Jeb (#94). An answer to the question you reiterated.
Maybe the reason there has not been any compelling answer to the question posed earlier concerning “Why it is better to throw left over IVF embryos into the garbage than to allow those cells to be used for potentially life saving research” is because the question is flawed to begin with.
-First, the question is asked in a moral sense, using “better”. It assumes that it is morally superior to use “leftover IVF embryos” for “potentially” life saving research? It admits morality into the question. The morality of pragmatism. If it is the morality of pragmatism, then why bother with rescuing “leftover IVF embryos”. Produce as many as you “need”. Why not, if there is nothing wrong with it? However, if there is some moral necessity to “rescue” the “left over IVF embryos” from the can, then the question should be asked why we have “leftovers” in the first place. The question brings morality into the issue, thus defeating itself.
-Second, the question is also posed as demanding an either/or answer. Much like the lawyer who asks the witness, “Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, have you stopped beating your wife? ‘Yes’ or ‘no’?” As if I must choose between the fate of the embryo in the trash can or the dissecting table. I choose neither. Even the “life saving research” is posed as an either/or case. I propose we can have life saving research and not compromise our morals. Either way, the Nazi’s “life saving research” was no justification for what they did.
-The second point leads to the third. The question is a secondary question. We need to be asking a more primary question, “Why are there “leftover IVF embryos”?” (I just have to put the phrase in quotation marks, because it is offensive to the sanctity of life.) These secondary questions are often used as a trump card to leave the person answering without an out. I have learned that I do not need to answer the moral the dilemmas of man’s creation. The answer is simple, the whole path is morally bankrupt.
-Another key word is “potentially”. We are so quick to fudge on our morals, for “potentially life saving research”. In the context it might be better to translate “potentially” as “long-shot”.
My example below may not be the direct “yes” and “no” answer you are seeking, but it helps portray some of the reasoning behind those who are opposed to the use of leftover embryos in research. The example from the fast food industry shows why it might be “better” to throw something in the garbage. Often in fast food restaurants, food that has expired is thrown away, even though it is still perfectly edible. Why? Wouldn’t it be better to give it to the employees? In one obvious way, yes. However, the chains are often against the practice for various reasons (lawsuits and image being a couple). But probably the real reason is that, if allowed, it is easy to see that the employees would use this moment to ensure that there are more “leftovers” than necessary. The net result would be an even greater loss for the industry, which they would just pass on to the customer. So, yes, if “leftovers” are allowed to be used, I could foresee an increase in leftover embryos to support this lucrative business of research. As it is, I little trust the ethics of grant-grabbing “scientists” with a political agenda.
