I knew stem cell research was important and useful, but it never really occurred to me that they were using embryos that'd otherwise be lost. Further strengthens my stance that the opposition to these procedures is ridiculous.
And again I'm going to say I don't think it is remotely ethical to create life in order to destroy it in such a fashion.
Let's try to be realistic for a second here. Embryos are
sometimes, just like in the human body, created and then destroyed. Given that this happens, doesn't it make more sense to use them to save lives than to throw them in the trash?
You can't say that you're against this stance because you'd rather in-vitro fertilization didn't happen, because in reality it does. It's just as with golf, really, you gotta play the ball as it lies.
I'm against donor children myself as it raises a whole lot of ethical issues, even more so than adoption... but it happens, and as long as it does, I'm for using embryos to save real, living human lives.
This sounds like one of those debates on abortion and contraception in which certain religious people cling to the notion that abstinence-only sex ed and abortion bans are the best way to reduce teen sex - even though all objective studies have found that this is approach has a disastrous track record.
Define 'playing God'. I'm asking because this is an expression I really do not understand. Is the rest of medical science 'playing God', too? After all, we've lengthened life expectancy from the 'natural' 30 or so years (or was it even shorter than that before the Egyptians?) to a good 80+. We fly without wings. We make 'dead' people come to life with defibrillators.
Why aren't any of these things 'playing God', and what's wrong with 'playing God' in the first place?