Is It Abortion
One startling statistic that came out during the current frenzy about stem cell research is the fact that we have 400,000 frozen human embryos sitting around in fertility clinics throughout the US. Apparently, these little frozen people were produced by an out-of-control multibillion dollar fertility industry. Rand notes that the majority of these embryos were frozen with the specific intent of later pregnancies. Only about 11,000 of the 400,000 embryos are available for research.
My guess is that the intent, when freezing these embryos, was that they would be used to make people. This intent means that these aren’t just little theoretical spirit babies. These frozen embryos were put on ice with the belief that they would developed into people.
Stop and think. 400,000 is a very large number. In 2000, the population of Salt Lake City was 181,743. The population of embryos that could be thawed and matured is greater a major cities in our nation!
The frozen embryos, of course, are just a tip of the iceberg. Collecting embryos for freezing is not easy. I would guess that for each frozen embryo, there’s was dozen or more discarded embryos.
We are talking Holocaust style of numbers here. The fertility industry created these embryos knowing that they could develop into people. This is not just idle speculation about spirit babies. We are talking things that scientist fervently believed could be develop into people.
The idea that we should carry all of these embryos to term is absurd. There is zero reason to think that a person conceived in a petri dish in 1999 is better than one produced during a fit of passion in a Vegas Hotel ... the way God intended. (If God did not want people to have unwanted pregnancies, he wouldn't have created Vegas.)
The question I ask in this blog post is if disposing our frozen embryo stockpile is abortion?
A second question follows the first. If disposing the embryos is abortion, then what does that really mean?
The term “abortion” means stopping a process that has been started. These embryos were started on the path to developing into humans. Disposing of these embryos that scientists started on the process of becoming people pretty much fits that definition.
The fact that we are spending gobs of money to keep the embryos on ice shows for a fact that medical community considers them viable.
In my opinion, thawing the embryos is an abortion. It is an embryonic abortion, as opposed to a fetal abortion. We should use the term correctly.
I do realize that a large number indoctrinated into new think will splat out the party line that the politically correct definition of abortion is that an embryotic abortion is not abortion.
I am sorry, but I think terms should be defined by the way nature works and not according to desired political outcomes.
For that matter, redefining the terms of the debate does not change the moral issues involved with this topic.
The July 2006 issue of Mother Jones explored the embryo glut in greater detail.
Apparently, the reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is that the parents (and fertility clinics, for that matter) lack the will to thaw the embryos. The Mother Jones article reports that 71% of the parents going through fertility treatment changed their minds about what to do with excess embryos. Parents start by saying they want excess embryos destroyed. After the process, they are unwilling to go through with the process.
To reiterate: The reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is because people who thought they would have no problems discarding excess embryos end up having problems with that issue. The idea that you can change the debate by changing the definition of terms simply destroys our ability to community. It does not resolve the difficult issues that we face.
Both the Rand and Mother Jones articles note that the embryos on ice are not available for research. These embryos are the property of the parents and are caught in a web of moral dilemmas and don't want their off spring used for experimentation.
The problems we face exist beyond the way we define terms.
On to question two: If discarding embryos is abortion; what does this mean?
The first thing to point out is that the primary reason for the large number of discarded embryos created during artificial insemination is that there is a large number of embryos discarded during the natural birth process. Apparently what happens is that eggs are released on a timed schedule. It is common in natural pregnancies for multiple eggs to fertilize. It appears that when eggs implant in the uterine lining, the lining releases a hormone that makes the lining hostile to more eggs.
The natural birth cycle aborts embryos.
Artificial insemination replicates the natural process of fertilization. Replicating the natural process brings the natural abortions into the laboratory where they transform into artificial abortions.
Women seeking fertility treatment end up with multiple babies because the embryos because the release of embryos during artificial insemination is timed differently than the natural process that would abort several fertilized eggs.
Nature does not bring all fertilized eggs to term. As the natural process aborts embryos, there is no reason to think that artificial processes would not abort embryos.
I reject as absurd the idea that we have to save all of the embryos on ice. We have an overpopulated world and lack the resources to accomplish such a feat.
Artificial insemination creates moral dilemmas where moral dilemmas did not exist in the past. The very nature of science is that the more we know about the way things work, the more moral decisions we have to face. This is the way knowledge works.
It is absurd to say that we have to turn all of the frozen embryos into people. However, the ability to engage in artificial insemination creates a dilemma where there was not a dilemma before. We have a moral challenge that we must face.
The large number of frozen embryos shows that the American medical industry has failed to address the moral challenges created by their new science. As artificial insemination makes a natural process artificial, the natural abortion of embryos becomes an problematic artificial process.
Ultimately, the fertility industry needs to find a way to reduce the artificial byproducts of their efforts. All industries seem to face similar challenges. Just as the car industry has a moral obligation to minimize the air pollution created by their products, the fertility industry has a moral obligation to minimize the abortions created by their efforts.
The Chomski worshipers who believe they can cast aside moral dilemmas by redefining terms are nothing but unprincipled wanks. Science does not excuse man of the moral dilemmas created by increased knowledge. Good science is a process that makes mankind aware of the moral challenges of life.
The aborting of embryos is a natural process. It is absurd to say that our increased knowledge of the process of life means that we must bring all embryos to term. The moral issues come to play not as absolutes but as derivatives.
The question faced by the fertility industry is not simply about the number of embryos on ice. The question is about the overall ratio of embryotic abortions to births. The goal of the fertility industry should be to create fertility processes that decrease the ratio of aborted embryos to live births. Technology that increases the ratio should be rejected in favor of technology that decreases the ratio.
Personally, I see an overcrowded world. In my opinion, many of the people seeking fertility treatment would do this world a favor if they followed the path of adoption instead.
The next set of questions arise in the use of excess embryos for stem cell or other research.
Once again, the area should not be dominated by absolutes. A statement that researching on discarded embryos is absolutely perfect and okay is as off base as one that says research on stem cells from discarded embryos should be absolutely forbidden.
The science we pursue must be based on a widespread moral dialog.
Scientitists and policy makers must know for a fact that the embryos harvested for stem cell research had the potential to develop into human beings. The dreaded “A” word should be employed in debates about the issue. It is not an issue where people should tread lightly.
There are important issues to debate. For example, there is the question of whether or not we should use tax dollars to fund the collection of embryos from fertility clinics.
Also there should be a great deal of oversight and review of this research both by peers in the medical industry and people from the political and spiritual communities.
We should not shout down people because they are hated (the way that we hate GW Bush).
Imagine the results of a system where the Federal government paid $10,000 for embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research. If I were an investor in the fertility clinic, I would demand the clinic increase production of embryos to cash in on this revenue opportunity.
A tax funded incentive will artificially increase the number of aborted embryos. Much as I hate Bush, his veto against using tax dollars to fund this research has a sound basis.
I like the dialog that went into the anti-fetal farming bill. A prohibition on any form of selling an embryo might be in order.
There is a host of political and spiritual issues that must be addressed. This is the nature of life.
Just as chemical companies should be forced to pay for the messes they create, the fertility industry should be forced to pay the cost of the embryos it creates. Perhaps there should be taxes and penalties placed on the artificial creation of excess embryos.
If such actions drive up the costs of artificial insemination, then so be it. Air pollution control jacks up the price of cars to the point that some people have to take the bus. Again, this is the cost of life.
The fertility industry has been irresponsible. The 400,000 embryos on ice is proof. They should be forced to pay the price of their actions.
The irresponsible actions of the fertility industry that caused it to build up a glut of 400,000 embryos on ice makes me doubt the integrity the researchers demanding tax dollars for their research on stem cells derived from human embryos. Although I recognize the loudest voices criticizing this research are right wing kooks. I can’t help but think that if we had listened to the right wings kooks irate about the excesses of the fertility industry, we may have been able to reduce the problems we have with the 400,000 human embryos on ice.
Regardless, we have to be able to talk. This unabashed shouting down of voices critical of harvesting human embryos does the world a disservice.
My guess is that the intent, when freezing these embryos, was that they would be used to make people. This intent means that these aren’t just little theoretical spirit babies. These frozen embryos were put on ice with the belief that they would developed into people.
Stop and think. 400,000 is a very large number. In 2000, the population of Salt Lake City was 181,743. The population of embryos that could be thawed and matured is greater a major cities in our nation!
The frozen embryos, of course, are just a tip of the iceberg. Collecting embryos for freezing is not easy. I would guess that for each frozen embryo, there’s was dozen or more discarded embryos.
We are talking Holocaust style of numbers here. The fertility industry created these embryos knowing that they could develop into people. This is not just idle speculation about spirit babies. We are talking things that scientist fervently believed could be develop into people.
The idea that we should carry all of these embryos to term is absurd. There is zero reason to think that a person conceived in a petri dish in 1999 is better than one produced during a fit of passion in a Vegas Hotel ... the way God intended. (If God did not want people to have unwanted pregnancies, he wouldn't have created Vegas.)
The question I ask in this blog post is if disposing our frozen embryo stockpile is abortion?
A second question follows the first. If disposing the embryos is abortion, then what does that really mean?
The term “abortion” means stopping a process that has been started. These embryos were started on the path to developing into humans. Disposing of these embryos that scientists started on the process of becoming people pretty much fits that definition.
The fact that we are spending gobs of money to keep the embryos on ice shows for a fact that medical community considers them viable.
In my opinion, thawing the embryos is an abortion. It is an embryonic abortion, as opposed to a fetal abortion. We should use the term correctly.
I do realize that a large number indoctrinated into new think will splat out the party line that the politically correct definition of abortion is that an embryotic abortion is not abortion.
I am sorry, but I think terms should be defined by the way nature works and not according to desired political outcomes.
For that matter, redefining the terms of the debate does not change the moral issues involved with this topic.
The July 2006 issue of Mother Jones explored the embryo glut in greater detail.
Apparently, the reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is that the parents (and fertility clinics, for that matter) lack the will to thaw the embryos. The Mother Jones article reports that 71% of the parents going through fertility treatment changed their minds about what to do with excess embryos. Parents start by saying they want excess embryos destroyed. After the process, they are unwilling to go through with the process.
To reiterate: The reason we have 400,000 embryos on ice is because people who thought they would have no problems discarding excess embryos end up having problems with that issue. The idea that you can change the debate by changing the definition of terms simply destroys our ability to community. It does not resolve the difficult issues that we face.
Both the Rand and Mother Jones articles note that the embryos on ice are not available for research. These embryos are the property of the parents and are caught in a web of moral dilemmas and don't want their off spring used for experimentation.
The problems we face exist beyond the way we define terms.
On to question two: If discarding embryos is abortion; what does this mean?
The first thing to point out is that the primary reason for the large number of discarded embryos created during artificial insemination is that there is a large number of embryos discarded during the natural birth process. Apparently what happens is that eggs are released on a timed schedule. It is common in natural pregnancies for multiple eggs to fertilize. It appears that when eggs implant in the uterine lining, the lining releases a hormone that makes the lining hostile to more eggs.
The natural birth cycle aborts embryos.
Artificial insemination replicates the natural process of fertilization. Replicating the natural process brings the natural abortions into the laboratory where they transform into artificial abortions.
Women seeking fertility treatment end up with multiple babies because the embryos because the release of embryos during artificial insemination is timed differently than the natural process that would abort several fertilized eggs.
Nature does not bring all fertilized eggs to term. As the natural process aborts embryos, there is no reason to think that artificial processes would not abort embryos.
I reject as absurd the idea that we have to save all of the embryos on ice. We have an overpopulated world and lack the resources to accomplish such a feat.
Artificial insemination creates moral dilemmas where moral dilemmas did not exist in the past. The very nature of science is that the more we know about the way things work, the more moral decisions we have to face. This is the way knowledge works.
It is absurd to say that we have to turn all of the frozen embryos into people. However, the ability to engage in artificial insemination creates a dilemma where there was not a dilemma before. We have a moral challenge that we must face.
The large number of frozen embryos shows that the American medical industry has failed to address the moral challenges created by their new science. As artificial insemination makes a natural process artificial, the natural abortion of embryos becomes an problematic artificial process.
Ultimately, the fertility industry needs to find a way to reduce the artificial byproducts of their efforts. All industries seem to face similar challenges. Just as the car industry has a moral obligation to minimize the air pollution created by their products, the fertility industry has a moral obligation to minimize the abortions created by their efforts.
The Chomski worshipers who believe they can cast aside moral dilemmas by redefining terms are nothing but unprincipled wanks. Science does not excuse man of the moral dilemmas created by increased knowledge. Good science is a process that makes mankind aware of the moral challenges of life.
The aborting of embryos is a natural process. It is absurd to say that our increased knowledge of the process of life means that we must bring all embryos to term. The moral issues come to play not as absolutes but as derivatives.
The question faced by the fertility industry is not simply about the number of embryos on ice. The question is about the overall ratio of embryotic abortions to births. The goal of the fertility industry should be to create fertility processes that decrease the ratio of aborted embryos to live births. Technology that increases the ratio should be rejected in favor of technology that decreases the ratio.
Personally, I see an overcrowded world. In my opinion, many of the people seeking fertility treatment would do this world a favor if they followed the path of adoption instead.
The next set of questions arise in the use of excess embryos for stem cell or other research.
Once again, the area should not be dominated by absolutes. A statement that researching on discarded embryos is absolutely perfect and okay is as off base as one that says research on stem cells from discarded embryos should be absolutely forbidden.
The science we pursue must be based on a widespread moral dialog.
Scientitists and policy makers must know for a fact that the embryos harvested for stem cell research had the potential to develop into human beings. The dreaded “A” word should be employed in debates about the issue. It is not an issue where people should tread lightly.
There are important issues to debate. For example, there is the question of whether or not we should use tax dollars to fund the collection of embryos from fertility clinics.
Also there should be a great deal of oversight and review of this research both by peers in the medical industry and people from the political and spiritual communities.
We should not shout down people because they are hated (the way that we hate GW Bush).
Imagine the results of a system where the Federal government paid $10,000 for embryos from fertility clinics for stem cell research. If I were an investor in the fertility clinic, I would demand the clinic increase production of embryos to cash in on this revenue opportunity.
A tax funded incentive will artificially increase the number of aborted embryos. Much as I hate Bush, his veto against using tax dollars to fund this research has a sound basis.
I like the dialog that went into the anti-fetal farming bill. A prohibition on any form of selling an embryo might be in order.
There is a host of political and spiritual issues that must be addressed. This is the nature of life.
Just as chemical companies should be forced to pay for the messes they create, the fertility industry should be forced to pay the cost of the embryos it creates. Perhaps there should be taxes and penalties placed on the artificial creation of excess embryos.
If such actions drive up the costs of artificial insemination, then so be it. Air pollution control jacks up the price of cars to the point that some people have to take the bus. Again, this is the cost of life.
The fertility industry has been irresponsible. The 400,000 embryos on ice is proof. They should be forced to pay the price of their actions.
The irresponsible actions of the fertility industry that caused it to build up a glut of 400,000 embryos on ice makes me doubt the integrity the researchers demanding tax dollars for their research on stem cells derived from human embryos. Although I recognize the loudest voices criticizing this research are right wing kooks. I can’t help but think that if we had listened to the right wings kooks irate about the excesses of the fertility industry, we may have been able to reduce the problems we have with the 400,000 human embryos on ice.
Regardless, we have to be able to talk. This unabashed shouting down of voices critical of harvesting human embryos does the world a disservice.
posted by y-intercept at 4:38 PM
1 comments
