Stem Cell Research vs. The Morning After Pill

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

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.

My question, hopefully more precisely stated, is this:

Does embryonic research provide an economic incentive to abortion?

[Archaea]

Now that you got me thinking, why can't politicians and scientists who would be political, ever get the terminology right.

So, it's zygotic stem cell research. It doesn't give me heartache whether we fund it or not. The question is whether the federal government should be in the business of funding research at all.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now that you got me thinking, why can't politicians and scientists who would be political, ever get the terminology right.

So, it's zygotic stem cell research. It doesn't give me heartache whether we fund it or not. The question is whether the federal government should be in the business of funding research at all.

If that is the question then the answer should be apparent to any person who values the technological and economic privilege that Americans have enjoyed for the last century.

HELL YES, the government should be funding research.

[Archaea]

I'm not so certain I agree, but the next question lies in priority of research dollars.

There are more requesters than dollars.

The argument for zygotic research dollars is "it's promising."

I'd need a better balancing statement to fall in favor of that.

For you to understand my point of view, I'm generally against most government spending.

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now that you got me thinking, why can't politicians and scientists who would be political, ever get the terminology right.

So, it's zygotic stem cell research. It doesn't give me heartache whether we fund it or not. The question is whether the federal government should be in the business of funding research at all.

Depends on the type of research. If there is an economic incentive to the research then I am not in favor of the government funding it. Any type of pure research that does not carry a financial incentive, I am completely in favor of government funding, overwise it will not get done.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by All-American

My question, hopefully more precisely stated, is this:

Does embryonic research provide an economic incentive to abortion?

I would answer no. The embryos are from in-vitro fertilizations and donated. There is an ample supply if access is allowed.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

Depends on the type of research. If there is an economic incentive to the research then I am not in favor of the government funding it. Any type of pure research that does not carry a financial incentive, I am completely in favor of government funding, overwise it will not get done.

If there is no economic incentive, then what would the purpose or standard be for funding that research?

Should we research how many grains of sand are in the seven seas?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now that you got me thinking, why can't politicians and scientists who would be political, ever get the terminology right.

It seems to be just a matter of semantics. The definition of embryo in the case of embryonic stem cell research is "the developing organism from the time of fertilization to the 8th week of gestation." They don't worry about implantation in their definition. I suppose it might help their cause to call it zygotic stem cell research, but in the end, what does it matter?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

Depends on the type of research. If there is an economic incentive to the research then I am not in favor of the government funding it. Any type of pure research that does not carry a financial incentive, I am completely in favor of government funding, overwise it will not get done.

Has there ever been medical research done that did not carry a financial incentive?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'm not so certain I agree, but the next question lies in priority of research dollars.

There are more requesters than dollars.

The argument for zygotic research dollars is "it's promising."

I'd need a better balancing statement to fall in favor of that.

For you to understand my point of view, I'm generally against most government spending.

Conservatives who say stuff like this are like liberals who say, "Bush lied, people died."

Tragically uninformed.