• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evil In-Vitro Fertilization

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,251
Reaction score
16,183
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok this is what I don’t understand. It seems that a sizable majority on the socially conservative right are against using unused embryos for stem cell research. There reasoning is that they believe that it is wrong to destroy human life in the name of science. That is a perfectly valid stance for someone who is staunchly pro-life. This is what I don’t understand though: I you are against using unused embryos for research purposes, then how can you be for In-vitro fertilization?

I know of few couples who are staunchly pro-life, but have undergone In-vitro fertilization because of difficulties conceiving children. At this point I think it would probably be helpful to provide an overview of In-vitro fertilization:

1. Giving special medication to the woman that results in the development, growth, and maturation of eggs in a woman's ovaries.

2. Extracting perhaps 24 mature ova (aka oocytes) from the woman's ovaries.

3. Fertilizing the ova with sperm, typically from her husband or an anonymous donor.

4. Placing the embryos in a special incubator which encourages their growth.

5. Selecting two to four healthy-looking embryos and implanting them in the woman's uterus.

6. Disposing of the remaining 20 or so surplus embryos in some manner.


Now about 50% of those unused embryos are typically frozen in the event of a miscarriage. Of course a significant number of those embryos either die while being frozen or while being thawed.

The other 50% or so are discarded in some way. Some embryos are simply flushed down a sink drain while alive. Some are transferred to a medical waste bin where they are later incinerated, while alive. Some simply expose the embryos to the air and let them die naturally; this normally takes up to four days. Still other embryos are donated for research and experimentation, for personnel training, or for diagnostic purposes.

So why is President Bush who cares so much about the sanctity of life not pushing for a ban on In-Vitro fertilization? Why do all these Pro-Life right wingers who care so much about the sanctity of life not adopting when they cannot conceive instead of creating so much life to just be thrown away? It seems to me that when one looks at the huge number of Embryos who are “murdered” every year as a result of In-Vitro Fertilization that the moral religious right would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban In-Vitro Fertilization before they worried about Gay Marriage or The Ten Commandments in courthouses. It just seems awfully hypocritical of those “true Americans” on the right to turn a blind eye to the evils of In-Vitro Fertilization.
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
SouthernDemocrat said:
Ok this is what I don’t understand. It seems that a sizable majority on the socially conservative right are against using unused embryos for stem cell research. There reasoning is that they believe that it is wrong to destroy human life in the name of science. That is a perfectly valid stance for someone who is staunchly pro-life. This is what I don’t understand though: I you are against using unused embryos for research purposes, then how can you be for In-vitro fertilization?

I know of few couples who are staunchly pro-life, but have undergone In-vitro fertilization because of difficulties conceiving children. At this point I think it would probably be helpful to provide an overview of In-vitro fertilization:

1. Giving special medication to the woman that results in the development, growth, and maturation of eggs in a woman's ovaries.

2. Extracting perhaps 24 mature ova (aka oocytes) from the woman's ovaries.

3. Fertilizing the ova with sperm, typically from her husband or an anonymous donor.

4. Placing the embryos in a special incubator which encourages their growth.

5. Selecting two to four healthy-looking embryos and implanting them in the woman's uterus.

6. Disposing of the remaining 20 or so surplus embryos in some manner.


Now about 50% of those unused embryos are typically frozen in the event of a miscarriage. Of course a significant number of those embryos either die while being frozen or while being thawed.

The other 50% or so are discarded in some way. Some embryos are simply flushed down a sink drain while alive. Some are transferred to a medical waste bin where they are later incinerated, while alive. Some simply expose the embryos to the air and let them die naturally; this normally takes up to four days. Still other embryos are donated for research and experimentation, for personnel training, or for diagnostic purposes.

So why is President Bush who cares so much about the sanctity of life not pushing for a ban on In-Vitro fertilization? Why do all these Pro-Life right wingers who care so much about the sanctity of life not adopting when they cannot conceive instead of creating so much life to just be thrown away? It seems to me that when one looks at the huge number of Embryos who are “murdered” every year as a result of In-Vitro Fertilization that the moral religious right would be pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban In-Vitro Fertilization before they worried about Gay Marriage or The Ten Commandments in courthouses. It just seems awfully hypocritical of those “true Americans” on the right to turn a blind eye to the evils of In-Vitro Fertilization.


You raise a good point.. how it's ok to destroy unused embryo's, but those same embryo's being used for stem cell research is violating the "sanctity of life". Always been a question I've yet to hear an answer for.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
25,251
Reaction score
16,183
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
debate_junkie said:
You raise a good point.. how it's ok to destroy unused embryo's, but those same embryo's being used for stem cell research is violating the "sanctity of life". Always been a question I've yet to hear an answer for.

That is my point, why is it that the pro-lifers are not against In-Vitro fertilization which results in hundreds of thousands of "murders" a year.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
And still, there is no answer... hah.
 

Imudman

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
And still, there is no answer... hah.
I just saw the question. I can't speak for others but I'm against it precisely because it leads inevitably to loss of human life. If 24 embryos are used for invitro fertilization, and only one or two survive, that means 22 humans were needlesly killed...
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Imudman said:
I just saw the question. I can't speak for others but I'm against it precisely because it leads inevitably to loss of human life. If 24 embryos are used for invitro fertilization, and only one or two survive, that means 22 humans were needlesly killed...

You have 24 frozen embryo's... only 6 are implanted, resulting in say... 3 babies. More than what they wanted, and the other 18 are destroyed. Why is there no outcry against that? Why if this same couple wanted to donate those embryo's to stem cell research, they'd be called unethical. But if they let the lab destroy them... not a peep is uttered. Explain the difference, please.
 

Imudman

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
debate_junkie said:
You have 24 frozen embryo's... only 6 are implanted, resulting in say... 3 babies. More than what they wanted, and the other 18 are destroyed. Why is there no outcry against that? Why if this same couple wanted to donate those embryo's to stem cell research, they'd be called unethical. But if they let the lab destroy them... not a peep is uttered. Explain the difference, please.
I'm peeping about it right now. There is no difference. It's wrong. I've already said why I think it's wrong. I can't speak for other people who might think differently...
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,036
Reaction score
7,072
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Imudman said:
I'm peeping about it right now. There is no difference. It's wrong. I've already said why I think it's wrong. I can't speak for other people who might think differently...

Not stating for or against, but doesn't the female body disgard some furtilized eggs as well?
 

Imudman

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vauge said:
Not stating for or against, but doesn't the female body disgard some furtilized eggs as well?
Of course it does, but that is a natural process over which women have very little control. Harvesting eggs and sperm in order to create little humans the majority of which will end up dead is macabre to say the least. In fact misanthropic...
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
This subject caught my eye. My aunt works at Yale University in Connecticut. The people that donate these eggs. do not do it because they want to help other woman who cannot have kids, they do it for the $7000 that Yale waves in front of them.

And the fact is, when eggs that ARE fertilized cannot be used, they are thrown in the trash. Yet pro lifers support this because of the fact that it will help woman have children.

If you do believe in God, you are going against him by doing this.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm Pro-Life, I don't believe stem-cell research is right, but I also don't believe in-vitro is right either. It's un-natural. If you're (a couple) not able to have kids yourself on your own, I think you should respect that something doesn't work right & move on.

Maybe not being able to have kids leads you to adopting one that's already here on this planet, at this very moment. Every child needs a good home.....
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
I'm Pro-Life, I don't believe stem-cell research is right, but I also don't believe in-vitro is right either. It's un-natural. If you're (a couple) not able to have kids yourself on your own, I think you should respect that something doesn't work right & move on.

Maybe not being able to have kids leads you to adopting one that's already here on this planet, at this very moment. Every child needs a good home.....

The sad thing is they are selfish and want a baby of their own when here are over 125,000 children waiting right at this minute for a loving home and family. Either that OR they will WAIT on a list for months or YEARS until they can adopt a perfect white newborn.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
ProChoiceDanielle said:
The sad thing is they are selfish and want a baby of their own when here are over 125,000 children waiting right at this minute for a loving home and family. Either that OR they will WAIT on a list for months or YEARS until they can adopt a perfect white newborn.


I understand what you're saying, but just to point out a sub-conscuois stereotype, whites are not the only people who get in-vitro, or who want a specific child to adopt. (but I agree with you, people are selfish.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
I understand what you're saying, but just to point out a sub-conscuois stereotype, whites are not the only people who get in-vitro, or who want a specific child to adopt. (but I agree with you, people are selfish.

Not the only, but surely the vast majority.
 

ILikeDubyah

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Location
Phx
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A tiny little sad 8% of adoptions across the board are trans-racial.
 
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ILikeDubyah said:
A tiny little sad 8% of adoptions across the board are trans-racial.

Yup, I think adoption stats are very sad. Simply because the majority of people who do adopt want a perfect newborn instead of an older tainted child.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Imudman said:
Of course it does, but that is a natural process over which women have very little control. Harvesting eggs and sperm in order to create little humans the majority of which will end up dead is macabre to say the least. In fact misanthropic...

The word "misanthropic" is out of context there. Do you really think reproductive scientists sit around cackling evilly over all the doomed embryos they create, purely out of a dislike for mankind?
 

Imudman

Active member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
vergiss said:
The word "misanthropic" is out of context there. Do you really think reproductive scientists sit around cackling evilly over all the doomed embryos they create, purely out of a dislike for mankind?
Odd, I just checked my dictionary and it doesn't say anything about cackliing. But it does talk about hatred for mankind, which I believe killing unborn humans is...
 

debate_junkie

Worst Nightmare
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
919
Reaction score
19
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
ProChoiceDanielle said:
Yup, I think adoption stats are very sad. Simply because the majority of people who do adopt want a perfect newborn instead of an older tainted child.

The explanation to that is simple... newborns have no baggage. They're ripe for molding and shaping. Older children have been screwed up by the people supposed to be their parents, and the system they've been lost in... and people don't want to deal with that. Coming from the foster care system as a kid, trust me I know. Getting a foster family that even CARED you lived was a rarity. It was even rarer when the younger kids found someone who wanted them on a permanent basis.

It disgusts me to hear people scream about abortion (which I do too), but when it comes to the kids who've been cast aside by drug addicted parents, or neglected, or abused, they do not say a damn thing about them, if they even acknowledge their existence at all.
 
Top Bottom