I still say that Stent’s article is flawed, because the baby gets half of its DNA from the mother and half from the father: it’s not a part of the mother’s body. The convention is that an organism with its own DNA code is a unique life form. If not then a bunch of criminals will be wanting early releases.

[DPF: I think they should be destroyed without parental consent. The "parents" gave them for one purpose - IVF, and they should not have remained stored without consent]

Therein is the problem with IVF: what’s to be done with all those unwanted babies?

According to DPF it’s not ok to freeze a baby without consent but it is ok to kill one without consent. Nothing personal, but that’s what happens with moral relativism.

That would be true of a two year old as well. So child murder would be acceptable to you based on your argument, so long as the parents or mother did the killing.

David, the whole issue here is that the parents cannot be contacted. In the face of this, I think using these embryos for research is a reasonable thing to do.

Stent’s reasoning here is utterly fallacious, as I have pointed out on my blog (apologies for link-whoring).

[DPF: I think they should be destroyed without parental consent. The "parents" gave them for one purpose - IVF, and they should not have remained stored without consent]

http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/12/30/the-state-can-steal-parts-of-your-body-heres-how-to-make-a-protest/

http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/abortion-is-an-unwanted-baby-a-trespasser/

[DPF: The genetic material came from the parents. They should decide what happens to it, not the state]