Take one overworked metaphor and a lot of hyperbole and what you get isn't an argument - just a plethora of purple prose.

Womens eggs?

At first this sounded a bit funny, sort of like mens sperm.

On second thought they're on the way to making sperm from eggs and eggs from sperm, in which case we get womens sperm and mens eggs. Artificial womb also under construction.

Brave New World, here we come (or not, if that reads like a pun).

The consequence of women not donating "eggs" - what an aweful word - and canvasing tea circles, and knitting circles- sounds rather like chook collectives - is that scientists will look to third world countries where women may well be prepared to offer ova for a small fee.

Alternatively, would it not be possible for ova, or rather ovaries, to be harvested from deceased women. Presumably, the technology to present viable ova from this method is already here.

Make your choice's too life or not, that's the living.

Make your thoughts too life and or moving on or not, that's the living. This is the freedom of speech or thoughts that will catch in your throat. Again! Thats the living.

I cant help you.

There was never an ethical issue to those who bothered to read the literature. No pre-implantation embryo bcomes a human being. None of us was ever a zygote.

If Yamanaka's daughters really look like two-week-old embryos they're going to have trouble finding boyfriends... And since the objection that 'creating and destroying human life [is] unethical' is not an empirical one but grounded in personal morality and religion, no possible events in the real world can determine whether it is 'valid' or not.

But if, as I understand it, 'pluripotent cells' are just as capable of producing a new human being as embryonic cells are, isn't the moral implications of using these the same? We're still ending a 'potential human life'. And if ANY cell can become pluripotent, that means that ANY procedure which results in ANY cell death must be equally bad in God's eyes, and all doctors are going to burn in Hell for ever, along with every mother who ever threw away an umbilical cord and every child who ever had their ears pierced.

Such are the lunacies that result when religion meddles with science.

Just a curious thought ...

Isn't ethics distinct from morality. I would have thought morality was defined by religion.

Mormons believe in polygamy (well at least one-sided), whilst other christian religions believe in monogamy - albeit serial monogamy. As far as I know, Catholics can't get a divorce ... althought there is definitely wriggle room ... annulment ... which means there was no marriage in the first place ... but then ... the couple have been living in mortal sin. This is further confused by the knowledge that one may have actually believed they had been married.

My mother-in-law, explaining a daughter's virginal pregnancy, told me that her daughter had caught a germ off a toilet seat. Now ...