 |
 |
The public seems to think there is a baby for every embryo. Opponents of ESCR have successfully made it an abortion issue. They never mention the fact that Zara, a Snowflake baby was one of 5 embryos, 4 didn't make it. This is a great editorial. Diane W sends me 10s of such op-eds and I've already seen it.. Wish she could post on PIEN. Thanks, Nancy, Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nancy Porter" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:22 AM Subject: STEM CELL EDITORIAL, L.A. TIMES > May 26, 2005 > latimes.com : Opinion : > EDITORIAL > > Stem Cell Hypocrisy ... > Photographs in Wednesday's papers of President Bush with cuddly little > babies, all of whom were produced from surplus fertilized eggs at > fertility clinics, represent a White House attempt to deal with the > biggest flaw in logic regarding its stem cell policy — and its moral weak > point. This is the fact that fertility clinics routinely create many > test-tube embryos for every human baby that is wanted or is produced. > > Here is what happens to those embryos: Some are destroyed because a > microscopic examination indicates that they are defective or abnormal. > Some of the rest are implanted. But generally, there are some left over. > These may be discarded, or frozen for future attempts, or frozen > indefinitely; it's up to the customers. > > A small fraction of couples choose to donate their unneeded embryos to > other infertile couples. Several are implanted in each prospective mother, > sometimes producing multiple births. Sometimes they produce one. > Frequently, they produce none at all. And about 20% die before they reach > full term. The entire process therefore unavoidably involves the creation > and knowing destruction of many embryos. > > This leads to two conclusions. First, Bush's policy is illogical; he not > only tolerates in vitro fertilization — the president celebrates it > (correctly) as bringing happiness to many. It is a "pro-family" policy > that unavoidably involves creating and destroying embryos. > > Second, encouraging the donation of frozen embryos to prospective > parents, even under the most optimistic scenario, would put only a small > dent in the supply. According to a 2003 study, there are almost half a > million frozen human embryos in storage in the United States. The vast > majority of them — 87% — were frozen in case the parents might need them, > but the vast majority of that vast majority will never be needed or used. > An embryo-adoption drive wouldn't save the embryos that die in other > stages of the process. And ironically, the recipients of donated > fertilized eggs also generally have several implanted in the hope that one > will survive. In effect, donation results in the deaths of embryos that > would otherwise stay frozen. > > A bill approved by a wide (but not veto-proof) margin in the House on > Tuesday would loosen restrictions on federal funding for stem cell > research. The president is threatening to veto this bill. If he does, > these embryos will either be destroyed or frozen forever. They will not > develop into cuddly babies. Therefore a veto wouldn't actually save a > single embryo. His threat is purely symbolic. > > If you really believe that embryos are full human beings, this doesn't > matter. But if you think the issue is uncertain or ambiguous at all, it's > a powerful argument to say: It's not a choice between a human life and an > embryo's life. It's a choice between real human lives and a symbolic > statement about the value of an embryo. And it's a statement belied by the > reality of in vitro fertilization and how it works. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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