From: estherchaya	Date: July 20th, 2006 02:19 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I believe the bill specifically pertained to embryonic stem cell research, but I could be wrong.

	From: real_bethy	Date: July 20th, 2006 03:30 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I hope that if there has to be a bill limiting stem cell research that it is only pertaining to embryonic stem cells...cord blood can be a less controversial way of obtaining stem cells for research.At least *someone* out there will be able to keep trying to help out humanity. However, the whole issue in itself is a pee-off for me: why should all this money be spent on keeping embryos on ice that will never get used when they could be used to help people in need?! I guess I understand from a so-called pro-life perspective, but it just seems like a mix-up in priorities for me.

Not trying to offend you or anyone...I realize it's a controversial subject.

	From: estherchaya	Date: July 20th, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC)		(Link)

and in a rare moment of LJ vulgarity: Fuckwits. I cannot believe that they are this dumb and inconsistent.

	From: estherchaya	Date: July 20th, 2006 03:43 pm (UTC)		(Link)

If that's the crux of your argument (i.e. keeping embryos frozen for no reason), the easy answer is "embryo donation" which is a fabulous (though politicized) idea. However, There's no need to keep embryos that "aren't needed" on ice indefinitely, if funding is opened up for embryonic stem cell research. Right now, the options for a couple who is lucky enough to have embryos left over after an IVF cycle are thus: 1. donate the embryos for someone who needs donor embryos (and yes, they'd still probably be frozen for some period of time anyway), 2. keep the embryos frozen (there is usually an annual charge to the couple who keeps the embryos frozen) until the couple either decides to do a frozen embryo transfer (FET) or decides they aren't going to attempt an FET, 3. I'm not sure if this is an option, but I think the embryos can be discarded, or 4. donate the embryos for stem cell research purposes.

The fourth option right now (in the US) does pretty much equal indefinite cryopreservation, but it's indefinite for no good reason... if funding were opened back up for embryonic stem cell research, those embryos WOULD have a purpose and would NOT be frozen indefinitely.

There are other options. But shouldn't all the options be open?

At any rate, one of the problems here is the nomenclature... the frozen "embryos" aren't embryos at all. In fact, at the 8 cell stage, they are "blastocysts". IVF is replete with misconceptions probably stemming back to the original innacurate term: "test tube baby" which has probably fueled more ethical arguments about IVF than any other ridiculous term. There's NO SUCH THING as a test tube baby.

	From: zis770	Date: July 24th, 2006 01:43 am (UTC)		(Link)

When I was a kid I used to try to imagine babies "growing" in test tubes. Now I've gotten myself an education! I thought blastecysts were a stage an embryo goes through, becasue IY"H when it does work they're called embryos for the first x # of weeks until they're considered fetuses (fetii?) I never even thought of the connectiong between IVF and stem cell research. Maybe because I don't think a Rav would let me donate for stem cell research (just a guess though) and I've never had eggs to freeze.

About Bush, my very liberal mom who volunteered for the Kerry campaign was very happy when I told her how I'm not so thrilled I voted for him anymore. I mean, what good has he accomplished this term?