 |
 |
to the question of ESCR being embryocide - we must remember that the embryos in question are not whisked away from a future of baby food and burping by supporters of ESCR. rather, they are donated to research by the people who produced them in the course of undergoing IVF. ultimately, if opposers of ESCR succeed in stopping that research but not at stopping IVF, all they will have achieved is to have put a halt to potentially life-saving research *without saving a single embryo* - here is why. people undergoing IVF have three options when faced with the decision of what to do with the embryos they will not use: donate them to another couple, donate them to research, or give the clinic permission to destroy them. most people decide not to donate to another couple, and given that both of the two remaining choices result in destruction of the embryo, it is at *that* moment that the decision has been made to destroy the embryos - by the people who have the right to make that decision. so to oppose ESCR is to oppose those people's right to decide the fates of their embryos. but it goes deeper than that, really, because if one opposes ESCR on the grounds that it is wrong to kill an embryo, then one must not only oppose the destruction of embryos in research, one must also oppose plain old destruction. the problem with that is that the only remaining choice then is to donate to another couple, which, if it is the only option available, would amount to subjecting couples to forced parenthood - something the courts have never upheld. however, it goes deeper still, because even aside from the decisions made by people undergoing IVF, embryo destruction is inherent in the IVF process - consider the baseline attrition rate of 10-25% just in the freezing process. so if the opposition were to be successful at stopping ESCR but unsuccessful at banning IVF, they would effectively only have achieved one thing - the elimination of the "'donate to research" option from the three available to those undergoing IVF. it would not be feasible to eliminate the "give the clinic permission to destroy" option because that would force people to donate to other couples, and forced parenthood has always lost in court. since the quantity of couples preferring destruction to donating to another couple would not change, no longer having the option to donate to research would not reduce the quantity of embryos destroyed, it would merely change the method of destruction - and the potential for good to come of that destruction. so ultimately, anyone who opposes ESCR on the basis that it is wrong to kill embryos cannot logically deny that IVF must also be stopped, in tandem with ESCR - because if it is not, then all they will have accomplished is to have put a stop to potentially lifesaving research - without saving a single embryo. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn