Finna

Good call- and honestly, that's all I was trying to do with my original post- show that the issue had many, many sides. However, somehow I've become a baby hater (nothing could be further from the truth) and while others get an opinon (note: thoughts that are the express belief of the holder) mine is wrong? That'll learn me to post on VC. As for the may or may not- wait until someone you love completely and utterly and deeply and with every fiber of your being gets sick. Wait to see how much promise is in the MAY part of the equation. MAY is a hell of a lot more hope than terminal, no ho

If you're asking for my opinion an adult's life is 100% more important than the genetic material that may or may not become a child. If I had to choose between saving the people who already exist and never having one new child on the earth- no children it is. My opinion. Your mileage may, and does, vary. And that's okay.

And that was exaclty what I was trying to say,except Dude said it better. Science should help everyone. And I'm not making the moral judgement that one life is more important than another. I've made my choices, you've made yours. Who am I to question them? However, when my tax dollars are at work I have every right to question why some research is taxpayer funded and other research isn't- ESPECIALLY when it can save someone's life. Perhaps mine. Perhaps yours. Perhaps a childs. That's all.

Dare I point out (not in any poke to this reply, or the discussion in general) that infertility is a scientific response to something. If a man and woman cannot procreate, perhaps this is telling them something?? Some would even dare say that it was god telling them something. However, many, many, many have refulsed this sign and turned to science to help them (via in vitro, fertility drugs, etc.) instead of adopting children in need. How many of those are the same ones who feel that the discarded embryonic materials should NOT be used to help someone else experiencing scientific problems l