Ethical problems with IVF.

[Robinsegg]

I think the concern here is that a fetus or embryo has a human genetic makeup that is different from the mother's. Therefore, it is an individual, it is living, and it is human (maybe not legally a person, but human nonetheless).

Rachel

 

[michabo]

I love that argument. All hail the 'human genetic makeup'! Who cares if it has differentiated cells? Who cares if it has a nevous system? Protect the precious human genetic makeup!

 

[ebia]

In IVF, several embryos are implanted, but the expecting couple generally only wants one child. The doctors don't know which embryo is strongest and the would-be mother wants the best, so they implant several with he hopes that all but one will die and the strongest will survive. If all three survive, then the mother has a difficult birth, and the infants may have health problems.

Glass half full, or half empty?

That said, over here they won't put back more than two embryos at a time, and are quite keen on only doing one at a time, for this very reason. As IVF techniques have become more successful the need to avoid multiple pregancies that can result from implanting multiple embryos has become a more frequent issue.

How about we also bomb all the parents who have sex who don't want a child and are effectively wanting any embryo produced to fail? The only way to avoid embryos dying is to not have sex. Well, conventional hetrosexual sex.

(Speaking as the proud father of the most adorable, newborn, IVF, daughter.)

 

[seebs]

I didn't realize that there was an argument for human life beginning at conception beyond "god said it, I believe it."

How about the purely biological argument?

It's life, because it's capable of growing and potentially capable of reproducing.

It's human because it has human genetics.

Of course, it's contrary to Biblical teachings about human life, but it's vaguely sound biology; it's just free of moral implications.

 

[seebs]

I love that argument. All hail the 'human genetic makeup'! Who cares if it has differentiated cells? Who cares if it has a nevous system? Protect the precious human genetic makeup!

It's biologically accurate. It doesn't quite get us to a moral argument, because the moral argument isn't really about biology.

 

[michabo]

How about the purely biological argument?

It's life, because it's capable of growing and potentially capable of reproducing.

It's human because it has human genetics.

Of course, it's contrary to Biblical teachings about human life, but it's vaguely sound biology; it's just free of moral implications.

You want to preserve this ball of undifferentiated cells because it can grow? Because of its genes? What is so important about growth and genes?

Mice have genes and can grow. Shall we protect them in the same way?

Sperm has human genetics and, with some care, it can grow too. Oh sure, maybe you'll say that it can't grow on its own, but neither can this embryo.

Our skin has human genes and it can grow, so why not protect this?


Sorry seebs, but the mere potential to eventually turn into a human is not worthy of respect. There has to be something more. What is it that makes human life worth protecting? Tell me this, and then let's see when it starts. Until then, it's less alive, less worth protecting than a fly. Flies have more nerve cells and more brain cells than the entire embryo, so if it's thought that's important, then we should be fighting for a fly's life over this embryo.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Oh sure, maybe you'll say that it can't grow on its own, but neither can this embryo.

Neither can any human really. Deprive them of food, water or oxygen and suddenly that's it.

I don't know. I've always found the argument that a human has to be independent to be alive to be ridiculous.

 

[Belk]

Neither can any human really. Deprive them of food, water or oxygen and suddenly that's it.

I don't know. I've always found the argument that a human has to be independent to be alive to be ridiculous.

True, but if you come try to deprive me of food, water, or oxygen you are going to have a very bad day.

 

[ebia]

Neither can any human really. Deprive them of food, water or oxygen and suddenly that's it.

I don't know. I've always found the argument that a human has to be independent to be alive to be ridiculous.

Firstly, it's not that a human has to be independent to be alive - closer would be to say that a human has to be independent to be human. There is no question that an embryo is alive - the question is whether an embryo is human in any meaningful sense. Which boils down to a definition of "human". Any takers?

And why does the quality of being human have to be an all-or-nothing thing? Isn't it reasonable, or at least possible, that something starts of being non-human and gradually becomes increasingly human?

 

[LienShen]

Firstly, it's not that a human has to be independent to be alive - closer would be to say that a human has to be independent to be human. There is no question that an embryo is alive - the question is whether an embryo is human in any meaningful sense. Which boils down to a definition of "human". Any takers?

And why does the quality of being human have to be an all-or-nothing thing? Isn't it reasonable, or at least possible, that something starts of being non-human and gradually becomes increasingly human?

It has to have the potential to survive, or it can never be anything human or otherwise.

Without a host, it is a clump of cells. It will always be a clump of cells until it finds a host, biological or otherwise. You can call an embryo a potential human life, but in the grand scheme of things, only 1/3 of all fertilized eggs ever become a human life. I value this understanding out of compassion for people who are already alive and suffering. If somehow, their lives can be improved by a clump of cells, regardless of the origin of those cells, I think we should do it.

Spiritually, I think that rather than discard the frozen embryos at the end of their "life cycle", they could potentially end the suffering of many. Since their potential at that point is nil, I don't think that it would hurt anyone to allow these cells to help others instead of being destroyed.

 

[ebia]

It has to have the potential to survive, or it can never be anything human or otherwise.

So is a person under a life support system a live human?

 

[Robinsegg]

Firstly, it's not that a human has to be independent to be alive - closer would be to say that a human has to be independent to be human. There is no question that an embryo is alive - the question is whether an embryo is human in any meaningful sense. Which boils down to a definition of "human". Any takers?

Sure: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
2. A person

As I said earlier, I wasn't talking about the legal "personhood", but being human as defined above.

Rachel

 

[Adriac]

Being human has little to do with person-hood in my opinion. My skin cells are human; I'd easily grant that a race of intelligent aliens, or a self-aware computer, were people.

 

[michabo]

Neither can any human really. Deprive them of food, water or oxygen and suddenly that's it.

I don't know. I've always found the argument that a human has to be independent to be alive to be ridiculous.

In a couple of years when the technology to clone improves, your argument grants personhood to dandruff.

I didn't argue that embryos couldn't develop on their own therefore they aren't worthy of protection. I said they aren't worthy of more protection than flies until they get at least as many nerve cells and brain cells as a fly has.

 

[michabo]

"You're not a human, you're a fetus!"

"You don't think like me, therefore you're not human!"
The above could be used for both a human fetus or a human infidel.

What is a human, then? A cell with genetic information? Why not add:

"You're not a human, you're hair."

"You're not a human, you're a blood cell."


C'mon. Surely the value of a human life must be in more than just the couple percent of genetic difference between us and chimps. It must be more than just in our DNA and enclosing cell walls.

 

[LienShen]

So is a person under a life support system a live human?

Strawman.

A person on life support was most certainly a living breathing human being. His/her potential was already successful.

This discussion isn't about people on life support, it's about embryos.

 

[Robinsegg]

The suggestion was that embryos are not independently sustained, therefore they may not be "persons". So, you find another group of humans that cannot independently sustain themselves and compare, no?

Rachel

 

[LienShen]

That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion has to do with potential humanity. If there is no potential to be a human being, is it a human being or is it just human cells?

 

[Robinsegg]

You're right, I apologize. I must've gotten this thread mixed up with another.

Rachel

 

[PookySmiley]

I'm pro-life, but I don't see unimplanted fertilized eggs as fetuses. There are millions of eggs fertilized that don't implant, those are not miscarriages, the mothers didn't even know what was happening.