> I'm confused. Maybe it was just the presentation of what little "news" on this subject I have been exposed to, but I thought the whole hullaballoo this particular time the subject was hot regards the fact that the embryos being used were not aborted, "waste" material, but were, in fact, made from donated eggs and sperm, and were specifically cultivated for this purpose. This, in turn, brought me to wonder if that fact -- how and why the embryos were made into embryos in the first place -- has any bearing or influence on the feeling/belief that the embryos have an inherent right to life and that life in any form should be revered and preserved at all cost. I expect the knee jerk reaction (you know, the one that must be defended because its invocation is so adamant) to be no, but I still wonder.

I believe the eggs and sperm weren't donated to science, but were unused specimens at fertility clinics. The way I understand it, a couple who use the clinic's services supply many eggs and sperm samples, and the fertilized eggs are implanted a few at a time in the woman. If one particular attempt yields a child, and the couple doesn't want to try for another, then the remaining fertilized eggs are thrown out -- or would be, if they weren't appropriated by the stem cell researchers.

The problem, from a pro-life point of view, isn't so much on the side of the researchers as it is with the process used by the fertility clinic, which produces so many discarded embryos in the first place. It troubles me that my stepsister and her husband, who are themselves pro-life, have availed themselves of this service in an (unsuccessful) effort to have a second child.

The chance for an embryo to implant in the uterus and survive is abysmally small, which is why several embryos (six in my stepsister's case) are normally implanted at once, to improve the chance that at least one or two may survive. If one regards these embryos as human lives to be protected, it seems inconsistent to create several such lives on the assumption that most will die. Of course, I haven't said anything to my family about this, and it doesn't keep me up nights; in this respect I myself am inconsistent, not regarding the counted-on death of several embryos in the same way that I'd regard the deaths of full-born infants.

As for the question whether the "how and why" of the embryos' creation has any bearing on the issue, I'd say that it does. There are two aims: (a) protecting legitimate human lives; and (b) cultivating society's regard for such lives. If we get (a) but not (b) -- probably through unpopular legislation -- that's okay but not great. If we get (b) then (a) will naturally follow.

It might happen that we get (b) but decide that in some situations it's morally acceptable to sacrifice a valued life for a great cause. I'm not sure about that, but it could happen, and if it did, it would be far better than deciding to dispose of a life for reasons of convenience, such as to remain competitive with other nations' biochemical industries. The "how and why" definitely influences my view of the issue.

Iss