 |
 |
Rayilyn, you do bring up a good point and it is one that should be considered at the heart of the discussion. It is hard for all people to look at things from all points of view at the same time. If you have a leaning one way you will have an understandable tendency to look at issues that will filter the outcome to meet your desires. In the case of embryo's, and I agree these are different for SCNT that involve similar ( but not exactly the same) moral dilemmas. Looking at only embryo's developed at fertility clinics, to me and perhaps to some others, the issue involves intent. Looking at that issue from two extremes we could all agree in one extreme case "Breeding full humans to harvest organs is wrong and should be avoided." Please note that is an extreme case I'm sure we could agree on. In the other extreme case most but not all would agree that creating embryo's using the married mother and the married father as donors in clinics to be implanted in the mother as an aid to fertility ( helping nature ) would be considered acceptable. That is another extreme case many variations can be involved, different fathers etc. Now, in between is where the questions come in. Looking at this subject I would (not everybody, but I would) start with intent. Intent can turn some very common actions that have no ethical issues into actions the majority would consider abhorrent. Again I will use an extreme case. The manufacture of a chemical used for fertilizer, advertised and sold to farmers, distributed around the world to increase crop yield would be considered very ethical. Specifically manufacturing that same chemical using those same processes, advertising to terrorists, marketing to terrorists, selling to terrorists specifically for use in bombs, would be considered wrong. We have the same exact action and objects with different intents. One intent noble the other not so noble. In the first instance I'm sure the intent is for good but the output still may be used unethically. In the second the whole process is tainted from start to finish. Now what of the case of what to do with those extra embryo's? The intent is for good, what you do with them after is the big question. It's a very good question. Certainly we could agree that anyone contributing to a clinic like this should be given a choice up front of what to do with any product or byproduct of their participation. That of course solves only the problem of choice. People can still choose to do what some would consider wrong. If life begins at conception then there is a problem with what to do with the extra's. I'm sure this is at the heart of many discussions. If the conception was in the mother through normal processes most people would agree the mother and the father have a moral obligation from the moment of conception to protect and nurture that life from day one. To ignore that life at any stage puts the fully developed human in danger of defect, suffering and premature death. There are even laws that govern the mothers actions and make her liable if she takes actions that endanger the health and well being of her baby at any time from conception through birth. One could argue that embryo's created with the intent to reproduce should be treated with the same respect the entire time they are viable. I don't know how long they can be kept viable but you could argue that responsibility should be born by the mother and father just as in normal fertilization. That would eliminate throwing the extras away in the trash bin as an option. In others words you conceive you become responsible for your actions. This is where choice comes in. You are now back to the case of specifically creating embryo's for research in growing human organs and you have eliminated the argument of the "Extra's are going to waste anyway let's use them for some good." The intent becomes the issue. When life begins can in some cases be a non issue when intent is considered. At times you can find answers that are in between by starting from both ends and moving toward the middle stopping when things look wrong or right. It is then you get to the grey areas and where you need to follow your conscience not logic. In the case of this process you start with the intent of fertilization in the beginning on one end and on the other end working backward you start with human life created to harvest organs to benefit existing humans. This was not intended to be an argument for or against when life begins (at conception or some time prior normal birth) it was intended as food for thought to consider intent as a component in a discussion of ethical delimits surrounding this issue. Frank cg. Teri 52/47/40 15024 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rayilyn Brown" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 2:49 PM Subject: Re: stem cell research/Fink/in vitro clinics > Bob, > > I saw Joao's intelligent comments and yours, you still have not answered my > questions about in vitro clinics and birth control pills and devices. > > I think the in vitro clinic issue is really important because those embryos, > unlike SCNT are the result of fertilization. You know that it often takes > more than just one to produce a live birth. So, embryos are being produced and > destroyed so that infertile couples can reproduce. Is that OK? If not, what > is going to be done with all those extra embryos? Why is this being ignored? > AND STILL GOING ON? > > It seems to me that opponents of both kinds of stem cell research need to > deal with this question and they are not doing it. > Ray > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn