U.S. tries to push it's anti-science agenda onto the rest of the world.

[cowpaste]

The question boils down to "Should the etra embryos be used for research or should they be destroyed/kept indefinitely?" They question is not, "Should they be used for research or used to help infertile couples?" An embryo is pretty much really early adoption. You still have to go through implantation (WHICH KILLS OFF MANY EMBROYS) and pregnancy. I'm guessing that most couples who wanted a child would want at least half the genes to come from one of the future parents. In that case, they would look for an egg/spear donor. If they were both infertile, why would they choose an embryo, which has so so so many unforseen complications over just plain adopting?

Oh and, by the way, there is no such thing as "playing god." It's a completely meaningless argument designed to appeal to religious types who already have an opinion on the issue.

[cowpaste]

You realize the article is about cloning embryos, not using ones already there, right? Hmmm?

I'm pretty sure they are cloned for research though. Why else would they clone them?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

The question boils down to "Should the etra embryos be used for research or should they be destroyed/kept indefinitely?" They question is not, "Should they be used for research or used to help infertile couples?" An embryo is pretty much really early adoption. You still have to go through implantation (WHICH KILLS OFF MANY EMBROYS) and pregnancy. I'm guessing that most couples who wanted a child would want at least half the genes to come from one of the future parents. In that case, they would look for an egg/spear donor. If they were both infertile, why would they choose an embryo, which has so so so many unforseen complications over just plain adopting?

Oh and, by the way, there is no such thing as "playing god." It's a completely meaningless argument designed to appeal to religious types who already have an opinion on the issue.

Or, the question could be, should they do invitro at all? I have no problem with it when they use the embryos, but when they make 8 embryos, use 4 and actually get pregnant then there are 4 left over that are either killed or used for science (and killed). Either come up with a way to do invitro without left over embryos or dont do it at all.

[Artisan]

I'm against embryonic stem cell research not because I'm a Christian, but because there are thousands of people out there who can't have kids (I know several), who would probably love the chance (if they had it) to get those embryos & become parents. Yet it's made incredibly difficult to do such a thing.

It sounds like you are implying that stem cell research is what is preventing infertile couples from utilizing "surplus" embrios. I don't believe thats the case. If I understand the technology correctly, the material used in embyonic stem cell research are the products of invitro fertilization from couples that are not used for implantation so they don't have quintuplets or triplets, etc.

If you underwent fertility treatment that was successful, and there were leftover fertilized eggs, wouldn't you want some say as to if they were given away to someone else and became your genetic offspring. Imagine knowing you had children out there that you didn't know about?

[S. Hunter]

Ok, since we've all agreed that the US is NOT pushing no stem cell research on the rest of the world, but rather wants to ban embryonic cloning in the rest of the world, and the whole premise of this threat is atleast off and probably wrong, I will give my opinion on where this has lead.

I feel that if the embryos cannot be used for anything else, they shold be used to stem cell research. I don't find anything in the Bible (I'm a Christian) that leads me to think that an embryo is human, and as it cannot survive on its own I deem it not to be so. It has the potential to be human, but if we treasured everything that did then we would freeze any sperm that a male my produce by masturbation or nocturnal emissions. If an embryo can be used for something else, let it by all means, but if not, it might as well save someones life.

(One could also observe that the embryos are already dead and just frozen, in which case it wuold be no different that recieving a organ transplant of sorts from a deceased person, and no one except Jehova's Witnesses would find any arguments from the bible in that)

[Rogue]

...I don't find anything in the Bible (I'm a Christian) that leads me to think that an embryo is human,...

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."--Jeremiah 1:5(NIV)

[KShan5[PrFC]]

ummm he got you there.

[cowpaste]

Right, and let's get rid of adoption and artificial insemination for that matter.

By the way, if anyone wants to argue ethics, please leave religion out of this. It completely makes the argument and discussion pointless.

Or, the question could be, should they do invitro at all? I have no problem with it when they use the embryos, but when they make 8 embryos, use 4 and actually get pregnant then there are 4 left over that are either killed or used for science (and killed). Either come up with a way to do invitro without left over embryos or dont do it at all.

[KShan5[PrFC]]

First of all, I disagree with that, on a legal level sure it does, but when you are debating ethics, it is very hard to forget religion. anyways.

Now there is a difference between the adoption, artificial insemination and invitro, and you know it.

Why not ban adoption on top of it?
That's a stupid question, nothing morally or ethically wrong, with adoption, espeically if the alternative is abortion.

Why not ban Artificial Insemination?
Better question, but still not very related to invitro. AI is just inserting semen into the uterus and you are therefore not killing an already established embryo.

Why ban Invitro?
This absolutely depends on where you classify the beginning of life. The arguement makes sense if you classify it at inception. If that is so, the manner in which they generally perform Invitro is to create say 10 embryos insert 4 and see if they grow. If they do then you have an extra 6 embryos, or humans (depending on the def.) that you are throwing away. If one can come up with a system where you use one embryo to create one baby with no excess in embryos then I see no problem with it.

[cowpaste]

If I drop a vial containing one sole embryo, shattering the vial, have I commited homicide?

[andrewmcleod]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."--Jeremiah 1:5(NIV)

And if it wasn't formed in the womb...

Stupid argument anyway. I think you are all crazy to believe in religion anyway (and I really do me to believe in religion in general, not a specific religion - the whole concept is just silly). An embryo is nothing more than a few cells put together. What is so magical about the moment that a few chromosomes come together? Life is only fantastic because of its ability to locally reduce entropy i.e. reduce disorder. As an embryo develops, it develops and becomes more complicated. It is the becoming-more-complicated bit that is important. Potential is irrelevant - unless that potential is actually realised. Once a foetus starts to develop a brain, it starts to learn and become more complicated than any computer (the 'miracle' of life). Finally it becomes intelligent, and then it becomes a thing that should not be wasted because of the time to develop the complexity.

For example - if you kill a child that has never had higher brain functions, are you really killing anything special?
But if you wipe the memory of a child who has lived a normal life, I would argue you have just killed the child, even though the child may continue and relearn all the skills it had.

If you had a sufficiently large computer to simulate an entire brain, and thus 'run' a person in software, wiping the program would be tantamount to murder.

But an embryo is worth almost nothing until it is grown...

[Soldier]

And I think you are crazy for not believing in anything. But now we're just calling names, so let us stop the trolling?

[esskreemr]

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."--Jeremiah 1:5(NIV)

Let's pick the one that will best support our argument. Afterall, they are both the "Word of God".

Well, if we're going to quote Old Testament:

(Numbers 5:20-28)

But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21: Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22: And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23: And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24: And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25: Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26: And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27: And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28: And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

I wonder what the rate of "successful" abortions was using this method.

(Psalms 137:9)
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Infanticide anyone? I'm sure that this would be considered Blasphemy by many, but please understand that these are directly from the Bible.

(Exodus 22:29)

Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.

Perhaps we could offer the embryos as a sacrifice. Of course, we're still stuck drinking second tier liquor.

[cowpaste]

I believe in science and progress.

And I think you are crazy for not believing in anything. But now we're just calling names, so let us stop the trolling?

[KShan5[PrFC]]

If you define life as an embryo sure. Accidental homicide, but still homicide.

[S. Hunter]

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I set you apart..."--Jeremiah 1:5(NIV)

I take that to mean that those that God chooses to be born shall be born, and those that he has destined not too will not. If that said "While you were in the womb" or something like that, it might support life at conception, but that verse only supports that we were all created spiritually a long time ago, and those whom God will give a body will recieve it in his time.

[Soldier]

The point of the entire passage is that God really cares, really knows you - you're not just one of the faceless millions to him.

[Moonitic]

It sounds like you are implying that stem cell research is what is preventing infertile couples from utilizing "surplus" embrios. I don't believe thats the case. If I understand the technology correctly, the material used in embyonic stem cell research are the products of invitro fertilization from couples that are not used for implantation so they don't have quintuplets or triplets, etc.

If you underwent fertility treatment that was successful, and there were leftover fertilized eggs, wouldn't you want some say as to if they were given away to someone else and became your genetic offspring. Imagine knowing you had children out there that you didn't know about?

One would think that if those embryos were given to someone else, that yes, the ones who donated said embryos would have a say. Also, one would hope that those people who accepted the embryos would be properly screened, etc. Please don't assume that what I said was, "Just give 'em to someone else if the original people don't need them." There's more to it than that.

By the way, by your own words, the embryos from invitro that aren't used would, indeed, become the "surplus" that you were referring to for stem cell research. You might want to reread that first comment.