Ethical problems with IVF.

[Robinsegg]

I tend to agree with PookySmily. I was trying to explain a position. Also, I don't think those fetilized eggs should necessarily be grown so they can be used for experimentation.

Rachel

 

[LienShen]

So they should be thrown in the trash and discarded as rubbish, even if they could potentially make a paralyzed man walk again, a grandmother regain some brain function she lost with dementia, a child be cure of Hodgkins, or a the pastor of your church be free from the strokes and clots that come with diabetes?

It doesn't make sense to me. If it has no potential of becoming a human being, why can it not have potential to help human beings live without suffering?

 

[Robinsegg]

I'll admit I'm a bit ignorant of the procedure involved. How "old" is the embryo grown to be? What's the difference between this and human "theraputic cloning"? How long do they allow the embryo to develop in order to test and collect?

Rachel

 

[LienShen]

They are typically, only four to five days old and contain approximately 30 useable cells;
https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

There is a tremendous amount of information on that site, including successful studies, ethics, procedures and reports.

 

[ebia]

Strawman.

Why? What argument not made am I demolishing?

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

So a corpse is still a human being?

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

My response is part of a line to see if anyone can come up with a definition of a human being that is useful in this context without special pleading. I suspect not, which supports my view that it isn't black and white.

 

[Ave Maria]

I don't know about all Pro-Life people but Catholics are also against Invitro Fertilisation.

 

[ebia]

I don't know about all Pro-Life people but Catholics are also against Invitro Fertilisation.

That's the official view. I'm not sure it's true of all Catholics in practice.

 

[LienShen]

Why? What argument not made am I demolishing?


So a corpse is still a human being?


My response is part of a line to see if anyone can come up with a definition of a human being that is useful in this context without special pleading. I suspect not, which supports my view that it isn't black and white.

I was speaking of potential life of an embryo, and like has always been my experience with you on this subject, you drag in your strawman of people on life support. We aren't talking about people who are alive, regardless of what state they are in, or people who are dead... since you just tossed that strawman on the fire. We are talking about something that hasn't been yet and it's potential to be. I know that it's hard for you to follow that line of logic but please try to keep all the fallacies out of it.

In Vitro embryoes, are usually four to five days old. The majority of these fertilized embryoes do NOT get implanted in a human host, mother or otherwise. They will eventually pass a date that a scientist has deemed them to possibly be unstable. Why is it not ethical to take something someone is going to dispose of, however they are going to dispose of them, and use some of the salvaged cell material to heal very real, walking and breathing patients?

If creating these embryoes in the first place is unethical, then I can understand why you wouldn't want them to be used for the greater good of mankind. But if you had the procedure done, had two children this way, and 7 more embryoes on storage that eventually met an expiration date, why wouldn't you want them to help science since at that point, they had no potential to be a human being?

Try to stick to the thread topic. If you'd like to have a debate on what is and what isn't a human being, since it is not relevant to the OP and the subsequent posts until you dragged it off topic, please start a thread on it. We are talking about the ethics of IVF and whether or not we can/should throw out embyroes. We are NOT debating whether or not embryoes should have human rights, or be called human. It's not relevant to this conversation.

 

[Aimee30]

I can't use the term I was going to as to the mood the thread's causing, since it would mean 911 people coming over to my house and trying to get put in Guatanamo.
Okay instead of all this, how about pushing the entire contents of the White House into the ocean and starting over. I might let a few escape if I like them, but seriously, why not? You know, it would be nice if we could find some people who would build up our country first before blowing up half the planet. Of course, I must tell everyone I am kidding or perhaps there will be some FBI guys hiding in my trees.
Another suggestion, blow up the planet and start over. There are a lot of annoying people here getting in the way. I am upholding the sanctity of life by getting rid of the rotten apples. Hmm, maybe instead of sanctity I should say quality.
Of course this whole post of mine is a joke, so please don't debate it--try to relate to it, if anything.

 

[ebia]

I was speaking of potential life of an embryo,

Then you weren't answering my question, which was "how do you define being human?"

You seem to be assuming that I'm arguing for a particular position - I'm not.

In Vitro embryoes, are usually four to five days old. The majority of these fertilized embryoes do NOT get implanted in a human host, mother or otherwise.

I know how it works - I'm the father of a 2 week old IVF baby who is the (wonderful) result of 4 years of treatment.

They will eventually pass a date that a scientist has deemed them to possibly be unstable. Why is it not ethical to take something someone is going to dispose of, however they are going to dispose of them, and use some of the salvaged cell material to heal very real, walking and breathing patients?

That's what I'm trying to discuss - I don't have a fixed position.

If creating these embryoes in the first place is unethical, then I can understand why you wouldn't want them to be used for the greater good of mankind. But if you had the procedure done, had two children this way, and 7 more embryoes on storage that eventually met an expiration date, why wouldn't you want them to help science since at that point, they had no potential to be a human being?

In our case we decided before hand that (if at all possible) we will make sure all the embryos we have in storage are implanted and given a chance of life.

Try to stick to the thread topic. If you'd like to have a debate on what is and what isn't a human being, since it is not relevant to the OP and the subsequent posts until you dragged it off topic, please start a thread on it.

I really don't see how you can decide that embryo's are or are not human without having a clear idea of what it is to be human. The question is central to the debate - without clarifying it one can decide the rest. You can't decide whether or not the moon is made of cream cheese if you haven't determined what the moon is.

We are talking about the ethics of IVF and whether or not we can/should throw out embyroes. We are NOT debating whether or not embryoes should have human rights, or be called human. It's not relevant to this conversation.

How can you decide whether or not to throw out embryos if you haven't decided whether they deserve human rights? It makes no sense.

 

[LienShen]

Emryoes that will never be implanted (thrown away, used for research, peaceful expire) will NEVER have the chance to be human beings. So how can something be a human being when it's not BEING at all?

Your double speak doesn't change that. And that's what we are discussing. Whether or not an Embryo should be used for research that may help to cure others since they will not be used for anything else.

I'm not talking about the ones with potential. I'm talking about the ones, who didn't make the choice to have them implanted into someone else, or the ones who have met the end of their lifecycle for implamentation and will be discarded otherwise.

If you want to make a thread on why Embryoes should have human rights, then there is plenty of space in the forums. We aren't talking about "rescuing" embryoes from vampires and those evil evil scientitists that want to save the world. We are simply talking about the waste matter produced that doesn't have potential to be anything except a science experiment.

 

[ebia]

Emryoes that will never be implanted (thrown away, used for research, peaceful expire) will NEVER have the chance to be human beings. So how can something be a human being when it's not BEING at all?

Your double speak doesn't change that. And that's what we are discussing. Whether or not an Embryo should be used for research that may help to cure others since they will not be used for anything else.

I'm not talking about the ones with potential. I'm talking about the ones, who didn't make the choice to have them implanted into someone else, or the ones who have met the end of their lifecycle for implamentation and will be discarded otherwise.

If you want to make a thread on why Embryoes should have human rights, then there is plenty of space in the forums. We aren't talking about "rescuing" embryoes from vampires and those evil evil scientitists that want to save the world. We are simply talking about the waste matter produced that doesn't have potential to be anything except a science experiment.

If you look at the thread title, we are actually supposed to be talking about (all the) ethical issues WRT IVF. I agree that it's hard to see how using unwanted embryos for research is worse than just bining them, but that still leaves open the question of whether either is acceptable.