a hypothetical for the anti-stem cell research folks

[they don't love you like i love you]

You're in a hospital room. There's a newborn baby in a crib next to you and a petri dish with over a thousand embryos on the other side. Suddenly a wall collapses and a fire breaks out. You have to get out, and you only have enough time to escape grabbing the baby or the petri dish. Which do you take?

By the logic of the anti-stem cell research folks, it would be better to save the petri dish, as that is over a thousand "humans" as opposed to only one.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The baby--it is more likely to survive after a fire and all that smoke; however, there are lives in the petri dish.

[minionofmidas]

The baby--it is more likely to survive after a fire and all that smoke; however, there are lives in the petri dish.

[MODU]

There are very few on here who are anti-embryonic stem cell research.  We are primarily anti-US tax dollars being spent on the destruction of embryos.  Private firms can fund the research themselves.  As in the news article I posted last week, there is a new method out which might allow the creation of embryonic stemcells by removing a single cell from an embryo.  As long as the development of the embryo is not impaired, I have no problems with federal funding going to this method of research.

[Flying Dog]

There are very few on here who are anti-embryonic stem cell research.  We are primarily anti-US tax dollars being spent on the destruction of embryos.  Private firms can fund the research themselves.  As in the news article I posted last week, there is a new method out which might allow the creation of embryonic stemcells by removing a single cell from an embryo.  As long as the development of the embryo is not impaired, I have no problems with federal funding going to this method of research.

MODU, I thought you had no objection to Embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds. You just thought taxpayers shouldnt pay for everything. Now they find this new way to do the research and you do dont oppose federal funding, correct? If so then you do have have moral objections to stem cell research with the destruction of embryoes. EVEN THOUGH THOSE EMBRYOES ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAYS.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Obviously you save the baby, the petri dish won't surive the fire.  But if you can save them both, because the petri dish will become life, you save them both. 

[MODU]

There are very few on here who are anti-embryonic stem cell research.  We are primarily anti-US tax dollars being spent on the destruction of embryos.  Private firms can fund the research themselves.  As in the news article I posted last week, there is a new method out which might allow the creation of embryonic stemcells by removing a single cell from an embryo.  As long as the development of the embryo is not impaired, I have no problems with federal funding going to this method of research.

MODU, I thought you had no objection to Embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds. You just thought taxpayers shouldnt pay for everything. Now they find this new way to do the research and you do dont oppose federal funding, correct? If so then you do have have moral objections to stem cell research with the destruction of embryoes. EVEN THOUGH THOSE EMBRYOES ARE GOING TO BE DESTROYED ANYWAYS.

Points which I have been consistant on:
- I do not have any moral objections of private funds being used to destroy embryos to conduct research on embryonic stem cells.
- Tax payers should pay for everything.
- Tax payers should pay for the destruction of embryos in the name of science.
- Research companies should be able to buy unneeded embryo's from fertility clinics with the parents approval. 

So, what's your point? 

One thing which people keep ignoring in this discussion is the developmental stage of the embryo which researchers are looking for in order to obtain the "perfect" cells.  This is within the first few divisions of the cells, which places it within the first week of fertilization.  Most fertility clinics allow embryos to develope into the second week to ensure that the embryo is active and suitable for IVF.  They produce multiple embryos from the same parents in case the first IVF treatment doesn't take (which is often).  Since it takes a few weeks between IVF treatments, your embryo's (event though they are frozen), have still matured, but just at a very slow rate.  So, not all of the embryo's left over from patient uses are adequate for the type of research desired by the scientists.  Now, if the researchers want to do the fertilization process themselves and destroy the embryo at the right age, they are more than free to do so, but that will cost them more money than buying slightly more mature embryos from fertility clinics.

[??????????]

If it is baby BRTD, well then the Petri dish, mainly because only one of those embryos is at least 3x smarter then BRTD.

[jerusalemcar5]

For you all skirting the question by saying the embryos wouldnt survive, lets say they would.  Would you save 1000 embryos or a baby?

[minionofmidas]

For you all skirting the question by saying the embryos wouldnt survive, lets say they would.  Would you save 1000 embryos or a baby?

A baby.

[7,052,770]

For you all skirting the question by saying the embryos wouldnt survive, lets say they would.  Would you save 1000 embryos or a baby?

a baby (normal and sane)