I suppose you could say that doing nothing, as opposed to actively marketing them for implantation, could be murder. Heh-heh…those crazy embryo busybodies…they really don’t know what they want.
** Places hands on canister of frozen embryos in Vulcan Mind Meld position *
- Vulcan theme music plays **
“They say they want to . . . go into medical research !”
They don’t care about the “actual” lives. It’s only the “maybe” lives that cause people to get a case of the vapors over this subject.
Well, first they have to get born, then they need to be raised in a supportive and intellectually stimulating environment. After that, they’ll have to get into a good college (and the polite thing would be to do it without bankrupting the nice folks who raised them), and following graduation, apply for and get accepted to medical school. Then there’s the post-doctoral studies, which I understand is a lot of really hard work, but the good news is that technically speaking, that’s the point where they’re into medical research.
Now, now, there you go with the American myth that everyone needs a college education ! It’s a much faster route into the field if you are willing to be in the test tube instead of holding it !
Well, that there is some outside-the-box thinking, Trihs, I’ll give you that…
outside the flask?
About the same as someone dying naturally and someone choosing to kill them instead. Yes, it’s sad that all those babies died naturally, but they weren’t murdered. The element of choice is a huge difference.
Well, they were if you believe in the big G.
They weren’t babies and they weren’t murdered. They were clumps of cells that are no longer wanted as potential babies, but could be used to save the babies and others that are actually human beings. Why aren’t you choosing to do something useful with the clumps?
I was responding to the question about spontaneous abortions and the difference between those and abortions performed by choice.
Um, They do.
I wonder why abortion advocates always jump to assumptions about pro-lifers and then don’t even bother to investigate if their assumptions have any truth to them?
That’s nice that these women have a place to get embryos, but there aren’t enough of them to accommodate all the embryos. Why not use the rest for research? Isn’t it better than not using them for any good purpose?
The Snowflake site states that, in the past 10 years, they have thawed 2055 embryos, of which 1124 were viable. From those, they have conducted 430 “transfers” resulting in 185 babies.
There are over 400,000 frozen embryos kicking around. At a rate of 2055 thawed embryos over a decade (and only 430 transfer attempts) you’re looking at 0.5% of the surplus embryos even being thawed for adoption, 0.28% going into an adoptive host and 0.04% of them becoming birthed children.
I have nothing against the Snowflake program but it is neither very popular (for whatever reason) nor is it arguably an answer for giving all the frozen embryos a chance at being birthed.
Besides, if anything we already have too many people. And we already have plenty of children who could use adoptive parents.
Is breaking a fertile chicken (or any fowl) egg killing a chicken or fowl? If you pick the apple blossoms that have been pollenated are you killing an apple? The Biology is the same. It is only a religious belief and no one should be forced to have their embryo’s destroyed, but they should consider that before they have the fertility treatment (if they believe it is killing).
Perhaps it is because the pro-choice people are also pro-life and think of the future of the fertilized egg if it is brought to personhood. Many of the people who call themselves pro-life are the very ones who complain about the taxes they have to pay to support the embryo’s that are brought to full term. Now they even want the morning after pill made illegal just in case the egg 'maybe’fertilized.
Generally I’ve found the only people who think “life begins at conception” are anti-abortionist religious zealots who think all life is a divine gift. It’s really silly to amount stopping a few cells from continuing to grow to abortion. There’s no life at that point by any way we typically define “life.”
And certainly we’ve all seen examples of “lives” that could be considered anything but divine gifts. Although I know this isn’t exactly a popular school of thought, I see plenty of instances where if it were MY child, and if it were LEGAL, I would think the best course of action for society and me personally would be to end that child’s life at birth.
Steven Pinker, the MIT linguist, makes an interesting point in one of his books. He says our brains are hard-wired to recognize the difference between live things and not-alive things at a very deep level, so we have a very hard time imagining that there could be something in a third category.
Hence the fight over “when does life begin?” – at conception, or when brain impulses start, or at birth – depending mostly on your politics.
When actually, he says, an embryo/fetus is partially alive and partially not-alive, gradually becoming more and more alive and less and less not-alive until the moment of birth.
Ed
It’s more complicated than that, even. The thing is, an embryo is unambiguously human life, but “human life” is itself a red herring. Yes, a fertilized egg is metabolizing and so on, so it’s alive, and its species is clearly Homo sapiens, so it’s human, but then, both of those statements are also true of the bit of skin next to my fingernail that I bite off, or a cancer tumor. Nobody claims that I’m a murderer for biting the bit of skin next to my fingernail, nor that excising and incinerating a tumor is, so clearly there’s no problem with killing human life, in general. What’s really the issue here is not human life, but personhood.