 |
 |
it is apparently human nature to consider the moral implications, as well, but it would be helpful if the right context were being applied to the moral implications being considered, i.e., 1) that the embryos in question are donated to research by the people who produced them because that is their right and responsibility, so when one argues against ESCR one must be arguing that they should not have that option; and 2) that the process by which the embryos in question are created destroys countless embryos, so if one maintains that the destruction of an embryo is wrong and therefore cannot occur in the context of research, then one must also argue for a cessation of IVF - or else one is not only a hypocrite, but one will not save a single embryo by outlawing the option of donating them to research, because the embryos will continue ot be destroyed, both in the process of IVF and by the choice of couples who do not wish to donate to another couple - as most do not. To consider the moral implications outside of the reality of that context is misguided and misleading. --- Amanda Phillips <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I'm in favour of stem cell research as you know, > but not to consider the > moral implications would be wrong. Besides, it's > human nature to abuse new > technology at the first opportunity. > Also, how reliable is animal research - thalidomide > was tested on rats and > worked nicely ... > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > __________________________________________________ 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