How is it patently ridiculous? Both phrases say the same thing, just using different words. For ovum/eggs to be “donated” they must be harvested (oocyte harvesting is the technical term for the process).

Also, there are only two reasons for oocyt harvesting—reproduction and research. I doubt the government takes much interest in IVF so their primary focus will be on research. And one of the main uses of harvested ovum for research would be cloning (so that embyronic stem cells can be derived for the cloned embryos).

…the political potential for implementation of such ideas is less than zero.

I can understand why you might think so but I think you’re exactly wrong for a number of reasons. First, such ideas are always couched in language that attempts to hide what is actually being done. For example, ask most people if they are for “cloning” and they will say, “No.” Ask them if they are for “therapeutic cloning” (implying that such cloning has medically therapeutic uses) and they’ll likely hedge. The problem is that there is no such thing as “therapeutic” cloning because the procedure is not used to produce any therapies. It’s merely a semantic game to get people to support concepts they would otherwise object to.

Second, most people are too ill-informed about the issues involved. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met pro-life people who support embryo-destructive research. They simply didn’t connect the dots. It’s not necessarily their fault—the use of language in these debates is often titled to obscure what it going on. That is why you’ll hear people talk about “egg donation” rather than “ovum harvesting” even though they are the same thing.

To use your own example: paying women for donated ovum may be a valid concern, paying women to “harvest their eggs for cloning” is patently ridiculous. Even if (an enormous “if”) this kind of objective were on Obama’s mind, the political potential for implementation of such ideas is less than zero.

Jonathon Swift would disagree with you (See the Struldbrugs in Gulliver’s Travels).

Aging has many aspects. It’s not enough to avoid aging, it’s important to age well and to age mortally (e.g. extending my life should not cause another person’s life to be diminished). And even when both criteria are passed, we need to find out how to fit a redefined aging into society. If it’s possible to extend one’s life to 1000 years, but the procedure is so costly that only the elite can undergo it, we will have to deal with tyrants and powerful oligopolists for a long time who will only increase in power as time passes.

Modern society’s current thinking is not “Yes we can, but *should* we”. It’s more in lines with “Should has nothing to do with this. *Somebody* will do it so we might as well endorse it because you can’t stop progress”. Progress towards *what* is never defined, and it’s always assumed that progress is inevitable and ultimately good….even if it’s progress towards the edge of a cliff.

Are you referring to the council’s work or to my post? (I readily admit I’m biased.)

That goes for Obama and Bush alike.

Except that many members of the Bush appointed council did not agree with him.

Going to extremes in assuming what a new panel is going to focus its time on does nothing to establish a reasonable critique, however.

Although it may seem to be on the far edge, I don’t think I focused on the extremes. In academic bioethics issues like paying egg donors are common and fall under the rubric of the “practical issues” that Obama want to focus on.

It seems fairly obvious that any committee established by the President is going to be inherently supportive of his general policy platform. That goes for Obama and Bush alike. Going to extremes in assuming what a new panel is going to focus its time on does nothing to establish a reasonable critique, however.