Invitro Fertilization

[Chuz Life]

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.

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?

None of this addresses the point that I was making.

 

[mpg]

How about lack of any disproval? Do you see anti-IVF propaganda anywhere?

You've seen disapproval in this thread. Maybe we'll see more disapproval as more people become aware of how IVF works. I didn't know about it until this thread.

 

[obvious Child]

You've seen disapproval in this thread. Maybe we'll see more disapproval as more people become aware of how IVF works. I didn't know about it until this thread.

Only by Disgbe. Chuz is avoiding the topic. Go to a pro-life website. You won't find anti-IVF material.

 

[obvious Child]

None of this addresses the point that I was making.

And nothing you wrote addresses the topic of this thread. I get you don't like the fact I just pointed out your beliefs are inconsistent. But many pro-life people are inconsistent when it comes to IVF.

Abortion should be made illegal because it kills embryos, but IVF is okay even though it kills embryos.

Logically incoherent your positions are.

 

[Chuz Life]

Only by Disgbe. Chuz is avoiding the topic. Go to a pro-life website. You won't find anti-IVF material.

Maybe we were (are) thinking over your head.

It would seem intuitively obvious to me that if you consider the fact that we believe an individuals life begins at conception,.... that rights begin at conception, etc... It's only automatic that we (anti-aborts) would oppose any and all unjust taking of those lives.

Including those killed in IVF.

But, for your benefit I think I might just add some info on my website about my opposition to IVF.

 

[obvious Child]

Maybe we were (are) thinking over your head.

Considering you are dancing around the issue, not very likely.

It would seem intuitively obvious to me that if you consider the fact that we believe an individuals life begins at conception,.... that rights begin at conception, etc... It's only automatic that we (anti-aborts) would oppose any and all unjust taking of those lives.

Including those killed in IVF.

So why is it that you dance around the issue here rather then be like Disgbe?

So why aren't you calling for IVF to be outlawed like abortion?

But, for your benefit I think I might just add some info on my website about my opposition to IVF.

Good.

 

[Chuz Life]

Considering you are dancing around the issue, not very likely.


So why is it that you dance around the issue here rather then be like Disgbe?

So why aren't you calling for IVF to be outlawed like abortion?

Good.

I don't see that there is any significant difference between my posts and take on IVF and Digs....

Do you, Digs?

 

[Orion]

IVF is not the greatest for the gene pool in general, mostly because there is no positive selection bias for sperm aside from avoiding obvious defects. Sperm normally compete to fertilize an egg but with IVF a single sperm is selected for implantation. The only real criteria they have for choosing a healthy sperm is if it has normal structure and mobility, and neither of those really reveal the genes being carried inside.

The remaining eggs that are discarded would largely be doomed to produce non-viable fetuses in the first place. Even if you were to implant them, at least half would miscarry. This is due to the lack of selection bias in the sperm. There is a reason why nature knows best, and I am not convinced that the growing culture of IVF is really producing genetically strong human beings.

If you can rule out environmental factors for why you can't conceive, then there is usually a very good genetic reason for why you shouldn't reproduce. Of course, our society lacks the wisdom to acknowledge this. People who want kids and have money will just pay for the process. I do believe though that it is contributing to the degeneration of our species.

As for the "right to life" question, I am not surprised that the pro-life sect has largely excused itself from the IVF debate. It's probably because they know they can't win. Their arguments largely rest upon emotional appeals and cute little images of developing fetuses. There is not much appeal behind a picture of an egg obliviously floating in a petri dish.

 

[Goshin]

Some think any fertilized egg is a human life, some only when it is attached to the uterine wall and begins replicating cells.

At any rate, the IVF issue isn't as big as the abortion issue, since with abortion we're definitely talking about a fetus, which is more definitely a human-under-construction by the lights of those who are pro-life.

Incidentally, the OP's dig about eating cow is a red herring; pro-lifers are not generally concerned with animal life, but only human life. Many of us are also pro-capital-punishment, because we make the distinction between an innocent life that is incapable of doing willful harm, versus one who has chosen to commit heinous crimes.

 

[1069]

At any rate, the IVF issue isn't as big as the abortion issue, since with abortion we're definitely talking about a fetus, which is more definitely a human-under-construction by the lights of those who are pro-life.

Not really; a lot of abortions take place before eight weeks gestation. In those cases, we're "definitely talking about" an embryo, rather than a fetus; just like with IVF, except with IVF we're talking about the destruction of numerous embryos, rather than just one.

 

[Chuz Life]

Some think any fertilized egg is a human life, some only when it is attached to the uterine wall and begins replicating cells.

At any rate, the IVF issue isn't as big as the abortion issue, since with abortion we're definitely talking about a fetus, which is more definitely a human-under-construction by the lights of those who are pro-life.

Incidentally, the OP's dig about eating cow is a red herring; pro-lifers are not generally concerned with animal life, but only human life. Many of us are also pro-capital-punishment, because we make the distinction between an innocent life that is incapable of doing willful harm, versus one who has chosen to commit heinous crimes.

I think the bigger distinction is (and the reason more oppose abortion than IVF) is because with IVF,.... everything is designed around giving parents a child they want,.... it's not for the want of killing and ridding themselves of a child,.... like an abortion is.

 

[1069]

I think the bigger distinction is (and the reason more oppose abortion than IVF) is because with IVF,.... everything is designed around giving parents a child they want,.... it's not for the want of killing and ridding themselves of a child,.... like an abortion is.

Yet in the process of "having what they want", ie a child free of genetic defects, they destroy and discard- on average- at least a dozen "human lives", ie embryos.
One would think antichoicers would oppose that more than abortion, where a woman destroys and discards only one embryo in order to have what she wants, ie her body and life back.

It all points back to the fact that antichoicers don't care a fig about "pweshuss human lives"; if they did, they'd have more of a problem with a dozen "children" being "murdered" in service of some affluent couple's quest for the perfect child, than with some poor chick getting an abortion.

It makes me distrust their motives.
I think they're just bullies who like to pick on the poor and downtrodden, and get all self-righteous at their expense, but will not dare go up against affluent members of the power structure.
That's certainly how their nonchalant acceptance of IVF appears, from my perspective.

 

[1069]

And as an addendum to that, as a believer in bodily sovereignty and freedom of reproductive choice, I am perfectly fine with IVF.
If a woman wishes to have every single egg in her ovaries extracted and fertilized, and then play eenie-meenie-minie-moe to pick the very best one for implantation, and throw all the rest away, she is well within her rights, as far as I'm concerned.
They're her eggs to do with as she pleases.

 

[Chuz Life]

Yet in the process of "having what they want", ie a child free of genetic defects, they destroy and discard- on average- at least a dozen "human lives", ie embryos.
One would think antichoicers would oppose that more than abortion, where a woman destroys and discards only one embryo in order to have what she wants, ie her body and life back.

It all points back to the fact that antichoicers don't care a fig about "pweshuss human lives"; if they did, they'd have more of a problem with a dozen "children" being "murdered" in service of some affluent couple's quest for the perfect child, than with some poor chick getting an abortion.

It makes me distrust their motives.
I think they're just bullies who like to pick on the poor and downtrodden, and get all self-righteous at their expense, but will not dare go up against affluent members of the power structure.
That's certainly how their nonchalant acceptance of IVF appears, from my perspective.

We do oppose things like selective reduction and the like,.... you just don't give it the same weight as you do our opposition to elective abortion.

If you haven't figured it out yet,... when we succeed in overturning Roe and establishing the fact that a persons rights begin at conception,.... the (now legal) practices of killing and aborting unwanted or extra embryos in IVF will end as well.

 

[1069]

If you haven't figured it out yet,... when we succeed in overturning Roe and establishing the fact that a persons rights begin at conception,.... the (now legal) practices of killing and aborting unwanted or extra embryos in IVF will end as well.

So, in other words, never.

Got it. :2wave:

 

[winston53660]

We do oppose things like selective reduction and the like,.... you just don't give it the same weight as you do our opposition to elective abortion.

If you haven't figured it out yet,... when we succeed in overturning Roe and establishing the fact that a persons rights begin at conception,.... the (now legal) practices of killing and aborting unwanted or extra embryos in IVF will end as well.

You are alos going to have change the Constitution

 

[1069]

You are alos going to have change the Constitution

Should be no problemo for Superheroes of the Far Right.
They're a very effective and capable bunch. :lol:

 

[Chuz Life]

You are alos going to have change the Constitution

alos?

No we don't.

 

[OKgrannie]

Yet in the process of "having what they want", ie a child free of genetic defects, they destroy and discard- on average- at least a dozen "human lives", ie embryos.
One would think antichoicers would oppose that more than abortion, where a woman destroys and discards only one embryo in order to have what she wants, ie her body and life back.

It all points back to the fact that antichoicers don't care a fig about "pweshuss human lives"; if they did, they'd have more of a problem with a dozen "children" being "murdered" in service of some affluent couple's quest for the perfect child, than with some poor chick getting an abortion.

It makes me distrust their motives.
I think they're just bullies who like to pick on the poor and downtrodden, and get all self-righteous at their expense, but will not dare go up against affluent members of the power structure.
That's certainly how their nonchalant acceptance of IVF appears, from my perspective.

There's also the fact that IVF doesn't offer a woman to be punished for having sex. It does nothing to set examples for young girls to frighten them into chastity.

 

[Chuz Life]

So, in other words, never.

Got it. :2wave:

What I wouldn't give to see the expression on your face when....

:2wave:

 

[winston53660]

alos?

No we don't.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[1069]

What I wouldn't give to see the expression on your face when....

:2wave:

On a personal level, I doubt I'd even care.
I'll be menopausal in a few years anyway; I'm already in my mid-30s.

It'll never happen anyway, though, so I'm not worried.
Remember when Colorado failed to pass that proposed "life begins at conception" bill?
Remember what a wide margin they failed by?
How about when Dakota tried to outlaw abortion, and failed?
If antichoice bills fail by such huge margins in conservative states like those, how in God's name do you ever expect to get the entire country onboard with your little plan?
How do you expect the Supreme Court to go along with it?
It's just crazy-talk.
And it's not even very entertaining.
You should learn some new tricks, if you want to hold my attention.

 

[prometeus]

If you haven't figured it out yet,... when we succeed in overturning Roe and establishing the fact that a persons rights begin at conception,.... the (now legal) practices of killing and aborting unwanted or extra embryos in IVF will end as well.

In your haste and because of your lacking of knowledge and understanding you are missing the fact that even the overturn of Roe will not automatically outlaw abortion everywhere and that abortion WILL remain legal in many places. The net effect will be nil and unlike ignorantly stating in your subsequent post, establishing rights to fetuses will require a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Chuz Life]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A person is born (comes into existence) at the moment of their conception,.... not at the moment of their parturition (delivery from the womb.)

Some day the SCOTUS will make this clarification and the 14th Will then justifiably protect "all persons equally" as it is supposed to do.

Incidently,.. (and ironically) by your own bastardized standard,... you can't "abort" a child from the womb without that child being "born."

If a c-section (surgical removal of a child from the womb) amounts to a "born person" so then does any other "surgical removal of a child from the womb."

You just painted yourself into a corner.

 

[1069]

The net effect will be nil and unlike ignorantly stating in you subsequent post, establishing rights to fetuses will require a Constitutional amendment.

Yeah, like that's going to happen. :lol:

The whole point of that pathetic failed bill in Colorado was to outlaw hormonal contraceptives.
Establishing that personhood begins at conception would mean that all contraceptives except barrier methods- condoms and diaphragms- would perforce be illegal.

We all know that there will never be any such amendment. I mean, I'm so sure. :lamo