not4u13 wrote:While there may be some clinics that approach the process as you have outlined, most don't. The process for fertalizing embryos is not very precise. You can't take two eggs and fertilize them. You have to harvest many eggs and attempt to fertilize them and you end up with some fertilized and some not. At least that is how I understand the process. If you are aware of more advanced capabilities I would love to hear about them.
No, I don't ...
So the process, itself, lends itself to the creation of "surplus" eggs. More's the pity and we've got a lot of work to do.
One concern about the use of fertilized eggs that will be destroyed, anyway, is will we by allowing the use of "extra" fertilized eggs create a market for those eggs by which women temporarily down on their luck will visit a "blood-bankesque" type of facility and sell their eggs that will subsequently be fertilized and sold to research facilities?
not4u13 wrote:I don't happen to believe that we should make decisions today based on the most wild possibilities of tomorrow.
Not so sure it's a wild possibility. We already sell our blood and oru plasma; and I've heard rumors of a black market for organs (though nothing really credible so forget that one) ... I don't think it's such a great leap to foresee women selling their eggs to be fertilized.
...how does destroying them for research without any promise of ANY return on such destruction make the other destruction onerous but this one "promising" or "virtuous?"
not4u13 wrote:Interesting point here but in this case we are dealing with embroys that WILL be destroyed with no potential for any kind of benefit.
From my vantage point, both destroy embryos ... one has only a potential benefit to others.
If science was in any way concerned about the destruction of life in order to preserve life, they COULD have limited their research to just those ESC's that were available when Bush signed that executive order.
not4u13 wrote:ESCs must be destroyed as part of the research. More are needed to continue the research.
Exactly my point. So clearly, science has no objection to destroying life to prolong life (potentially). That is not surprising, but it is of concern.