Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Cloning and Stem Cell Debate Forum

What About Unused Embryos? (Page 1)

Should parents be allowed to donate ZE's?
yes
no
other/unsure
92%  92%  [ 12 ]
7%  7%  [ 1 ]
0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 13
During many processes of fertility treatments, unused embryos and zygotes are created, and frozen. Often, if unused for pregnancy, these ze's are destroyed, or sit in cold storage for years.

I propose that parents participating in fertility treatments that result in extra ze's should be able to donate those ze's towards stem cell research.

Opinions?
Did you find this post helpful?
First Helper Tylanas
|
Users who thank Tylanas for this post: ri0tdorque 

User Profile
replied June 25th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
I was under the impression that the clinic gives you a form to fill out if you want to do this. I agree with that.

I think that as long as the 'parent' or 'donator' agrees and signs a consent form, it is a great idea.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied June 25th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
This is tricky for me because I believe that life begins at conception and therefore these are unique, albeit very developmentally immature, human beings and I don't like the idea of 'spare' embryos after fertility treatment being destroyed let alone experimented on.

B.U.T I can appreciate how the lives of born people can be greatly improved with the use of stem cell technology. For example, my mum and brother could get their eyesight back.

Rock...me...hard place.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied June 25th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
mc4ever02 wrote:
I was under the impression that the clinic gives you a form to fill out if you want to do this. I agree with that.

I think that as long as the 'parent' or 'donator' agrees and signs a consent form, it is a great idea.


Oh yeah? COol.

I'd been under the impression that since the bill .bush signed, the only embryos that could be used for research were the ones already in the system...
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied June 25th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
PurestGreen wrote:
This is tricky for me because I believe that life begins at conception and therefore these are unique, albeit very developmentally immature, human beings and I don't like the idea of 'spare' embryos after fertility treatment being destroyed let alone experimented on.

B.U.T I can appreciate how the lives of born people can be greatly improved with the use of stem cell technology. For example, my mum and brother could get their eyesight back.

Rock...me...hard place.


What do you think is better though? Having that potential child help someone, or just dying without any usefulness?

It's the same idea (in my mind) as organ donation on your driver's license. Mine is signed and official. I figure that if I'm dead, I don't need them anymore.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied June 25th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
PurestGreen wrote:
This is tricky for me because I believe that life begins at conception and therefore these are unique, albeit very developmentally immature, human beings and I don't like the idea of 'spare' embryos after fertility treatment being destroyed let alone experimented on.

B.U.T I can appreciate how the lives of born people can be greatly improved with the use of stem cell technology. For example, my mum and brother could get their eyesight back.

Rock...me...hard place.


I read an interesting thing recently about when life "starts". To sum it up, not nearly as eloquently as it was presented, the blastocyte is made up of two cells, both alive-the ovum and the sperm. These single alive cells were manufactured by an alive human being. These alive human beings were manufactured by these alive cells, who were manufactured by an alive human being... and so on and so forth.

So, if one were to believe that life starts at conception, they must consider that life really started millions of years ago (if you believe in evolution).

Nothing is dead within the whole process.

Does that make sense? I'll try to find it.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied June 25th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
That is beautiful ^^.

And that's also why I think viability is a far better stopper for abortion, not that this is the abortion debate.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 25th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"Having that potential child help someone, or just dying without any usefulness?"

correction....
Having that Child with potential help someone

This is why I am against IVF
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 25th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
"Having that potential child help someone, or just dying without any usefulness?"

correction....
Having that Child with potential help someone

This is why I am against IVF


It's not a child with potential.

It IS going to be destroyed.

I frown upon IVF for a different reason: infertile couples should adopt.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
Gu£st wrote:
"Having that potential child help someone, or just dying without any usefulness?"

correction....
Having that Child with potential help someone

This is why I am against IVF


It's not a child with potential.

It IS going to be destroyed.

I frown upon IVF for a different reason: infertile couples should adopt.


that's kind of close minded eiri, they aren't all infertile. my cousin was 22 and had been trying to get pregnant for several years (yeah young, but she'd been married since 19) and she couldn't get pregnant. at that age would you just want to give up? she ended up doing ivf and got pregnant and now has 4 year old triplets, they aren't all infertile, some just have a hard time getting pregnant.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
I didn't say everyone who uses IVF is infertile. I said the ones who are and who do should adopt.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 26th, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
I didn't say everyone who uses IVF is infertile. I said the ones who are and who do should adopt.


Why?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
Jules wrote:
Eiri wrote:
I didn't say everyone who uses IVF is infertile. I said the ones who are and who do should adopt.


Why?


Because I believe that if nature has rendered you incapable of normal fertilization, you should adopt to care for the babies that women give up for adoption or children who are taken from abusive families.

It's like adopting a dog from a shelter, or paying $3,000 for a purebred. The shelter dog will love you with all his soul, the purebred may very well have health and personality issues.

Also, some parents sicken me when they say "I couldn't love an adopted child as much because it wouldn't be mine". That makes me so angry.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied July 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
i understand what you're saying eiri, sorry i hope i didn't come off rude in my post, i guess when i read that i just assumed you meant all ivf and were saying that anyone who needed it was infertile, i apologize. but i totally get what you're saying.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 26th, 2007
Especially eHealthy
HcoBrunette06 wrote:
i understand what you're saying eiri, sorry i hope i didn't come off rude in my post, i guess when i read that i just assumed you meant all ivf and were saying that anyone who needed it was infertile, i apologize. but i totally get what you're saying.


That's okay; it's good to make me clarify!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied July 29th, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
"It's not a child with potential.

It IS going to be destroyed."

You have the potential to be a race car driver even if someone were going to kill you, not only would they be killing you but also your potential.

It is a child with potential until it is destroyed.

I cant see why we need to destroy them, how about those waiting to adopt why not extend adoption to embryonic children.

BTW Eiri Very good moral judgment on the IVF thing its not the primary reason why I am against it but your reason certainly only reinforces my belief that it is wrong.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 1st, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Gu£st wrote:
"It's not a child with potential.

It IS going to be destroyed."

You have the potential to be a race car driver even if someone were going to kill you, not only would they be killing you but also your potential.

It is a child with potential until it is destroyed.

I cant see why we need to destroy them, how about those waiting to adopt why not extend adoption to embryonic children.

|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 2nd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Eiri wrote:
I didn't say everyone who uses IVF is infertile. I said the ones who are and who do should adopt.


What is the difference between people who are infertile and people who cannot conceive without IVF?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 2nd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
Jules wrote:
This is tricky for me because I believe that life begins at conception and therefore these are unique, albeit very developmentally immature, human beings and I don't like the idea of 'spare' embryos after fertility treatment being destroyed let alone experimented on.

B.U.T I can appreciate how the lives of born people can be greatly improved with the use of stem cell technology. For example, my mum and brother could get their eyesight back.

Rock...me...hard place.


Wow. Embryos thrown out or giving people back their eyesight. I'm sorry, I just don't see the tough choice.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied September 2nd, 2007
Especially eHealthy
futureshock wrote:
Eiri wrote:
I didn't say everyone who uses IVF is infertile. I said the ones who are and who do should adopt.


What is the difference between people who are infertile and people who cannot conceive without IVF?


To be truly infertile, it must be impossible for you to conceive through natural methods (in my book). There are some women who use IVF who could conceive normally, but they are simply having difficulty doing so.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12