for the record

The blog is running out of steam. So, lest any readers lose interest altogether, I'll follow-up some recent posts by explaining the rationale behind my positions. Personally, I'm pro-life: I oppose both abortion, with 3 exceptions, and the death penalty. I say personally, because I have a personal reason for being pro-life: my late Japanese mother was counseled by all her relatives to get an abortion, which is legal in Japan, rather than give birth to me. I'm glad she didn't, even though her relatives were correct in thinking her marriage to a GI would not work out.

There is an inconsistency in having voted for the proposition establishing embyronic stem-cell research in California. However, as long as fertility treatments create embryos that are viable, yet aren't implanted in the womb, because they generally create more than needed to compensate for the eggs that don't develop properly, the only strictly pro-life protocol is to freeze the surplus embryos, with the possibility that they be implanted later on. But realistically, it's unlikely all such embryos will be implanted eventually, in which case I don't see a real difference between permanently freezing versus discarding an embryo. As a matter of fact, I would guess embryo-freezing is hardly standard procedure right now, although I haven't checked into it. So, why not use the embryos being merely discarded to improve the lives of people suffering from incurable medical conditions? I have a personal reason for my position, as well. One of my fiancee's brothers is a quadraplegic, and he wants this research to be undertaken, even though the chance that he will personally benefit from it is nil.

for a more detailed discussion of the frozen embryo dilemma, look here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem2.htm