Danya

Maybe the fact that we are dealing with two different threads and all the the surounding issues it appears I am losing the point. My view doesn't waiver on any of them. It is consistent throughout so I have no problem dealing with each topic as it comes. The only one I am really interested in learning your viewpoint about are the ones concerning the difference between the embryo's and when an embryo is considered a person. (which should be the same whether you mean by law or in general.)

callina

As I understand the situation, there are several options for "extra" embryos

• destroy the embryos
  donate for research
  donate for adoption
  preserve for future pregnancies

I am wondering about the first two. Is it acceptable to have the embryos destroyed or would it be preferable to make them available for research? Obviously, the embryos are done for either way, but isn't it better that they are made available to further scientific knowledge before they get put down the drain?

I ask this because it seems so many people choose to just have the embryos destroyed. If they aren't going to be used for a pregnancy, why get rid of them?

Jamie_L

I know there is a general fear of embryo research among hard-core pro-lifers. The fear is that an "industry" will be generated in which people create embryos solely for the purposes of research. Again, this is only of major concern for people who consider an embryo created outside the room as a "person". Significant numbers of people have this opinion, however.

This same fear applies when people start talking about using aborted fetal tissue for research or repair of mental conditions.

Jamie

Danya

As if a person would hope to get pregnant just to have an abortion. The only way this would happen is if there was some monetary gain. Then you might possibly have drug addicts or women who are desperate attempting this. But not many.

callina

I'd like to ignore the "pro-lifers" for a minute. For those couples who have the extra embryos and are willing to have them destroyed, is it ethical to just destroy the embryos when they could be used for valuable research?

I was wondering about this issue. I think that I would rather have the embryos used than see them wasted, but a lot of couples choose to destroy them straight away. Is it out of a fear of creating an embryo-selling racket? (selling embryos at this time is illegal, they can only be donated) Or is it easier to have the embryos "out of the way" and not worry about the ethics of human embryo research?

I am done with arguing with the anti-abortionists for a while, so I won't even discuss "murdering" the embryos.

Viti

callina...very valid point as researchers have succesfully grown a functioning cow kidney utilizing stem cells (cow stem cells obviously).

How beneficial to humans if extra embryos, that are already being created and destroyed, could be used to supply much needed transplant organs, bone marrow, etc.?

bs-from-kg. You accused me of ad hominem for asking you to explain your apparent inconsistency. I rephrased my question very succinctly yet you ignored it, so I will repost it

"The way I read your views (and I am open to correction if I interpreted wrong) is that you think it is okay to destroy embryos that were intentionally created via IVF, but it is not okay to destroy an embryo if it occurs as a consequence of sex. If the embryo has value in and of itself (as you also seemingly claim), then how do you justify differentiting based on how the embryo came to be?"

You have since added "natural" to your definition, but this then leads to the question , what of the baby born due to IVF...it was not created naturally so how is it a person per your definition?

[ March 31, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>