I knew stem cell research out pay off!

[Elok]

The embryo's consent, which can't be taken, hence no dice.

I oppose IVF too. Ghastly practice, custom-manufacturing infants.

It's not a strawman, it's an analogy. I am pretty certain that stem-cells don't involve sodomizing children, despite the other ethical flaws.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
what if they get outta control and create cancer?

Have you ever heard of anyone getting fat cancer? Breast cancer isn't from the fat.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
The embryo's consent, which can't be taken, hence no dice.

The embryo is not conscious, thus it is utterly meaningless to speak of its "consent." It's as silly as asking for a chair's consent before sitting down on it.

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Have you ever heard of anyone getting fat cancer?

*cough*

[alva]

nd now cancer has gone contagious!!

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Do you know that all these extra embryoes will be flushed down the toilet anyway?

Hey, that kid's just going to grow up a junkie on the streets/ that man's just a junkie on the street.

Why can't we do tests on him, to make his life valuable to society?

2. Whose consent?

The child's. After all, you aren't allowed to do medical research on children that may result in their death for the precise reason that the parents cannot offer consent, if such consent may result in the death of their child.

If a human embryo also is a child, than the same rule applies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Hey, that kid's just going to grow up a junkie on the streets/ that man's just a junkie on the street.

Why can't we do tests on him, to make his life valuable to society?

Ben, read the thread first. I was referring to all the extras from IVFs.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If a human embryo also is a child, than the same rule applies.

An embryo is not a child. A child got arms and legs and most importantly, shows sentience.

[Mr. Harley]

OK folks - the Brits have a perfectly functional compromise on obtaining embryonic stem cells. First, only on surplus embryoes, i.e. those left after IV-F. Secondly, the couples involved must explicitly grant permission for the embroyoes to be used. Otherwise they are flushed down the sink.

Now here are the reasons this happens. You cannot freeze unfertilized eggs, at least the human variety, and hope to thaw them later on to undergo fertilization. If surplus eggs are produced, they are fertilized and frozen for subsequent attempts at pregnancy. Now you could insist only those eggs that are going to be implanted by fertilized. Two problems. The drugs for this are expensive, and if they don't work, the couple has to pay the entire $14-17,000 to start from scratch, instead of around four thousand to implant extra embryoes (my numbers could be off, I haven't checked prices in years.

Even if you feel confident in forcing that expense on them - unless you're willing to pay a special morality tax, you aren't - I guess it's easy to want to make other people spend substantial amounts of money to meet your moral requirements - - then you also are forcing the woman to increase her cancer risk. Didn't you know? I mean, before you ran your mouth with your moral platitudes, to you bother to check into the implications. The drugs increase the woman's cancer risk for life.

Now I have no problem with a woman making that choice, because she wants to have a child. It's her choice. But I have huge problems on someone forcing their choice on her, i.e. if you want to have a child because you must have IV-F, then you must meet my moral compass, which will cost you forty-fifty thousand dollars extra (assuming a 25% success rate) and will increase you risk of dying. I guess the headline "Fundamentalists opposed to freezing embryos for IV-F are Mommy killers" wouldn't go down too well, but that is de facto the result of this policy.

Now there are those, including the Catholic Church, opposed to IV-F totally. Fine, tell someone you cannot be a good -insert here- if you practice IV-F. They can choose to leave if they disagree. Do NOT try to force your interpretation on me. Moslems consider that life starts at the 100th day - or at least there has been a conservative Fatwa on the matter. Do you feel you have the right to impose your view on a Moslem. You do! Then don't complain, when you tear down the walls that interfere with you, if it turns out they can impose their morality on you. Slippery slope et al.

[Elok]

Meh. Nuts to IVF, it's not like the world is running out of people. If I'm unable to have kids and want them, I'll just adopt. The very idea of IVF is repulsive.

And we've had the discussion of what makes a person human before. There's no way to talk either side out of it, but briefly put for the sake of an effort, our human rights are not contingent upon ability. Once the being is genetically distinct from its parents, it is for all intents and purposes uniquely human, regardless of what it can or cannot do. Sez I.

[Dinner]

What a self centered little bastard. "I don't care if people want to have children & science can provide it; I don't like their moral choices".

[Pekka]

Oerdin, I think he says that he himself would not want it that way. I can't see any remarks on what other people should do. Where the only option is to give them freedom of choice, otherwise a person is being oppressive ie. taliban.

[Elok]

What a mod-tempting flamer.

And ethics ought to be a very clear consideration in any decision. "Personal ethics," not applied to others, are arbitrary and worthless; right and wrong might as well be opinions about ice cream flavors if nobody bothers to enforce them. Ethics have value only as codes of interpersonal conduct.

Edit: Whoops, sorry Pekka, I just sabotaged your defense of me.

Thing is, all of your arguments ignore the possibility of the humanity of the embryo/fetus/zygote. Human life is not to be left defenseless for the sake of individual freedoms.

[Dinner]

The world has enough kids? That's your personal moral choice. Don't force it on other people.

[pchang]

What's the point of having morals if I can't force them on other people? That's why I keep trying to take over the world. Isn't that why you play civ?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The world has enough kids? That's your personal moral choice. Don't force it on other people.

You missed his point - one, that the thing has rights, and that there is no compelling societal need to override those rights. The second argument is just a defense of the first, not a reason in and of itself.

(Not that I necessarily agree with the first.)