NationStates Jolt Archive

There has been quite a raging debate about embryonic stem cell research recently, and yet I see very few people at all concerned about in vitro fertilization, in which - as a necessity to the procedure - more embryos are created than are used. These excess embryos are more often than not destroyed.

I know that there are those who feel that life begins at the moment of fertilization, regardless of the fact that most fertilized eggs never develop into a child. That is the perogative of the person in question. My problem is thus - why are these people not as adamantly against in vitro fertilization - which leads to the destruction of many more embryos than research has?

On top of this, leaders of numerous faiths, from methodist to muslim, have stated that not only in vitro fertilization, but as a by product, embryonic stem cell research, is fully justified under their faith. Interesting, no?

Anyways, I want opinions. =)

i feel strongly that every embryo created for invitro should be given a chance at life. they should not be left frozen forever. they shouldnt be destroyed, they shouldnt be experimented with. they should be given to couples who cannot make their own embryo. it should be part of the contract a couple makes with the lab. if they dont like it, they can use all their embryos themselves or go without.

i feel strongly that every embryo created for invitro should be given a chance at life. they should not be left frozen forever. they shouldnt be destroyed, they shouldnt be experimented with. they should be given to couples who cannot make their own embryo. it should be part of the contract a couple makes with the lab. if they dont like it, they can use all their embryos themselves or go without.

I was unaware that there were so many couples who wanted to adopt these embryos. How come so many are rotting and being thrown out as medical waste?

Honestly, I wouldn't get so bent out of shape over this goo when there are 128 million Americans suffering from those diseases that have the potential to be cured by this research. Those are 128 million lives. We can't let the religious right control this issue and make it into one about abortion. We don't want to be the last nation to help those people. That would be downright embarrasing.

they arent generally up for "adoption"

they shouldnt be used for experimentation any more than any other human life should be.

I heard an interesting hypothetical situation the other day:

My son and I are sitting in the doctor's office. Suddenly, the fire alarm rings. I have enough time to get my son (who's two years old) out of the building, or to rescue a freezer case with 150 fertilized embryos. Which do I choose?

I think the answer is obvious. You can't overlook that there is a life that exists now, in the son, that has greater value than the embryos, which are only possibilities. It could be a possibility of a new son or daughter for someone, or one of the other implanted embryos that never comes to term. It could be the one that provides the last bit of information needed to cure Parkinson's, or it could be discarded as waste.

Besides, why are so many people who staunchly oppose abortion/IVF/ESC also highly in favor of the death penalty for criminals? Is that not also a destruction of human life?

I have to say that I agree with both practices.....If the SCR and IVF can help people, then why not. Maybe Stem Cell might help cure things such as cancer or AIDS, why should we inhibit the possibilities? I also believe in IVF because that is how my little cusin Tory was concived....if we take away that then that is as good as saying her life is worthless!

-Bre

Have faith, people of America. As you are barred from stem-cell research, other nations of the world will carry the torch. When the medical benefits are there, you can always go to a private clinic in Canada or Mexico and get your life saving procedure.

they arent generally up for "adoption"

they shouldnt be used for experimentation any more than any other human life should be.

I was under the impression that anyone who wants one can have one. But let's say that that isn't so. Then, is there a demand for those embryos?

The problem is they aren't human life. They are a bundle of 150-250 cells as opposed to the 100,000 cells in a fly's brain. Those 128 million people, some of whom are in my family, seem more important to me. There's no question that those are lives.

I heard an interesting hypothetical situation the other day:

My son and I are sitting in the doctor's office. Suddenly, the fire alarm rings. I have enough time to get my son (who's two years old) out of the building, or to rescue a freezer case with 150 fertilized embryos. Which do I choose?

I think the answer is obvious. You can't overlook that there is a life that exists now, in the son, that has greater value than the embryos, which are only possibilities. It could be a possibility of a new son or daughter for someone, or one of the other implanted embryos that never comes to term. It could be the one that provides the last bit of information needed to cure Parkinson's, or it could be discarded as waste.

Besides, why are so many people who staunchly oppose abortion/IVF/ESC also highly in favor of the death penalty for criminals? Is that not also a destruction of human life?
if there were 150 2 year olds you would still save your son.

150 embryos are not children, they are potential children. anyone would save a live child over any number of potentials (except in some kind of science fiction story)

i suspect that there isnt much opposition to ivf because they either havent though about the dicarded embryos or because there is no woman to punish for having sex at the wrong time.

Cloneing technology now means that every cell in your body has the potential to become a new life. Personally I deep freeze all my toenail clippings in the hope that one day I'll find enough willing surrogate mothers and all my toenail cells will have have a chance at life.

Cloneing technology now means that every cell in your body has the potential to become a new life. Personally I deep freeze all my toenail clippings in the hope that one day I'll find enough willing surrogate mothers and all my toenail cells will have have a chance at life.

You're a riot. :D

I was under the impression that anyone who wants one can have one. But let's say that that isn't so. Then, is there a demand for those embryos?

The problem is they aren't human life. They are a bundle of 150-250 cells as opposed to the 100,000 cells in a fly's brain. Those 128 million people, some of whom are in my family, seem more important to me. There's no question that those are lives.
those embryos are owned by the people who paid for their creation (interestingly this is one situation where the father does have equal say with the mother in the disposition of an embryo). there is some demand, i have no idea how much but it requires donation on the part of the biological parents.

its not a baby, its not a person, but its human life. you have no more right to demand it for use to cure a family member than you have the right to demand my kidney.

those embryos are owned by the people who paid for their creation (interestingly this is one situation where the father does have equal say with the mother in the disposition of an embryo). there is some demand, i have no idea how much but it requires donation on the part of the biological parents.

its not a baby, its not a person, but its human life. you have no more right to demand it for use to cure a family member than you have the right to demand my kidney.

Perhaps that's true, but I doubt those families would turn someone down if they wanted to adopt one of those embryos.

It's not human life; it's goo. It's a potential medical breakthrough. Embryos don't have rights. They are not citizens. You are a citizen upon birth.

Perhaps that's true, but I doubt those families would turn someone down if they wanted to adopt one of those embryos.

It's not human life; it's goo. It's a potential medical breakthrough. Embryos don't have rights. They are not citizens. You are a citizen upon birth.
neither is your dog a citizen but there are things you are not allowed to do to it either.

neither is your dog a citizen but there are things you are not allowed to do to it either.

Yes, that's true. But my dog is a living thing. She howls when hungry, barks when scared, jumps up and down when happy.

So a Communicable Will defines worthwhile life?

Personally, to be frozen in a frezer as one cell, or to ba a martyr to save someone's life?

Ill be a hero.

So a Communicable Will defines worthwhile life?

Yes, it does. That's what I think of when I think of life. I don't think of some goo in a petri dish.

those embryos are owned by the people who paid for their creation (interestingly this is one situation where the father does have equal say with the mother in the disposition of an embryo). there is some demand, i have no idea how much but it requires donation on the part of the biological parents.

its not a baby, its not a person, but its human life. you have no more right to demand it for use to cure a family member than you have the right to demand my kidney.

And those people have the right to donate to whatever purpose they choose, do they not?

neither is your dog a citizen but there are things you are not allowed to do to it either.

Interestingly, donating it to research is one thing you can do with your dog.

Since it came up in another thread...

i feel strongly that every embryo created for invitro should be given a chance at life. they should not be left frozen forever. they shouldnt be destroyed, they shouldnt be experimented with. they should be given to couples who cannot make their own embryo. it should be part of the contract a couple makes with the lab. if they dont like it, they can use all their embryos themselves or go without.

You are aware that a significant number of these embryos have genetic defects - which would result in them being handicapped, including the possibility of continuous severe pain ?
Not to sound harsh.. but who would take such a child if they can also get a healthy one ? And why should we force these embryo's to become something that can suffer ?

Interestingly, donating it to research is one thing you can do with your dog.
and many people find the using of pets for scientific research to be morally repugnant.

You are aware that a significant number of these embryos have genetic defects - which would result in them being handicapped, including the possibility of continuous severe pain ?
Not to sound harsh.. but who would take such a child if they can also get a healthy one ? And why should we force these embryo's to become something that can suffer ?
no im not aware of it.

how do they tell what embryos to implant then and why would they ever keep "defective" ones frozen?

And those people have the right to donate to whatever purpose they choose, do they not?
i believe they do. there may be some restrictions but i cant think of wht they might be (that anyone would reasonably consider)

and many people find the using of pets for scientific research to be morally repugnant.

Many people find the use of any animals at all for research to be morally repugnant. However, those people are not going to convince me that taking the lives of a few mice so that I can figure out therapies for humans is wrong.

However, you pointed out that, by law, the man and woman who were involved in the in vitro treatment own the tissue thus obtained. As such, it is their decision whether or not to donate to research, just as I could (were I to ever choose to do so) donate my dog for research.

Personally, to be frozen in a frezer as one cell, or to ba a martyr to save someone's life?

Ill be a hero.
and your life is yours to do with as you choose. why should another life be yours to decide?

no im not aware of it.

how do they tell what embryos to implant then and why would they ever keep "defective" ones frozen?

They generally don't know. This is the reason that several embryos are used in the treatment. Generally, at least one implants and survives. This is also the reason that those who seek out the treatment statistically have more multiple births.

Even in normal reproduction, a huge percentage of fertilized eggs have genetic defects that keep them from ever maturing to infancy.

Many people find the use of any animals at all for research to be morally repugnant. However, those people are not going to convince me that taking the lives of a few mice so that I can figure out therapies for humans is wrong.

However, you pointed out that, by law, the man and woman who were involved in the in vitro treatment own the tissue thus obtained. As such, it is their decision whether or not to donate to research, just as I could (were I to ever choose to do so) donate my dog for research.
and i would consider it immoral moreso than if you sold your pet dog for medical research.

how do they tell what embryos to implant then

You can easily test for quite a lot of genetic defects - but nowhere near all. In practice they therefor only test for a few serious defects, and from the remaining embryos select the one that "looks best". Yes, that last part is not really scientific.

and why would they ever keep "defective" ones frozen?

Some institutions don't - they flush them. Others are obligated to keep them due to the whole "an impregnated egg is a human being" argument. It depends on the laws of where the place is located.

and i would consider it immoral moreso than if you sold your pet dog for medical research.

And that is certainly your right. I would assume then, that you would not use in vitro fertilization, or that you would personally ensure that all of the embryos created for your treatment were implanted.

And that is certainly your right. I would assume then, that you would not use in vitro fertilization, or that you would personally ensure that all of the embryos created for your treatment were implanted.
you asked for an opinion and i gave it. *shrug*

and now im wondering where all our anti abortion friends are. im beginning to think that it really IS a matter of wanting to punish women for having sex by forcing them to bear unwanted children.

you asked for an opinion and i gave it. *shrug*

and now im wondering where all our anti abortion friends are. im beginning to think that it really IS a matter of wanting to punish women for having sex by forcing them to bear unwanted children.
AL THOS EGS SHUD B PUT IN* THE WUMAN WHO MADE THEM!! SHE THOHGT ABOUT S*X SO SHE SHUD B PUNISHD FOR IT!!!

(Was that what you had in mind?)
*I couldn't think of how to mispell 'implant'

AL THOS EGS SHUD B PUT IN* THE WUMAN WHO MADE THEM!! SHE THOHGT ABOUT S*X SO SHE SHUD B PUNISHD FOR IT!!!

(Was that what you had in mind?)
*I couldn't think of how to mispell 'implant'
hahahah yes it was kind of.

you made me laugh

its just that they go on and on and on about the sanctity of life when its inside the "slut who couldnt be bothered to keep her legs shut and now wants to take the easy way out". somehow the "disembodied" embryo can be flushed, no problem. what IS up with that?

its just that they go on and on and on about the sanctity of life when its inside the "slut who couldnt be bothered to keep her legs shut and now wants to take the easy way out". somehow the "disembodied" embryo can be flushed, no problem. what IS up with that?


Yes, I wonder that too.

Of course, the one I really don't get is "You can flush it as if it were worthless, but you can't use it for research that might help other people - that would be immoral."

hahahah yes it was kind of.

you made me laugh

its just that they go on and on and on about the sanctity of life when its inside the "slut who couldnt be bothered to keep her legs shut and now wants to take the easy way out". somehow the "disembodied" embryo can be flushed, no problem. what IS up with that?

I think the confusion arises because of potential. An embryo left in a woman will (probably) develop into a healthy child, an embryo left in a jar will just die. So in one case you are fighting for the right to life of a child that will be (barring intervention) and in the other you really haven't got a clue what it is you are fighting for. Is a single cell really a person? Is it a person when you have to intervene (implant) to make it one?
Then you have the ideology behind pro-life: children are great. So how do you say to a couple that you can't have children (IVF) because if you did some potential children would not come into existence. You have to support their choice to have children.
Now if they would just say, "We don't support the judges/government/politicians right to decide what is and is not human because historical precedent says that they can't be trusted with such authority." they could oppose all of this stuff equally. :D


Yes, I wonder that too.

Of course, the one I really don't get is "You can flush it as if it were worthless, but you can't use it for research that might help other people - that would be immoral."
Most people think stem cell research is performed on stem cells harvested from abortions. Which suggests human sacrifice (The young die that the old may live) to a lot of people, and thus they are repelled by it.
If you convinced them that it was from IVF that would be thrown away anyway they might support it. Although they might then try to get IVF stopped.
As you also have to allow the cell to develop to harvest SCs from it, many people feel that you are growing a baby for 'harvest' which again repels them.