The rhythm method kills more embryos than condoms. Some proponents of the pro-life movement argue against morning after pills, IUDs, and contraceptive pills on grounds of a concern for causing embryonic death. What has gone unnoticed, however, is that the pro-life line of argumentation can be extended to the rhythm method of contraception as well. Given certain plausible empirical assumptions, the rhythm method may well be responsible for a much higher number of embryonic deaths than some other contraceptive techniques.
posted by caddis on Jul 18, 2006 - 88 comments

Debating the Moral Status of the Embryo. A favorite scenario of some bioethicists in this debate is often a variation of "if a fertility clinic were on fire and you had only enough time to run in once to effect a rescue, which would you grab—the unconscious clinic worker/or a tank full of hundreds of frozen embryos?" Sometimes the debate degenerates...
posted by homunculus on Mar 7, 2006 - 98 comments

Embryo Images. A tutorial on mammalian embryology, using images of mouse and human embryos. Check out the eye.
posted by plep on Jan 13, 2004 - 4 comments

Morality and Logical Coherence
A case in point.
If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.
And failing that test would be a measure of what?
posted by nofundy on Oct 24, 2003 - 23 comments

Two women have just lost their right to use frozen embryos from IVF treatment while they were in previous relationships because UK law states that both parties must give consent before embryos can be emplanted.

The women are claiming it's a breach of thier human rights. The men claim that they shouldn't be forced to have children. The London Fertility Centre claims double standards because they would have the right if it was naturally conceived. But what's your opinon?
posted by twine42 on Oct 1, 2003 - 60 comments

'Virgin birth' method promises ethical stem cells. The technique, parthenogenesis, manipulates unfertilized eggs to produce short-lived embryos from which stem cells can be obtained. As the article states: "it produces embryos that could never become human beings. So destroying these embryos to obtain stem cells would avoid the ethical concerns that have led to restrictions or bans on embryonic stem cell research in many countries."
posted by jsonic on Apr 29, 2003 - 19 comments

Embryos can be donated on the slippery sloped side of town. Though proposed by pro-choice, pro-stem-cell-research Arlen Specter, the Bush administration is pushing for a pubilc awareness program that promotes donating unused embryos to infertile couples. Of course, Bush's insistence on using the term "embryo adoption-" a term never used by any clinic in the program, but strangely used by a Christian anti-abortion/pro-adoption agency, coupled with the knowledge that Bush has jumped at virtually anything that remotely could lead to redefining the status of a fetus, leads to the inevitable question: does Bush really care about getting more infertile couples to have children, or is this a(nother) subversive attempt to Federally promote the idea that a cell cluster is the same as a newborn infant?
posted by XQUZYPHYR on Aug 20, 2002 - 63 comments

This breaking story brings a new aspect to a complex debate. Reasearchers in a private clinic in the US have created human embryos specifically for the purpose of extracting stem cells. This seems a good platform on which to discuss the wider issue of the interaction between public/private research funding, technology and life. Here's hoping it won't just end up a pro-life/pro-choice bloodbath.
posted by davehat on Jul 11, 2001 - 7 comments