> Sam wrote: > The extra embryo are available in case you > want more kids a few years later, stuck in a custody fight or people > just don't know what to do with them. >
Right, so if we follow the argument to it's logical legal conclusion it would be that a couple shouldn't be able to do that. That is, fertilizing an egg with no intention of birthing it is murder so it should be banned as human experimentation. After all, if you implanted those eggs in another mother, they all might be viable. I guess my point is that both the embryonic research and the fertilization itself seem to be crossing the "Huxley" line if you follow the religious right's basic argument: "If God had wanted you to have kids, then you wouldn't need fertilization treatments." So, to sum it up, here would be the argument options: (1.) Proceed with embryonic research. Making them and destroying them for research is ok because they're not yet humans; just some cells that *could* be humans under the right conditions. (2.) Proceed with embryonic research, but only use embryos that have been discarded from fertilization treatments. i.e., creating and destroying embryos is ok *only* if the creation is for some "good" purpose such as fertilization. This is where most Americans seem to be. (3.) Halt all embryonic research and close down all sources of "extra" embryos; continuing is a "slippery slope." This is where the President seems to be. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211691 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
