• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Invitro Fertilization

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
If abortion is wrong on the basis that all life is sacred (let's ignore how that's crazy while we cow down on some cows, chickens and pigs at our local fast food joint), isn't invitro-fertilization wrong because of the huge number of embryos that are disposed of?

Why do we not see pro-life crowds picketing IVF clinics? After all, IVF clinics incinerate unused embryos as biomedical waste or give them to universities to do who knows what with. All too often are unused embryos discarded. If aborting an embryo is wrong, isn't an IVF clinic incinerating an embryo wrong too?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If abortion is wrong on the basis that all life is sacred (let's ignore how that's crazy while we cow down on some cows, chickens and pigs at our local fast food joint), isn't invitro-fertilization wrong because of the huge number of embryos that are disposed of?

Why do we not see pro-life crowds picketing IVF clinics? After all, IVF clinics incinerate unused embryos as biomedical waste or give them to universities to do who knows what with. All too often are unused embryos discarded. If aborting an embryo is wrong, isn't an IVF clinic incinerating an embryo wrong too?
Oh - I'm sure they are . . . but the clinics are there with the premise to create life more than to destroy it :shrug:
But, more so, I always hear (in the argument for pro-life) that it's not life until conception. . . so if it's just sperm or egg - not yet joined - then life hasn't officially started yet.

I love all of god's creatures equally yet have no appetite for human flesh :shrug:
 

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
3,292
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
If abortion is wrong on the basis that all life is sacred (let's ignore how that's crazy while we cow down on some cows, chickens and pigs at our local fast food joint), isn't invitro-fertilization wrong because of the huge number of embryos that are disposed of?

Why do we not see pro-life crowds picketing IVF clinics? After all, IVF clinics incinerate unused embryos as biomedical waste or give them to universities to do who knows what with. All too often are unused embryos discarded. If aborting an embryo is wrong, isn't an IVF clinic incinerating an embryo wrong too?
Embryoes are only valuable if the women enjoyed making them. Those resulting from rape aren't valuable either.:roll:
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Embryoes are only valuable if the women enjoyed making them. Those resulting from rape aren't valuable either.:roll:
You've got that right. If it doesn't give the anti-choicers control over what women do with their bodies, they don't have any interest.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
What about sperm donations?
No one seems to care what happens to the little swimmers at all.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, in vitro fertilization is wrong. I know some people opt to donate the other fertilized embryos. But regardless many lives are killed in this process and it should be illegal.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Yes, in vitro fertilization is wrong. I know some people opt to donate the other fertilized embryos. But regardless many lives are killed in this process and it should be illegal.
so you're saying that the lives it creates, which wouldn't have been created otherwise, are not worth the lives that are lost?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
so you're saying that the lives it creates, which wouldn't have been created otherwise, are not worth the lives that are lost?
A life was created at the expense of other lives. What is best to have not created at all if it means many others will die.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
A life was created at the expense of other lives. What is best to have not created at all if it means many others will die.
huh, that just seems sort of spiteful, that you'd prefer no life simply because something dies that wouldn't have lived in the first place.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, in vitro fertilization is wrong. I know some people opt to donate the other fertilized embryos. But regardless many lives are killed in this process and it should be illegal.
The harvested eggs would have been destroyed via menstruation - does that make you sad, is that death to you? It's the same thing. . . an unfertilized egg meeting it's end.

An egg or a sperm is not even a potential life, scientifically, it is not - logically - it is not - even morally - it is not. You can care for an egg in a petri dish all you like but unless it is fertilized and implanted in the proper environment it will not multiply and become a human being. . . that is impossible and illogical to "feel" for it otherwise.

Those who argue pro-life post fertilization at least have more of a solid argument than yours is.

Now, if you were citing issues with the business of farming humans for money, that's a legitimate concern. Or if you were citing how unsafe and careless it is: with a rise in the ability to fertilize these harvested eggs we're really creating lives and putting them at risk (Octomom, for example). . . .these two thoughts are legitimate concerns.

But to argue that an egg will absolutely grow into a human, thus, destroying it is destroying a life is - well - ridiculous and uneducated.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,223
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The harvested eggs would have been destroyed via menstruation - does that make you sad, is that death to you? It's the same thing. . . an unfertilized egg meeting it's end.
during in vitro many eggs are fertilized in the process, and most of them simply die because they aren't implanted.
An egg or a sperm is not even a potential life, scientifically, it is not - logically - it is not - even morally - it is not. You can care for an egg in a petri dish all you like but unless it is fertilized and implanted in the proper environment it will not multiply and become a human being. . . that is impossible and illogical to "feel" for it otherwise.
I agree, an egg and sperm are not an individual life. However, my problem with in vitro is that fertilized embryos are killed in the process or left to die because they aren't going to be implanted.
Those who argue pro-life post fertilization at least have more of a solid argument than yours is.
Mine is an argument for post fertilization. I have nothing against killing a sperm or egg, these things happen normally (the male body breaks down unused sperm and eggs die via menstruation. It's natural). My problem is with killing a fertilized embryo. And during in vitro this happens.
Now, if you were citing issues with the business of farming humans for money, that's a legitimate concern. Or if you were citing how unsafe and careless it is: with a rise in the ability to fertilize these harvested eggs we're really creating lives and putting them at risk (Octomom, for example). . . .these two thoughts are legitimate concerns.

But to argue that an egg will absolutely grow into a human, thus, destroying it is destroying a life is - well - ridiculous and uneducated.
My argument is not that an egg will grow into a human. My argument is that fertilized eggs are new lives and they are killed in the process of in vitro fertilization. Essentially, many sperm will fertilized harvested eggs and the embryos are allowed to grow under observation for a while. They typically select the best and healthiest looking embryo and implant it in the woman. The rest of the embryos are either killed or are donated to women who may want that embryo to be implanted in them.

huh, that just seems sort of spiteful, that you'd prefer no life simply because something dies that wouldn't have lived in the first place.
I just think that if a life requires many others to end in order to be created, then that life shouldn't be created in the first place. I'm against pregnancy methods that include the death of lives in order to achieve pregnancy.
 
Last edited:

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
during in vitro many eggs are fertilized in the process, and most of them simply die because they aren't implanted.

I agree, an egg and sperm are not an individual life. However, my problem with in vitro is that fertilized embryos are killed in the process or left to die because they aren't going to be implanted.

Mine is an argument for post fertilization. I have nothing against killing a sperm or egg, these things happen normally (the male body breaks down unused sperm and eggs die via menstruation. It's natural). My problem is with killing a fertilized embryo. And during in vitro this happens.

My argument is not that an egg will grow into a human. My argument is that fertilized eggs are new lives and they are killed in the process of in vitro fertilization. Essentially, many sperm will fertilized harvested eggs and the embryos are allowed to grow under observation for a while. They typically select the best and healthiest looking embryo and implant it in the woman. The rest of the embryos are either killed or are donated to women who may want that embryo to be implanted in them.



I just think that if a life requires many others to end in order to be created, then that life shouldn't be created in the first place. I'm against pregnancy methods that include the death of lives in order to achieve pregnancy.
To the bolded - that is an essential key point that you left out of your first post.
Thanks for the clarification.

I have no qualms with this fact of it. However, I feel that it's careless - far too often multiples (and not just one or two - but 4 or more) are fertilized, implanted, and carried . . .putting all in peril - and putting the children into a delicate and dangerous situation with life-altering consequences such as disorders and so forth.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,117
Reaction score
21,520
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
I just think that if a life requires many others to end in order to be created, then that life shouldn't be created in the first place. I'm against pregnancy methods that include the death of lives in order to achieve pregnancy.
so, just to insert a human angle inot this, you'd deny a couple the chance of having a child, a child that would be wanted and loved, when the majority of pregnancies end in miscarriage anyway
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, in vitro fertilization is wrong. I know some people opt to donate the other fertilized embryos. But regardless many lives are killed in this process and it should be illegal.
At least you're consistent. Can't say that about most pro-life people.
 
S

summerblue

If abortion is wrong on the basis that all life is sacred (let's ignore how that's crazy while we cow down on some cows, chickens and pigs at our local fast food joint), isn't invitro-fertilization wrong because of the huge number of embryos that are disposed of?

Why do we not see pro-life crowds picketing IVF clinics? After all, IVF clinics incinerate unused embryos as biomedical waste or give them to universities to do who knows what with. All too often are unused embryos discarded. If aborting an embryo is wrong, isn't an IVF clinic incinerating an embryo wrong too?

In vitro is separate from disposing of embryos. The right to lifers donate their embryos rather than see them disposed of
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
In vitro is separate from disposing of embryos. The right to lifers donate their embryos rather than see them disposed of
But in the process of invitro, dozens if not more embryos are disposed of. Furthermore, they will not implant an embryo that has huge genetic flaws. Whether or not pro-life donate is irrelevant here. Right now embryos are destroyed in large numbers. If aborting embryos is wrong then the process of IVF is wrong as well.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But in the process of invitro, dozens if not more embryos are disposed of. Furthermore, they will not implant an embryo that has huge genetic flaws. Whether or not pro-life donate is irrelevant here. Right now embryos are destroyed in large numbers. If aborting embryos is wrong then the process of IVF is wrong as well.
Like Summer indicated,.... the process of ivitro fertilization does not necessesarily involve the disposal of embryos.

We (who believe that a person's life begins at conception) have no problem with using invitro fertilization to create a new life. In fact, it's a medical procedure that bolsters our claim that a human individual's life biologically begins at conception.

We have a huge problem with things like 'selective reduction' and the disposal of unwanted, un-needed lives that for whatever reason are no longer wanted.

So, in the end IVF is not a cause worthy of the same intensity of opposition that abortion clinics elicit from (some of) us.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We have a huge problem with things like 'selective reduction' and the disposal of unwanted, un-needed lives that for whatever reason are no longer wanted.
One live baby is better than six dead ones and even if we wanted to gestate all of the embryos created via IVF, there simply aren't enough women to gestate them.
 

Chuz Life

Banned
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
3,981
Reaction score
385
Location
Nun-ya-dang Bidness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
One live baby is better than six dead ones and even if we wanted to gestate all of the embryos created via IVF, there simply aren't enough women to gestate them.
I'm sorry to be a buzz kill on this,...

However,....

It seems to me,... that there is something unjust about knowingly, intentionally creating and killing six or seven babies,... just to improve the chances that one of those created will be a keeper.

But that's just me.
 
Last edited:

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Like Summer indicated,.... the process of ivitro fertilization does not necessesarily involve the disposal of embryos.
Except in reality it does dispose large amounts of embryos. At least Disgbe is consistent in his beliefs. You are clearly not.

We (who believe that a person's life begins at conception) have no problem with using invitro fertilization to create a new life. In fact, it's a medical procedure that bolsters our claim that a human individual's life biologically begins at conception.
Except that isn't what is in question here.

We have a huge problem with things like 'selective reduction' and the disposal of unwanted, un-needed lives that for whatever reason are no longer wanted.

So, in the end IVF is not a cause worthy of the same intensity of opposition that abortion clinics elicit from (some of) us.
So you have a huge problem that's not worth of the same intensity? Sounds like it's not a huge problem to you. Why are some pro-life so utterly inconsistent?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
It seems to me,... that there is something unjust about knowingly, intentionally creating and killing six or seven babies,... just to improve the chances that one of those created will be a keeper.

But that's just me.
How about the fact that people are paying $15,000 a pop on IVF? How about the fact that we should not implant embryos with hereditary diseases?
 

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You've got that right. If it doesn't give the anti-choicers control over what women do with their bodies, they don't have any interest.
That explains the opposition to embryonic stem cell research.:slapme:
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How about the fact that people are paying $15,000 a pop on IVF?
Quite relevant.
Although fertility treatments and even IVF are now becoming more accessible to the middle class, they're still mostly the domain of the affluent.
Certainly they're out of reach for the poor.
They're also more needed by the affluent, who are more apt than the poor to postpone childbearing until late in life, then realize that it's too late to conceive without help.

Many a politician's child, no doubt, has been conceived via IVF.
And this extends across the aisle, to both Democrats and Republicans.
Many a lawyer's child, many a judge's child too.

It is unlikely that anti-choicers will have much luck attacking women's right to fertility treatments for this reason.
Fertility treatments are highly utilized within the power structure.
Women who avail themselves of IVF- and their husbands- have the resources to fight back very effectively against any opposition to what they are doing. Unlike the average woman having an abortion.
Never mind that the typical IVF treatment creates a dozen embryos, chooses the best of the lot, and then discards the other eleven, while an abortion results in the termination of only one embryo.

This- IVF- is one of the main reasons that prudent anti-choicers claim to believe that a ZEF isn't "a human life" until implantation, rather than at conception.
That way, they can avoid wrestling with this tricky, no-win situation altogether.
 
Top Bottom