Tired of hearing just what I have to say on the frozen embryo debate? Read below! I highlighted some of my favorites!
Sharon LaMothe
READERS WEIGH IN (LA Times)
Would you support legislation creating guidelines for the fate of frozen embryos?
1. A lot of people apparently need to go back to high school. It was discovered in 1827 that a whole distinct living human organism begins at fertilization. This is settled biological fact, and it is not a matter of opinion up for debate or open to disagreement. When you favor protecting human life or giving rights is the only valid question. Moreover, by biological definition, you can distinguish an "organism" from an "organ" or "tissue." All organisms at issue here are members of the human species and distinct by DNA. We're not talking about other species (grass) or mere parts of a human organism (organ, tissue).
2. To Cindy, a uterus does not create life - it supports the growth of a human being.
3. This is yet another attempt of the religious right to try a slight of hand. When teaching creationsim in school failed, they renamed it intelligent design. Now that they realize abortion will not be outlawed, they try to legislatively bootstrap an embryo into person. Its the duck test. If it looks, sounds and flys like a duck, it is a duck. An embryo will never be more than an embryo.
4. I think the entire conundrum illustrates the problem with the process in the first place. Either embryonic life is property and its disposition is entirely the right of the owner or it is not strictly property but human and has rights of protection under the law. Abortion sets the legal standard for embryonic life as purely property. The slippery slope cannot find a moral logic that is otherwise.
5. Putting off the decision pretty much makes it for you: the longer these embryos are frozen, the less likely they are to be viable when unfrozen. "Fresh" is better. In addition, the longer time increases the chance of an equipment malfunction or human error that renders the embryos inert. Might as well donate them while you know they are still viable.
6. In addition to sperm and an egg, a uterus is essential to creating life. An egg and sperm alone just creates some cells that will go no where without a womb.
7. To Tony, you said the fertilized egg is alive, but not a person. How do you define a person? A blade of grass is a blade of grass, dead or alive.
8. I would not support that legislation. The couples are to decide what happens to their DNA. Next thing you know we'll outlaw any sex outside of procreation because it wastes sperm cells.
9. Don't want the government telling me what to do with my embryos. "Thanks, but no thanks."
10. According to centuries-old Jewish tradition, an embryo or fetus is not a human. It becomes a human with the first breath of air, the "breath of life". This traces back to the verse in Genesis, when God breathes life into Adam. Legislation to declare an embryo a human would put the dogmas of other religions into law, violating my freedom of religion.
Submitted by: Anonymous
2. To Cindy, a uterus does not create life - it supports the growth of a human being.
Submitted by: Debbie
3. This is yet another attempt of the religious right to try a slight of hand. When teaching creationsim in school failed, they renamed it intelligent design. Now that they realize abortion will not be outlawed, they try to legislatively bootstrap an embryo into person. Its the duck test. If it looks, sounds and flys like a duck, it is a duck. An embryo will never be more than an embryo.
Submitted by: Robert
4. I think the entire conundrum illustrates the problem with the process in the first place. Either embryonic life is property and its disposition is entirely the right of the owner or it is not strictly property but human and has rights of protection under the law. Abortion sets the legal standard for embryonic life as purely property. The slippery slope cannot find a moral logic that is otherwise.
Submitted by: Gerry Zipf
5. Putting off the decision pretty much makes it for you: the longer these embryos are frozen, the less likely they are to be viable when unfrozen. "Fresh" is better. In addition, the longer time increases the chance of an equipment malfunction or human error that renders the embryos inert. Might as well donate them while you know they are still viable.
Submitted by: Susan
6. In addition to sperm and an egg, a uterus is essential to creating life. An egg and sperm alone just creates some cells that will go no where without a womb.
Submitted by: Cindy
7. To Tony, you said the fertilized egg is alive, but not a person. How do you define a person? A blade of grass is a blade of grass, dead or alive.
Submitted by: The Unborn
8. I would not support that legislation. The couples are to decide what happens to their DNA. Next thing you know we'll outlaw any sex outside of procreation because it wastes sperm cells.
Submitted by: Shan
9. Don't want the government telling me what to do with my embryos. "Thanks, but no thanks."
Submitted by: Julie
10. According to centuries-old Jewish tradition, an embryo or fetus is not a human. It becomes a human with the first breath of air, the "breath of life". This traces back to the verse in Genesis, when God breathes life into Adam. Legislation to declare an embryo a human would put the dogmas of other religions into law, violating my freedom of religion.
Submitted by: David
Posted by: Sharon LaMothe~
Founder of LaMothe Surrogacy Consulting
Owner LaMothe Services
Recent Comments