[politicket]

The donating couple receives absolutely no remuneration from donating the embryos. The donating couple has reached a point where they don't want to pay the maintenance costs on keeping the babies frozen and have three options:

1) Discard the babies as medical waste.
2) Donate the babies to research.
3) Release all rights to the babies and allow them to be adopted.

Option #3 is the only moral choice.

[LibertyIsGood]

>> Option #3 is the only moral choice.

You seem to believe that morality is absolute. You also seem to believe that the choice you would make is THE choice, in the absolute scheme.

For reasons I partially listed in my previous (too long) post, I'd probably opt for option #2. Having these cells used to create treatments for life threatening diseases seems like the best option to me, given the present situation.

But I belive strongly in everyone's right to choose. I do not believe others, even a majority, should choose for anyone else, and I certainly don't think the government should be used as an instrument of any forced decision.

[curiosity]

There are those (not I) who say that it is always immoral for a woman to become preganant through any means other than through intercourse with her husband. Thus even though the end of embryo adoption is good, its means are are evil.

Those making the above argument would suggest a 4th option: continue to keep the babies frozen until they are no longer viable. Then discard them.

I don't agree with this reasoning, but I still have not found a decisive refutation of it. That's why I posted the article.