Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout
Well that isn't strictly true. The embryos are created in vitro to be used by couples who can't conceive naturally. They always create many more embryos than they will actually end up using. And the embryo will only grow and develop if it is implanted into a womb. All the while they are in a test tube they aren't really a life.
|
it's splitting hairs at that point. no one is arguing whether or not the embryo will develop unless it's implanted into a womb. so far science hasn't been able to invent an electrified womb, and until that day we can all assume we're all on the page that says, "p.s. please add womb."
you could have also split the hair by saying not every fertilized egg grows into a healthy baby that gestates normally and can survive on its own after 9 months (give or take). either way you take the guts out of the argument by making the obvious point.
it's pretty clear that bryantm3's point is ultimately a "where does life begin" statement. if a person believes fundamentally that life begins at conception then the test tube argument is a moot point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout
The embryos that are used for stem cell research are those that would be discarded anyway. Nobody is going to implant them and "grow a baby" from them. So really the question is this - better in the dustbin or used for research that could help save other's lives?
|
well humans are made up of quite a bit of protein. since people are going to die anyway, why don't we process them into food sources?
deliberately hyperbolic, as is my specialty.
the point is that the "why let them go to waste" argument doesn't hold water if you believe those embryos were lives. look, we don't even do organ donation unless the deceased has given written consent. so obviously it's not just an issue of pragmatism. there's a strong, if illogical instinct in humans to protect and preserve, even when a person's free will can no longer intervene. it seems to me that that sets a kind of precedent. we establish that rights exist on one end of the non-life spectrum, why don't they exist at the other?
additionally, it's a bit highfalutin to make the claim that these destroyed embryos are going to save lives. by and large they're not. the vast majority of these embryos will be destroyed in the effort to pursue scientific theory to a dead end, with research collected along the way. so far stem cells have yielded very few practical results. while it's true that embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being programmable so that they can develop into any kind of cell, making their research applications fairly limitless, there are enough non-embryonic stem cell sources available that they should be the first line of resources for these early days of research. we THINK stem cells will save lives someday. we also thought gene therapy would cure cancer. there are countless scientific "breakthroughs" that have yet to yield much more than the promise of life in a far distant future.
fundamentally it comes down to the same old argument about where life begins. which is why i don't think it's appropriate for the US government to fund this research. the issue is so closely divided amongst the populace, for better or for worse. one side shouldn't have the right to trample the other. not while private funding and alternate sources and grandfathered lines exist.