Question about republican views on embryonic stem cell research?

seeing as how the fetus is going to be destroyed anyway, why shouldn't they be used to aid in preserving human life of those that are alive now? To me it seems logical to use something that has a 0% chance of life to help the living. Is it just fear of "baby harvesting" or do you have a moral issue with it?

Personally, I don't have any problem with embryonic stem cell research. I agree that if the child is dead, at the very least we are obligated to make the best situation of it. It is the fear of so called "baby harvesting" that does have me a bit shaky though, and I imagine this is what the primary concern that my fellow conservatives have. By permitting this, it does allow the creation of a market where companies could offer you money for your baby. So, if you have a poor female that needs money, she could be paid to terminate the life of the unborn child. In today's society, there are enough factors already for her to consider, the mother does not need that extra push towards abortion.

That being said these are two totally separate issues. Yes, it does allow the creation of that market, but that could easily be avoided with a law preventing it.

jus mind ya business aight

There is no sense in putting hope in false hope
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/old/Pren...
http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/tr...

How long before this happens?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/...

You are right ... and actually Bush is the first to fund stem cell research on EXISTING stem cell lines. But doing so with non-existent lines would provide economic incentive for more abortions, which he has outlawed.

Why are they fertelizing eggs they're not going to use anyways?

My own beliefs, I do not care about stem cell research, but I don't think the gov't needs to pay for it. We discovered the polio vaccine without gov't money.

I've got no problems if the little bugger is going to be destroyed anyway, and it's got absolutely no way it would live.

But no baby harvesting. No flippin' way should we be making more of those.

When explaining his opinion on stem cell research, Bush claimed he could not support a tax payer funded policy that "destroys life in order to save life."

But certainly Bush knew before he launched the war in Iraq that there would be innocent people killed in the cross-fire of battle. Certainly he knew that this military initiative (meant to protect us from WMD [to preserve or "save" lives]) would result in the end of thousands of innocent lives.

Sidenote: By Bush's standard a clump of cells in a petrie dish is worth more than an Iraqi civilian. Nice, eh?

"seeing as how the fetus is going to be destroyed anyway" is the first problem we have with it. A "fetus" is an unborn baby.

We have no problem with stem-cell research if the cells come from adult sources or umbilical cord fluid, etc. It's the "destroying an innocent human life" part we have the problem with.

I have a moral issue as well as the fact that we are creating a slippery slope of ethic, here.

Personally, I think it's a good idea however implementing this would be dangerous. What would it take for someone to get pregnant with the sole purpose of doing just that. Killing the baby and using the stem cells.

I just think we need to seriously consider the second and third order effects of this and seek out other options.

how would the fetus be destroyed anyway??...thats the flaw in your question...

For some it's the fear of "baby harvesting" and for others it's the morality of it - it's the fruit of the poisonous tree. Remember the experiments the Nazis conducted on torture victims? Well they kept meticulous data and there was a big medical ethics issue over whether to use the data. Many Republicans see this in the same light.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong but it's a valid, legitimate position.

I am not a republican and I doubt you will get a legitimate answer from one on here either because they are to busy attacking others because their beliefs differ.

However, I don't see why they would be against it if the fetus will not live anyway. I have never understood why republicans are so quick to kill any other time but are so against abortion.

Republican here...

I agree with you.

The argument isn't should we or shouldn't we proceed with stem cell research. That is a no-brainer. The debate is who should fund it. I believe that it should be funded in the private sector. I don't believe it should be funded by the federal government when there are so many other areas of the budget that needs our attention.

Why do any research at all . To save the ignorant conservatives so they can trash the very people who have a brain and use it to develop new concepts , plans and foster the better understanding of the world we live in .
Every single liberal has been jailed or killed by a group of delusional nut cases bent on telling everyone they are going to hell .

The Republicans need to hold the Religious Right base!

Since people are going to murder, rape and setal ANYWAY, why not just make it legal?

Cons are just jealous cause embryos are smarter than them.

Since they don't use abortions for embryonic stem cell reasearch (and since you didn't say embryonic, you will get a bunch of non answers) I would guess that the right to lifers should be outside the fertility clinics protesting.

EDIT: Bush also had fertility treatments to have the twins, i wonder if onbe of those '
lines' came from THEIR unwanted embryos?