Originally posted by ghuinness
Okay - I am going to stir the pot and take the wrath.
I see a difference between selective abortion and research on embryo's that would be killed anyway. Not all abortions are selective and voluntary. Some are necessary.
If a person dies we harvest their organs, if an abortion has to be performed, what is the difference?
To add to this, I work a lot with animals. I have worked and run farms - cattle and horses. I have no problem with humane killing. I had to partake in destroying a horse a few weeks ago.
To reiterate what the vet told me when there was no explanation - things die.
You come in one morning and with no explanation, no cause, sudden death arrives. Nothing you can do, nothing you did. If you want answers you donate the organs and research the cause.
To me this debate is being tied to the wrong criteria. Nothing I have read so far has changed my opinion.
Stem cell research is shackled to the abortion debate, technically, for the reason the toothpuller described regarding the definition of life. However,
the existing stem-cell lines (and potential future ones) for the most part come from cells in unwanted embryos in IVF clinics. Not from abortions.
Recently, a private company started several new stem-cell lines from IVF clinic embryos that had certain diseases of interest. In this case, I can understand why the parents would "donate".
The difference between harvesting organs and harvesting embryo cells is that organs come from a differentiated human being who gave permission. Embryo cells are by definition undifferentiated.