Charlie wrote: >>> A blastocyst is not a child to most people, John. Many, possibly most >>> according to some studies, zygotes *fail to implant* and "die" in the >>> toilet or soaked up in a panty-liner. The wastage is naturally huge. >>> Clearly, until they're able to implant, they're disposable, >>> *biologically* speaking. >> >> Sorry, Charlie, but this is not sound logic. The logical conculsion >> of what you are saying is that "if the infant mortality rate is >> high, then infanticide is morally acceptable." I hope that makes >> it clear. > > Utterly false connection. An infant is an independent and individual. > A blastocyst is not.
And besides, we are talking about a blastocyst in a petri dish/test tube whatever. JDG, do you also hold that all couples who undergo IVF, have a baby after the first implantation, and decide against further implants are guilty of 'killing children'? I am as big an opposer of female foeticide as anyone else [no one chooses to abort male foetuses in India]. But we are not talking about conceiving and nourishing a baby for a few months and then aborting them because they don't have a penis. Do I think it is advisable to tinker like this in cases other than medical emergencies? No. But neither do I think that there is any need or point in banning it. The technology exists. People who want it will get it. Especially if they are rich. Even if it is illegal. So might as well keep it legal and tax it high. It is a luxury medical service after all. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
