They are indeed removed from embryos which were fertilized by two persons wishing to have a baby, who no longer needed the extras implanted (typically because they were successful in the early implantations). The embryos used are only those which were earmarked to scientific researchby the parents. They will be discarded as "biological waste" if they are not used in research.
Without federal funding, most of these embryos are trashed in just that way.
Bush justified not funding research as it "murdered" (his inflammatory rhetoric) the embryo. Now, new techniques make it unnecessary to kill it, but Bush still opposes it, because he is a complete and total moron.
While I disagree with your labeling of Bush as a "complete and total moron" I do have to agree that here his logic is extremeley confused. Especially when you consider that he SUPPORTS the "Morning After Pill" which does have the capacity to destroy the life of an unborn human being (which, of course, is not inflammatory rehtoric to label as "murder")....
I'm with Calvindude, while Bush is probably not a complete and total moron (after all, he did manage to win re-election, becoming the first son of a former president to do so), his thinking is confused on this issue.
It seems to me that either one opposes IVF techniques that result in unwanted embyos, or at least mandates that said embryos be adopted, or one allows said unwanted emryos to be experimented on.
I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.
I am unaware of Bush's support of Plan B, and frankly astounded if it is true. The FDA blocked Plan B for completely political reasons, until very recently, and most people saw it as his administration's influence on the review panel of the FDA.
Basically, Bush couldn't do anything to stop this process without subverting the law very seriously. It is not an executive-branch decision to approve or disapprove of drugs, but the FDA's.
which does have the capacity to destroy the life of an unborn human being (which, of course, is not inflammatory rehtoric to label as "murder")....
Sorry, but flushing out some interuterine lining tissue with an egg, whether it got fertilized or not, is only "murder" in the la-la land of Dogmaville. Where I live, it's a large dose of birth control, and called choosing to prevent a implantation of said egg that may potentially produce a human being; analogous to cutting off a tumor to prevent a metastisized cancer that may potentially lead to death. Embryo /= human being, tumor /= death.
But, we've beaten this horse to death. I see two cells as basically without value, relative to the freedom of the woman over her own body and to choose when she will have a baby. You *say* that you see them as equivalent in value to other human beings, like me. But, If you are trapped in a burning and I'm at one end of a hall screaming in pain and at the other end is a huge container of 1,000,000 frozen embryos, and you only have time to save one...which do you save? Would your value system suddenly change, or would you have a clear conscience, whichever way you acted?
I'm with Calvindude, while Bush is probably not a complete and total moron (after all, he did manage to win re-election, becoming the first son of a former president to do so), his thinking is confused on this issue.
What sorts of persons generally voted for Mr. Bush? Those who trusted him, those who always vote GOP, and those who were terrified and thought he was the safest bet. It doesn't take smarts to accomplish this, it takes cunning campaign managers [and no one can accuse Rove of being anything but cunning].
It seems to me that either one opposes IVF techniques that result in unwanted embyos, or at least mandates that said embryos be adopted, or one allows said unwanted emryos to be experimented on.
That is exactly right. If it is murder, it should be illegal. CalvinDude, and some other fundies, would love nothing more than to tell me and my wife that I cannot use my sperm, and she cannot use her own eggs, to make embryos if we couldn't conceive otherwise. Some persons would love to give the government control of my swimmers and her ova, to tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Thankfully, cooler, reality-based and more compassionate heads prevail in not making our country the theofascist state it would certainly slide into with such control.
I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.
Hiraeth, excess embryos are never going to be implanted. The IVF procedure generates excess embryos. The idea of "adoption" would only "rescue" a minimal amount of these embryos, perhaps a few percent. The problem is -- if 1) IVF is legal [thanks to our Constitution and freedom], but 2) it is "murder" to destroy or research excess embryos, then .: 3) IVF = legal murder.
Since this is absurd, premise 2 is the issue...destruction of and research upon embryos /= murder. Otherwise, our country mandates murder, or we tell people what they can and cannot do with their sperm and ova.
PS: One more point on the Plan B -- you guys do realize that fertilization of an egg is not an instantaneous event, but a slow process, right?
Where do you draw the line? The moment the sperm bumps into the outer lining of the ovum? When it embeds itself and loses its tail? When the first division occurs? The reason I mention this is that Plan B, if literally taken the morning after, is not going to flush out a viable embryo, but a pre-embryo which may soon be viable. See this little wiki for more details.
'I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.'
What you saidd afterwards had no relevance to this. This looks to me like dodging the issue. I assume you did not mean to do this, but went off on a tangent.
For the record, when it come to the US Constitution, I'm probably not the best person to cite it to. While I respect it, not being American, I probably understand it worse than an American.
Firstly, you need to dispense with the straw men. My position is not the charicature you present.
Anyway, you said: --- I am unaware of Bush's support of Plan B, and frankly astounded if it is true. ---
Bush: "I believe that Plan B ought to require a prescription for minors—that’s what I believe. And I support Andy’s decision" (emphasis added; Andy's is FDA Commissioner Nominee Andrew Von Eschenbach and his "decision" is the proposal to sell Plan B without a prescription.)
You wrote: --- Sorry, but flushing out some interuterine lining tissue with an egg, whether it got fertilized or not, is only "murder" in the la-la land of Dogmaville. ---
I've given you my reasons in the past. Obviously, I can't make you address them.
You wrote: --- Where I live, it's a large dose of birth control, and called choosing to prevent a implantation of said egg that may potentially produce a human being; analogous to cutting off a tumor to prevent a metastisized cancer that may potentially lead to death. Embryo /= human being, tumor /= death. ---
Your analogy is frankly incoherent.
Besides which, an embryo is a human being. It is not simply two cells. These two cells form the entirety of a human being at that stage in the development. There is nothing potential about the being.
Your problem is you do not understand "being." To help you out, it isn't necessary for you to believe all human beings deserve equal rights (although I would disagree with you on that). That's a separate philosophical issue than the issue of ontology. Ontologically speaking, an ebryo is human. It's impossible for it to be anything other than human.
You said: --- But, If you are trapped in a burning and I'm at one end of a hall screaming in pain and at the other end is a huge container of 1,000,000 frozen embryos, and you only have time to save one...which do you save? Would your value system suddenly change, or would you have a clear conscience, whichever way you acted? ---
It's impossible for me to answer a hypothetical, as I wouldn't know until I was in that position what I would actually do, and this is an especially unlikely-to-ever-occur event.
However, in principle, I would probably sacrifice you for the good of the many. And yes, my conscience would be clear.
You wrote: --- CalvinDude, and some other fundies, would love nothing more than to tell me and my wife that I cannot use my sperm, and she cannot use her own eggs, to make embryos if we couldn't conceive otherwise. ---
But this is patently absurd. I could care less what you do with your sperm and her eggs. I only care what you do to the human beings who result from that, whether naturally or in vitro. Your sperm is not a human being; your wife's egg is not a human being. An embryo is.
You said: --- Hiraeth, excess embryos are never going to be implanted. ---
And this is exactly why excess embryos ought never be created in the first place.
You said: --- One more point on the Plan B -- you guys do realize that fertilization of an egg is not an instantaneous event, but a slow process, right? ---
In such instances where the egg is not fertalized, there is no murder. However, the problem with Plan B is that it can kill unborn human beings. If it didn't have that potential, there would be no problem at all with it.
But it would be like saying, "Russian roulette doesn't automatically kill someone, so we ought to make it legal to force people to play it." The times when it does kill a human being outweigh the many times when it may not, morally speaking.
8 comments:
On this one, the only issue I'd like to have addressed is how they'd get the stem cells.
Really, I read the article. Presumably they'd have to be removed from embryos in IVF. Can you confirm this?
They are indeed removed from embryos which were fertilized by two persons wishing to have a baby, who no longer needed the extras implanted (typically because they were successful in the early implantations). The embryos used are only those which were earmarked to scientific research by the parents. They will be discarded as "biological waste" if they are not used in research.
Without federal funding, most of these embryos are trashed in just that way.
Bush justified not funding research as it "murdered" (his inflammatory rhetoric) the embryo. Now, new techniques make it unnecessary to kill it, but Bush still opposes it, because he is a complete and total moron.
While I disagree with your labeling of Bush as a "complete and total moron" I do have to agree that here his logic is extremeley confused. Especially when you consider that he SUPPORTS the "Morning After Pill" which does have the capacity to destroy the life of an unborn human being (which, of course, is not inflammatory rehtoric to label as "murder")....
I'm with Calvindude, while Bush is probably not a complete and total moron (after all, he did manage to win re-election, becoming the first son of a former president to do so), his thinking is confused on this issue.
It seems to me that either one opposes IVF techniques that result in unwanted embyos, or at least mandates that said embryos be adopted, or one allows said unwanted emryos to be experimented on.
I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.
CalvinDude,
I am unaware of Bush's support of Plan B, and frankly astounded if it is true. The FDA blocked Plan B for completely political reasons, until very recently, and most people saw it as his administration's influence on the review panel of the FDA.
Basically, Bush couldn't do anything to stop this process without subverting the law very seriously. It is not an executive-branch decision to approve or disapprove of drugs, but the FDA's.
which does have the capacity to destroy the life of an unborn human being (which, of course, is not inflammatory rehtoric to label as "murder")....
Sorry, but flushing out some interuterine lining tissue with an egg, whether it got fertilized or not, is only "murder" in the la-la land of Dogmaville. Where I live, it's a large dose of birth control, and called choosing to prevent a implantation of said egg that may potentially produce a human being; analogous to cutting off a tumor to prevent a metastisized cancer that may potentially lead to death. Embryo /= human being, tumor /= death.
But, we've beaten this horse to death. I see two cells as basically without value, relative to the freedom of the woman over her own body and to choose when she will have a baby. You *say* that you see them as equivalent in value to other human beings, like me. But, If you are trapped in a burning and I'm at one end of a hall screaming in pain and at the other end is a huge container of 1,000,000 frozen embryos, and you only have time to save one...which do you save? Would your value system suddenly change, or would you have a clear conscience, whichever way you acted?
I'm with Calvindude, while Bush is probably not a complete and total moron (after all, he did manage to win re-election, becoming the first son of a former president to do so), his thinking is confused on this issue.
What sorts of persons generally voted for Mr. Bush? Those who trusted him, those who always vote GOP, and those who were terrified and thought he was the safest bet. It doesn't take smarts to accomplish this, it takes cunning campaign managers [and no one can accuse Rove of being anything but cunning].
It seems to me that either one opposes IVF techniques that result in unwanted embyos, or at least mandates that said embryos be adopted, or one allows said unwanted emryos to be experimented on.
That is exactly right. If it is murder, it should be illegal. CalvinDude, and some other fundies, would love nothing more than to tell me and my wife that I cannot use my sperm, and she cannot use her own eggs, to make embryos if we couldn't conceive otherwise. Some persons would love to give the government control of my swimmers and her ova, to tell us what we can and cannot do with them. Thankfully, cooler, reality-based and more compassionate heads prevail in not making our country the theofascist state it would certainly slide into with such control.
I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.
Hiraeth, excess embryos are never going to be implanted. The IVF procedure generates excess embryos. The idea of "adoption" would only "rescue" a minimal amount of these embryos, perhaps a few percent. The problem is -- if
1) IVF is legal [thanks to our Constitution and freedom], but
2) it is "murder" to destroy or research excess embryos, then
.: 3) IVF = legal murder.
Since this is absurd, premise 2 is the issue...destruction of and research upon embryos /= murder. Otherwise, our country mandates murder, or we tell people what they can and cannot do with their sperm and ova.
PS: One more point on the Plan B -- you guys do realize that fertilization of an egg is not an instantaneous event, but a slow process, right?
Where do you draw the line? The moment the sperm bumps into the outer lining of the ovum? When it embeds itself and loses its tail? When the first division occurs? The reason I mention this is that Plan B, if literally taken the morning after, is not going to flush out a viable embryo, but a pre-embryo which may soon be viable. See this little wiki for more details.
My dear nsfl, please answer the question. I said:
'I assume the stem cells extracted without killing the embryo would be extracted from embryos being used in IVF which would then be implanted. If so, I cannot then see the problem.'
What you saidd afterwards had no relevance to this. This looks to me like dodging the issue. I assume you did not mean to do this, but went off on a tangent.
For the record, when it come to the US Constitution, I'm probably not the best person to cite it to. While I respect it, not being American, I probably understand it worse than an American.
nsfl,
Firstly, you need to dispense with the straw men. My position is not the charicature you present.
Anyway, you said:
---
I am unaware of Bush's support of Plan B, and frankly astounded if it is true.
---
Bush: "I believe that Plan B ought to require a prescription for minors—that’s what I believe. And I support Andy’s decision" (emphasis added; Andy's is FDA Commissioner Nominee Andrew Von Eschenbach and his "decision" is the proposal to sell Plan B without a prescription.)
You wrote:
---
Sorry, but flushing out some interuterine lining tissue with an egg, whether it got fertilized or not, is only "murder" in the la-la land of Dogmaville.
---
I've given you my reasons in the past. Obviously, I can't make you address them.
You wrote:
---
Where I live, it's a large dose of birth control, and called choosing to prevent a implantation of said egg that may potentially produce a human being; analogous to cutting off a tumor to prevent a metastisized cancer that may potentially lead to death. Embryo /= human being, tumor /= death.
---
Your analogy is frankly incoherent.
Besides which, an embryo is a human being. It is not simply two cells. These two cells form the entirety of a human being at that stage in the development. There is nothing potential about the being.
Your problem is you do not understand "being." To help you out, it isn't necessary for you to believe all human beings deserve equal rights (although I would disagree with you on that). That's a separate philosophical issue than the issue of ontology. Ontologically speaking, an ebryo is human. It's impossible for it to be anything other than human.
You said:
---
But, If you are trapped in a burning and I'm at one end of a hall screaming in pain and at the other end is a huge container of 1,000,000 frozen embryos, and you only have time to save one...which do you save? Would your value system suddenly change, or would you have a clear conscience, whichever way you acted?
---
It's impossible for me to answer a hypothetical, as I wouldn't know until I was in that position what I would actually do, and this is an especially unlikely-to-ever-occur event.
However, in principle, I would probably sacrifice you for the good of the many. And yes, my conscience would be clear.
You wrote:
---
CalvinDude, and some other fundies, would love nothing more than to tell me and my wife that I cannot use my sperm, and she cannot use her own eggs, to make embryos if we couldn't conceive otherwise.
---
But this is patently absurd. I could care less what you do with your sperm and her eggs. I only care what you do to the human beings who result from that, whether naturally or in vitro. Your sperm is not a human being; your wife's egg is not a human being. An embryo is.
You said:
---
Hiraeth, excess embryos are never going to be implanted.
---
And this is exactly why excess embryos ought never be created in the first place.
You said:
---
One more point on the Plan B -- you guys do realize that fertilization of an egg is not an instantaneous event, but a slow process, right?
---
In such instances where the egg is not fertalized, there is no murder. However, the problem with Plan B is that it can kill unborn human beings. If it didn't have that potential, there would be no problem at all with it.
But it would be like saying, "Russian roulette doesn't automatically kill someone, so we ought to make it legal to force people to play it." The times when it does kill a human being outweigh the many times when it may not, morally speaking.
Post a Comment