Stem Cell Research vs. The Morning After Pill

[Robin]

Is there a moral difference between the two? Both destroy unplanted human embryos. There is more on the table than that, but if the sanctity of human life is what drives the morality question on these issues, isn't this the key similarity?

[Archaea]

I'm okay with the Morning after pill, seeing it as a form of anti-implanation, IUD.

I'm okay with stem cell research, but I don't see it as a big deal that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is not continued. Much ado about nothing.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm okay with stem cell research, but I don't see it as a big deal that federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is not continued. Much ado about nothing.

Had Bush used this as his reasoning, I'd have less of a problem with his veto. But he made it pretty clear that he vetoed because he felt there was something morally wrong with expanding to new lines. That's where he loses me and many other moderates. How is being used for research any worse than being frozen for eternity or eventually being "destroyed". Those who argue that it was a veto in favor of life make no sense at all in my opinion.

[fusnik11]

Destroys embryos?

Can a medical doctor please teach us what the pre-embryonic stage is?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Had Bush used this as his reasoning, I'd have less of a problem with his veto. But he made it pretty clear that he vetoed because he felt there was something morally wrong with expanding to new lines. That's where he loses me and many other moderates. How is being used for research any worse than being frozen for eternity or eventually being "destroyed". Those who argue that it was a veto in favor of life make no sense at all in my opinion.

What if a point came where we figured out how to unthaw all those people who had themselves frozen while they were terminally ill, but knew definitively that there was no way to cure them. Would it be okay to wake them up and experiment on them or harvest their organs since they were going to remain frozen anyway and maybe be eventually destroyed?

If you think that an unimplanted embryo is a person, then I don't know what the distinction is. I will cop out by saying that I don't know, and doubt frankly, whether an unimplanted embryo is a person so in my world one is human and one may ot may not be.

What think ye?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What think ye?

Why don't you go do some study as to what an embryo really is.

You'll be surprised to find out how misleading the idea of 'embryonic' stem cell research is.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

What if a point came where we figured out how to unthaw all those people who had themselves frozen while they were terminally ill, but knew definitively that there was no way to cure them. Would it be okay to wake them up and experiment on them or harvest their organs since they were going to remain frozen anyway and maybe be eventually destroyed?

If you think that an unimplanted embryo is a person, then I don't know what the distinction is. I will cop out by saying that I don't know, and doubt frankly, whether an unimplanted embryo is a person so in my world one is human and one may ot may not be.

What think ye?

My point was that if people are worried about those embryos being life then they've already let things go a step too far with in-vitro fertilization techniques. There are multiple embryos (or zygotes for Fus) left frozen after these attempts. If that is a life, then why are the same people ok with freezing the life indefinitely? Seems silly to me.

[All-American]

Question:

Would Embryonic research be conducted upon aborted fetuses? If so, would it add an economic incentive for abortion? Would federal dollars be used to provide this incentive?

If not, correct me.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

Question:

Would Embryonic research be conducted upon aborted fetuses? If so, would it add an economic incentive for abortion? Would federal dollars be used to provide this incentive?

If not, correct me.

I don't understand this line of questioning....zie tables have turned Herr Doctor!

'Embryonic' stem cell research does not exist. The stem cells studied are cells that exist before the egg becomes a embryo.

This is what happens:

a. Sperm and egg unite, conception occurs.

b. Fertilized egg travels down the tubes of a woman.

c. Egg plants into the wall of a woman's uterus. (24-48 hours after conception)

d. Germ layers form around the egg, it is now a zygote.

e. The zygote rapidly increases in size, and three germ layers are formed from these germ layers come all the things needed for a human, the 'embryonic' stem cell research is the study of this period of gestation. (We are now at the 14 day mark)

f. After a little bit certain characteristics are discernable in the zygote, and it turns from a zygote to a chordate. (chordate is an important word)

g. From week three to eight we are chordates and are in the embryonic stage of life. The development of the human is well under way.

h. After about eight weeks on we graduate from being chordates and are now a fetuses.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

Question:

Would Embryonic research be conducted upon aborted fetuses? If so, would it add an economic incentive for abortion? Would federal dollars be used to provide this incentive?

If not, correct me.

After re-reading the thread, I understand exactly what you were saying, I am a freaking idiot.