Friday, July 28, 2006


After providing a hefty dose of vitriol for those who wrote to the opinion page, it is only just that I should present my views on this topic. It is my belief that the entire controversy is the result of the availability of embryonic stem cells. Were there no stem cells available, there would be no debate.

Why are stem cells available? Leaving aside abortion, stem cells are a result of in vitro fertilization. Our ability to successfully implant embryos is quite limited, so we create large quantities of them in the hopes that a few will survive. The remainder are "wasted," and are as such the hope of stem cell researchers.

Why are we performing in vitro fertilization? Well, so people can have babies, right? Wrong. There are millions of babies worldwide in need of good, caring homes. The time, effort, and expense of in vitro fertilization is easily equivalent to the costs of adoption. In vitro fertilization is performed so that someone can be pregnant.

I believe that the desire to be pregnant is not a sufficient justification for destruction of human life.


Blogger Noumenon said...

Maybe pro-life groups are waiting till they win on abortion and then can make this their next big thing? It follows from those premises. (I don't usually let this kind of opinion overrule my libertarian impulse, but I don't see any value in fertility treatments either.)

12:19 PM  
Blogger Hamlette said...

Besides, if you adopt a kid instead of spending a zillion dollars to get pregnant... no pain! No labor! No morning sickness!

Sounds more attractive all the time.

11:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home