I'm against abortion, but even I would have difficulty stretching the definition of a baby to include a microscopic fertilized blastocyst of a few dozen cells, before it has even implanted in the uterus.
Standard fertility treatments (in vitro fertilization techniques) often require many false starts before a fertilized egg is successfully implanted, and many eggs are lost. Using such eggs for experimentation, depending on the goal of the research, does not seem to me to be a problem. This puts me in opposition to some pro-lifers, but so be it.
Again, this is all a red herring. If we could get off the obsession with all research somehow having to be Federally funded, Bush's opinion wouldn't even be an issue.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Not really a huge stretch, Tom . . .
a stretch
The whole thread (29 posts)
- Stem cell research
- Policy Brief: Stem Cell Research . . .
- The ironic thing about stem cell research
- A small part.
- Bush alone can't kill medical progress
