Quote:
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Now how is that actually the issue? The government would not be paying for the destruction--they would be paying for research on embryos that would be destroyed anyway. Whoever has the embryos, e.g., an in vitro clinic, has to destroy them now (or freeze them at patient expense) if they're not used.
|
You answered your own question with the "or"
Quote:
|
The real issue is that the research indirectly would create incentives for the creation of embryos that would not be used for implantation. That's the "sanctity of life" argument.
|
The right-to-life argument is that embryos should not be destroyed. The creation of new embryos solely for future destruction takes it one step further.
Quote:
|
But that's a thin argument, because it assumes that stem-cell researchers would have so few embryos available to them that they would actually have to go out and create extra ones just for research purposes. Is that really likely to happen?
|
Absolutely.
