<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with embryos</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/embryos</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'embryos' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:13:14 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:13:14 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Minimizing embryo death through proper contraception</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/53089/Minimizing%2Dembryo%2Ddeath%2Dthrough%2Dproper%2Dcontraception</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://jme.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/32/6/355"&gt;The rhythm method kills more embryos than condoms.&lt;/a&gt; &lt;em&gt;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.&lt;/em&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.53089</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:13:14 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>contraception</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>Pro_Life</category>
		<category>Rhythm_method</category>
		<dc:creator>caddis</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Is the unconscious clinic worker hot?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/49835/Is%2Dthe%2Dunconscious%2Dclinic%2Dworker%2Dhot</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070484.html"&gt;Debating the Moral Status of the Embryo.&lt;/a&gt; A &lt;a href=http://firedoglake.com/?p=3#more-3&gt;favorite scenario&lt;/a&gt; of some &lt;a href=http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070519.html&gt;bioethicists&lt;/a&gt; in this debate is often a variation of &quot;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&#8212;the unconscious clinic worker/or a tank full of hundreds of frozen embryos?&quot;  Sometimes the debate &lt;a href=http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/06.html#a7413&gt;degenerates...&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2006:site.49835</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2006 19:33:46 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Abortion</category>
		<category>Bioethics</category>
		<category>Blastulae</category>
		<category>Debate</category>
		<category>Embryos</category>
		<category>StemCells</category>
		<category>Wingnuts</category>
		<dc:creator>homunculus</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Embryo Images</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/30701/Embryo%2DImages</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images"&gt;Embryo Images.&lt;/a&gt; A tutorial on mammalian embryology, using images of mouse and human embryos. Check out &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.med.unc.edu/embryo_images/unit-eye/eye_htms/eyetoc.htm&quot;&gt;the eye.&lt;/a&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.30701</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:56:28 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>embryology</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<dc:creator>plep</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Logical Coherence</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/29143/Logical%2DCoherence</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2090244/#ContinueArticle"&gt;Morality and Logical Coherence&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt;A case in point.&lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt;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.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;And failing that test would be a measure of what?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.29143</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2003 05:40:58 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>Bush</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>fertility</category>
		<category>GeorgeBush</category>
		<category>GWB</category>
		<category>Slate</category>
		<category>stemcells</category>
		<dc:creator>nofundy</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>How do you like your eggs? Easy over or fertilised?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/28658/How%2Ddo%2Dyou%2Dlike%2Dyour%2Deggs%2DEasy%2Dover%2Dor%2Dfertilised</link>
		<description> &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3151762.stm&quot;&gt;Two women&lt;/a&gt; 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.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;
The women are claiming it&apos;s a breach of thier human rights. The men claim that they shouldn&apos;t be forced to have children. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lfc.org.uk/&quot;&gt;The London Fertility Centre&lt;/a&gt; claims double standards because they would have the right if it was naturally conceived. But what&apos;s your opinon?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.28658</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2003 05:11:04 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>birthing</category>
		<category>children</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>fertility</category>
		<category>humanrights</category>
		<dc:creator>twine42</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Cloning without the Controversy</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/25429/Cloning%2Dwithout%2Dthe%2DControversy</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993654"&gt;&apos;Virgin birth&apos; method promises ethical stem cells.&lt;/a&gt; The technique, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.newscientist.com/ns_images/9999/99993654F1.JPG&quot;&gt;parthenogenesis&lt;/a&gt;, manipulates unfertilized eggs to produce short-lived embryos from which stem cells can be obtained.  As the article states: &quot;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.&quot;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.25429</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2003 07:47:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>cloning</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>parthenogenesis</category>
		<dc:creator>jsonic</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/19332/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.salon.com/politics/wire/2002/08/20/embryo_adoption/index.html"&gt;Embryos can be donated on the slippery sloped side of town.&lt;/a&gt; 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&apos;s insistence on using the term &quot;embryo &lt;b&gt;adoption&lt;/b&gt;-&quot; 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?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.19332</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:27:33 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>abortion</category>
		<category>adoption</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>infertility</category>
		<dc:creator>XQUZYPHYR</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/8952/</link>
		<description> This breaking story brings a new aspect to a complex debate. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/07/11/stem.cell.fact/index.html#8&quot;&gt;Reasearchers in a private clinic in the US have created human embryos specifically for the purpose of extracting stem cells&lt;/a&gt;. This seems a good platform on which to discuss the wider issue of the interaction between public/private research funding, technology and life. Here&apos;s hoping it won&apos;t just end up a pro-life/pro-choice bloodbath.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.8952</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:54:57 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>cnn</category>
		<category>embryos</category>
		<category>funding</category>
		<category>news</category>
		<category>prochoice</category>
		<category>prolife</category>
		<category>research</category>
		<category>stemcells</category>
		<category>technology</category>
		<dc:creator>davehat</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


