Senator Hatch is right on stem-cell research. We are both pro-life, with friends who may disagree, but with proper regulations I think the research is justified. Extending many lives is the likely sole result.
Each person has living roots back into the mists of time, through unbroken chains of living cells. In this sense no life had a definite beginning. Each person got a unique genetic identification at the moment of fertilization, but just as significant was the moment of implantation. One can argue that the individual life hasn't really begun until after a fertilized egg has secured a bond within a mother's womb. The chance of survival without this family bond is zero.
Healthy, normal couples trying for a child get a fertilized egg about four out of five months, but about 70 percent of the time it fails to securely implant. Nobody calls this a crime. Birth control methods such as the IUD or the pill focus on preventing implantation; these are widely accepted, not called equal to abortion.
Unwanted fertilized eggs in clinics have no chance at life, since the parents will not use them or allow others to. Without a sustaining body, the fertilized egg has no more chance of independent life than a kidney, heart or liver. They should be treated the same, with the same respect and precautions, as organs donated in the event of an untimely death.
Neither donors nor clinics should be paid for them, to avoid the evils of a black market. Yet if a fertilized egg already had no chance of a mother and was set to be discarded, is it best to just throw it out? If the donation can give renewal of life to another, this seems better than it giving no life value to anyone.
Steven C. Barrowes
Salt Lake City