Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kech who wrote (115461)	5/22/2005 4:33:46 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793912

Actually it is more complicated than that. It may be more complicated, but the bottom line for pro-lifers is that destroying an embryo is murder. So I just cut to the chase. No matter how complicated it is, you're still murdering an embryo so, to be consistent, you'd have to either allow or disallow both. I can find no excuse for tolerating fertility treatments and not stem cell research. Now, if you want to rationalize, you can argue that the fertility embryo is being destroyed as a byproduct of a good cause, to produce a baby for the infertile. But that's also true of the stem-cell embryo, a byproduct of saving the life or health of a person. So you still have to either allow disallow both. How would you draw the line between this and simply embryo cloning? The two ethical lines I would draw would be to stop short of pregnancy, at least until cloning advances to the point where cloned animals can be produced safely, and to not mistreat the donors. I don't consider blastocysts or embryos to have any ethical standing whatsoever.