Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    A very interesting moral problem here. (watch out flames comming)......
    
    I'm sure the moral guardians of our character are claiming murder
    and will insist that all eggs must be allowed to live and NEVER
    be experimented on. These same folks will of course turn their heads
    when we ask who should pay to raise all these eggs. Speaking as
    one who is not able to have children ( not really sure I want one)
    it seems a good deal if I did want one. Not that THEY will let me
    if they have their way (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson I mean you)
    
    
    The scary part is what do we (as a society) do when we are able
    to take these eggs and perform a little genetic manipulation? Just
    being able to decide boy or girl (already can be done by other means)
    brings up frightening ideas of a future with 100 boys for every
    girl, or worse all boys are first born (we all know what psychological 
    and social benefits that is supposed to have). 
    
    *** sorry, I got of the track***  I don't like being told what I
    can't do by those who consider themselves my moral superiors but
    I do think society as a whole must be ready to make some moral
    decisions that won't be easy. Can a democracy deal with this? It's
    hard not to think of what Hitler would have used test tube babies
    and genetic engineering for. 
    
    Liesl (fence sitting is my specialty)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    There are other issues however...if we have the embryos

        I might stress a few points, based on .1's reply.
        
        This is not a genetic engineering project. The sole purpose
        is to give infertile couples the opportunities to have their
        own children.
        
        If the argument is used that this is a form of abortion. then
        so is utilization of UID's and the pill. The stage at which
        the embryos are is prior to attachment to the uterine wall.
        And attachment to the uterine wall is prevented by the pill
        and dislodged by an UID.
        
        As for genetic engineering, it is not part of this particular
        question. (Although the concept of a society with a distorted
        ratio of women-men would be interesting - would it be Amazonian
        in nature?)
        
        q
        
        
        

    What I find scary about what .0 says is happening in Australia,
    is that if they can control what you do with a 2 day embryo, can
    a loss of freedom to have an abortion be far behind?
    
    Sally (from the Boston area)
    

    This weeks Nova had the episode devoted to "High Tech Babies". If you
    missed it, please tune in over the weekend.  I am positive that WGBH
    repeats it on either Saturday or Sunday afternoon.
    
    The ramifications of private entrepreneurs entering into this
    "business" are quite frightening.   However I believe that if we want
    to keep government out of legislating against our options, we will have
    to let private enterpreneurs make a killing from making high tech
    babies.  Sometimes we have to pay very high price to be free and this
    is one of these times. 
    
    I did start a topic on it in the SOAPBOX, alhtough it might have been
    more apropriate here.

- Vikas

    First off, the Pill is not an "abortive" birth control method like
    the IUD most certainly is.  With the pill, no egg is ever matured
    and shed.  When you're on the pill, the cupboard is bare, so to
    speak.
    
    I'm curious about the "freezing" part of the base note and I think
    that may be the key to the legislators problems.  IVF is pretty
    much accepted practice these days, done first in England and now
    somewhere in either Pittsburg of Philly is the U.S.'s first IVF 
    clinic.
    
    I remember reading though a case of two wealthy Americans who had
    IVF and had the embryo frozen until the wife was done jetting around
    the world.  Well, the couple died in a plane crash and the sole
    heir of their considerable estate was this embryo in some cryogenic
    bank I THINK in Australia.  This is a TRUE story in all the papers
    either last year or just before.  The question was, should this embryo
    be destroyed or were the doctors morally and legally bound to "bring
    it to term".  (Of course the considerable amount of money involved
    got everyone concerned about the answer!).  And if they WERE committed
    to this embryo, then who should "incubate" it?  And what should
    her "role" be?  Her compensation be?  Should she be told of the
    inheritance?  Could she NOT?  
    
    The story dropped out of the papers and I assume the embryo was
    quietly done away with and either the family got the money or it
    was given to "charity" i.e. IVF research!  
    
    I think the moral questions regarding straight, clear-cut IVF
    have been answered for the majority, (certainly for 100% of infertile
    couples who would be able to conceive no other way!).
    
    It's the disposition of fertilized embryos, (when for some reason
    like above they don't go directly into a uterus), that bothers people.
    Also, one other concern they've had is sort of an ersatz genetic
    selection whereby in IVF, several eggs may be gathered, and only
    the "best" one or "right" one is chosen.  What happens to the rest?  
    This is a little too close to "breeding" for some people.
    
    You can't stop technology.  "Inquiring minds" will ALWAYS want to
    know and if there's a market for the technology, the entrepreneurs
    will be pushing too.   Now that science has made the event of birth
    almost anti-climatic, people MUST face the questions and decide
    for themselves what "life" is, when it begins, and who really "owns"
    it.   And don't scoff at that last part - ownership is the #1 struggle
    between pro-choice and pro-life as in  "Is this society's kid or my body?"
                   
    Sandy
    
    
    
         
    

    The story of the frozen-fertilized-egg-as-heir-to-millions always
    seemed patently absurd to me.  What if, instead of a fertilized
    egg, there was the man's frozen sperm in some sperm bank?  Is society
    in general supposed to consider itself committing a "potential murder"
    whenever human eggs or sperms "go to waste"?  I realize that that
    is basically how the Catholic church views the issue anyhow, but
    I find it rather horrifying to consider that I am committing "potential
    murder" every month I do not get pregnant, not to mention what my
    husband is doing...  So I'd rather think of it as a silly concept!

    The NOVA program will be repeated on this Saturday 2:00 pm on WGBH
    Ch. 2 Boston.  Program your VCR.
    
    The program started with the following line :-
    
    "In sixties we separated sex from procreation via development and
    acceptance of birth control.  Now we will be separating procreation
    from sex by use of genetic engineering." (paraphrased)

- Vikas

    re: 100.6
    
    >The story of the frozen-fertilized-egg-as-heir-to-millions
     always seemed patently absured to me.
    
    Seems absurd to me too.
    
    >Is society in general supposed to consider itself committing a
     "potential murder" whenever human eggs or sperms "go to waste"?
    
    I think the Pro-Life segment of society considers letting an "EMBRYO"
    go to waste as murder.  Not eggs and sperms, but the result of their
    union.  Catholicism does teach that "spilling seed" is bad news,
    though I don't know if it's equated with murder in that context.
    
    I agree with your extrapolations that it would be ridiculous to
    assume that women are comitting "murder" every month that they do
    not get pregnant not to mention what guys are doing :-).  Anyone
    who uses an IUD is most likely passing fertilized eggs so is THAT 
    murder?  I say of COURSE not, but Pro-Life people who feel life 
    begins at conception look at it another way!  
    
    But I stated before that it all comes down to ownership, plain and
    simple, with Pro-Choice saying "This is MY body" and Pro-Life saying
    "That is SOCIETY'S child".
    
    And it comes down to deciding for yourself when human life begins, 
    (and insuring that our government continues to protect our right to 
    do so!). 
    
    I bet the embryo would have just been done away with if not for
    the money involved.  As Cyndi Lauper once said, "Money Changes Everything!"
                                                                               
    Sandy

Dear Mr./Ms. Pro-Life Person:

  As you will undoubtedly notice, there are 500 test tubes in your freezer.
We broke into your home and put them there.  Each of these test tubes con-
tains 20 fertilized embryos.

  We trust that you will find homes for these 10000 children (as you refer
to them).  After all, you wouldn't want these innocent children to pay for
*our* crimes (i.e., breaking into your home).

  Have a nice day,
  Anonymous