TheHat;
First off, these are very good questions that you are asking. I believe that you (and others opposed) to embryonic research have a right to have your concerns addressed - something that far too many people on my side of the fence don't spend enough time doing, imho. If we can have a more open, honest exchange, we can work together to dispell a lot of the myths out there about what goes on in this type of research, and at least both sides can be more informed about the other, even if we still end up in disagreement. So i'll certainly address your issues.
If we use the logic that they were headed for the dumpster bin, then what stops us from using each other as guinea pigs? Since we are all headed for the same dumpster bin eventually.
I have two parts to this answer. For one, we are dealing with embryos - specifically, embryos which are pretty much unviable. What this means is that, were we to actually attempt to grow these embryos in an attempt to make a "test tube baby", they simply would not take. I can tell you that many which have come our way were physically very damaged from whatever happened during their term of storage in their respective clinics. For purposes of baby-making, these just won't work. For research purposes, however, they will. So, these embryos are different from the ones which we would call 'viable' - those which could still be used in IVF. Given that the concern is over a viable fetus which could potentially become a baby, we are now capable of differentiating between the type of embryo used in research, and the viable version, which is where the concern lies if I am reading the opposition correctly.
For another, we do "use each other as guinea pigs" when it comes to research, do we not? How many times have you heard about terminal cancer patients with little hope and, as a result, end up volunteering for experimental medications? For that matter, what about the "safer" experiments offered by many universities looking for voluntary participants, many of which offer cash? I'd say it's pretty fair to say that yes, we do research on our fellow human beings - even untested, potentially dangerous research, depending on how life-threatening the condition.
Embryonic stem cell research kills life. It is completely different then any other type of medical research out there.
I'd say this is definitely false, and I think you'd agree. Almost all research inevitably needs a test subject(s), and one of the more popular is, of course, bacteria. How many colonies have been eradicated from simply searching for new antibiotics? But let's move a bit higher up the chain. What about lab mice? I can't tell you how many i've seen killed at various parts of my career, and I was just one of a team of researchers in a small lab. And such experiments aren't limited to those organisms; there are a number of different species involved in medical research, and while it may eventually lead to good news for human beings, from the standpoint of the organism involved, medical research is bad news.
But what about the embryo? Well, I think the entire question boils down to this: given that there is no chance of that embryo eventually becoming a walking, talking, undamaged human being if we were to do our best to make it such, would you still oppose embryonic stem cell research, or does that alter the conditions enough for you to "ride the fence", so to speak?
Also, can you be for IVF, then complain about overpopulation? That one has always perplexed me.
Good question, but I am neither opposed to IVF or population increase. You'd have to ask someone with much stronger opinions than myself on the subject, i'm afraid.
Who gets to determine which ones are viable and which aren't though? And how does somebody know a life is about to approach (un)viability?
Another good question. I should preface this by saying that, in the abortion debate, we often hear the term 'fetal viability'. Medically speaking, this is different than embryonic viability for IVF and research, in the fact that we are not dealing with a fetus, but an embryo. Clinics that i've dealt with have staff knowledgeable about the damage suffered during cryopreservation, and we can determine this as well upon arrival. In the past, we've rejected a number of samples simply because they were too damaged for any purpose. But we've never recieved any sample that was in excellent condition after cryopreservation. Those samples will never see the inside of a research laboratory, as they are still quite viable.
The embryo is a baby. The 2 are not seperable.
At the risk of saying something offensive to you or any person on the pro-life side of the abortion debate, let me preface by saying I totally understand and respect your view about life and the soul inhabiting the body at conception. I am answering this position from a scientific point of view, and from my own first-hand knowledge of the matter. In no way, shape, or form am I disagreeing with any ethical questions you have answered on the subject; i'm simply giving a scientific, morally-neutral answer.
Scientifically speaking, an embryo is not a baby, as 'baby' is typically used as a postnatal term in fetal medicine. An
embryo is the first stage in in human development, after which it becomes a fetus (typically 8 weeks). Tissue development and organogenesis are two of the main characteristics of this stage, along with early limb development, and - if all is well - no chromosomal abnormalities.
I hope I was able to answer all of your concerns. If there are any others, feel free to post them. I think we have a nice discussion going, and for that, I thank you. Thanks, TheHat!
