Stem Cell Research and the Media

[tinpra]

So I ran across this article on MSN last month. If you don't feel like clicking the link, it's about a breakthrough in stem cell research in which "skin cells [were] made to mimic stem cells." As someone who's against embryonic stem cell research, I have no problem with it. According to the article it's still risky and experimental business and

Comments

[randomposting]

What do you feel about the embryos that would just be discarded no matter what, from invitro fertilization clinics, etc?

[tinpra]

That's a great question, particularly since I hadn't thought about it. My first reaction is I don't know, but the more I ponder it the more I'm against it. The basis of my issue with embryonic stem cell research is probably the basis of anyone who's anti -- I believe that an individual's life starts at the moment of fertilization. An egg and a sperm, as separate entities, belong to the woman and the man. An embryo is neither egg nor sperm and belongs to itself. To destroy an embryo is to destroy an individual.

That of course brings up the larger question of what to do with viable in vitro fertilized eggs. I had thought that all viable eggs were placed in the mother b/c there's no way of knowing whether they will all take. Is that not true?

[jaguarx13]

No, they aren't. The majority of them are kept in cryogenic storage indefinitely.

[tinpra]

I thought it was something like that.

[randomposting]

Nope. They usually do a whole bunch at one time, so that if the original fertilization doesn't work that they famly can come back for more. That's what they did with my cousin anyway, and from what I've read... so at some invitro centers, there are a whole lots of embryo' that once the Mother s impregnated and carries a healthy baby, they dn't need anymore if they only want one child so they sign off to have them destroyed. Or other clinics take more then they need just to make surethere' successful fertilization, and sometimes they take too many. I'm just curious, in the situation where those embryonic cells are going to be destroyed anyway, if they shouldn't be used for the greater good, vs. ust being destroyed.

[tinpra]

I'm decidedly against destroying embryos, period. What else to do with them, other than the indefinite cryogenic storage that Jag mentioned, I don't know. Perhaps offer the original parents the option to donate their fertilized embryos to other couples who want to get pregnant but can't? Although I can see and understand people getting really techy about that on both sides.

[randomposting]

I think anyone that would be going for invitro would be using their own embryos, and wouldn't want someone elses. It's not really like adoption, in that way, I don't think.

[tinpra]

Apparently couples using in vitro do have the option to freeze, destroy or donate their extra eggs. It's not called adopting. Actually I have no idea what it's called. I also have no idea re whether it's treated like adoption.

Anywho, I suppose anyone who has an intense desire to have children, and particularly to give birth to their own child, would seek out any possible option. It depends on what you, as a couple, really, really want. A friend of mine is personally anti-in vitro and pro-regular adoption. You sister was pro-in vitro. Some third person out there is pro-in vitro but doesn't have viable embryos and may be pro-other-people's-embryos. But that's the option that best suits my viewpoints.

[randomposting]

*nod* I was just curious on where you stood.

[tinpra]

Well I'm glad you brought it up since I didn't know where I stood either :)

[randomposting]

Cool. :)