit in the California cloning debate, too) and Robby responded thus:

Bosley’s comments are Barbara Boxer-level wacky. “Fertilized embryo” is–how shall I put this?–a non-concept. The point Bosley is missing (or trying to evade) is that embryos can be brought into being in two (in fact, more than two) distinct ways: by fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell OR by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Either way, if the process is successful, what you end up with is a nascent human being–a whole, living member of the species homo sapiens–who will, if provided with a suitable environment and adequate nutrition, soon be conjugating verbs and then asking for the car keys. Now, of course cloning can fail; so can fertilization. Embryos can be defective, and can be defective in ways that will prevent implantation. In the case of cloning experimentation, many embryos will be defective. Yet they are embryos, just as retarded children are children. At the same time, sometimes failures of fertilization or cloning processes are so severe that embryogenesis doesn’t take place. What is created is a non-embryonic growth, such as a complete hydatidiform mole or a teratoma. These are disorganized, tumor-like entities, rather than embryonic members of the species. But this is not what Bosley has in mind (to the extent that he can be said to have anything in mind).