Do you support the use of embryonic stem cells for research?

(This message thread was spawned by a question posted on Analytic News back in April ‘09.)

NO. Farming aborted humans is evil.

Stephen: Response to Brad, 04-21 @ 10:06 PM:
What about IVF embryos being disposed of, which is where most of them come from?

Brad: Response to Stephen, 04-21 @ 10:21 PM:
"…embryonic stem cell research is not–and never has been–about getting some use out of leftover IVF embryos that are due to be destroyed anyway. See: here and here

Anna: Response to Brad, 04-28 @ 05:29 PM:
I am not trying to be crude but seriously are you against sex for no reason? Do you only support sex if it is to create a child? Are you against birth control? I think those are important questions because otherwise I don’t see at all where you are coming from but I think Stephan states my exact argument.

Brad: Response to Anna, 04-29 @ 03:51 PM:
Anna, this question seems a bit out of left field. Are you making some kind of connection between the destruction of human embryos used in scientific experiments with sex for pleasure? I don’t get it.

Anna: Response to Brad, 04-30 @ 03:04 PM:
My point is that the embryos used for IVF don’t all get used and are often tossed out. So the only way I can understand not supporting using those embryos for tests since they won’t be used to make children no matter what happens is if you are against IVF. If you are against IVF then I would think you would be against sex for pleasure. Does that make sense? I am just wondering how you can be against research on embryos that are thrown away or not used. I would think that if you were really prolife you would support putting use to those embryos so their "lives" (of whatever you want to call it) weren’t for nothing.

Brad: Response to Anna, 05-02 @ 02:22 PM:
I never said I was against IVF. I’m against creating multiple embryos then using them in experimentation:

" …The research contradicts the widely-held view that implanting multiple embryos during in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is more cost-effective, and improves a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant. "At a time when there is an intense debate in many countries about how to reduce multiple pregnancy rates and provide affordable fertility treatment, policy makers should be made aware of our results," said the study’s lead researcher Hannu Martikainen of the University of Oulu in Finland. "These data should also encourage clinics to evaluate their embryo transfer policy and adopt elective single embryo transfer as their everyday practice for women younger than 40," she said in a statement…

The study, published by the reproductive medicine journal Human Reproduction, found that the live birth rate was five percent higher for women who had only one embryo implanted at a time."

Another reason:

Just like using food for fuel, once you start using humans (at whatever stage of gestation) as raw material the unintended consequences are huge. Moral relativism sets in, and eventually you can justify any "practical" application. One can sacrifice anything if it’s done in the name of the "greater good", or just your own selfish ambitions.

One example of a "practical" application: