- 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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
during in vitro many eggs are fertilized in the process, and most of them simply die because they aren't implanted.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.
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.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.
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.Those who argue pro-life post fertilization at least have more of a solid argument than yours is.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
That explains the opposition to embryonic stem cell research.:slapme: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.
Lack of picketing =/= approval.Why do we not see pro-life crowds picketing IVF clinics?
How about the fact that people are paying $15,000 a pop on IVF?
Lack of picketing =/= approval.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?