In Vitro Fertilization

[indra_fanatic]

Furthermore, have we thought that perhaps such methods are actually part of God's plan for the evolution of humans?

I would disagree that the human race has any need to "evolve" further. Such attempts invariably end in hideousness (i.e. Hitler's eugenics). All we need to do is convince people with grave genetic defects (i.e. Lou Gehrig's, muscular dystrophy, etc) that they should refrain from reproduction in order to spare needless suffering to any more lives. No need to butcher embryos in some petri dish.

Why is nature's destruction of embryos allowed to be morally neutral while the disposal of embryos in the laboratory is seen in a morally defined light?

One involves a conscious human choice.

Ah, but the only way in which this can be done if the research continues forward which will definitely require the loss of more embryos at this stage in the technology.

Hence my grave, already-noted objections to IVF in general.

I would be interested in hearing your reasons for this moral conclusion.

There is one basic reason, and that is that they all involve man willfully acting to terminate the lives of distinct human organisms.

 

[blessedmomof5]

Indra_fanatic,

Where personally do YOU stand on IVF?

well, being the mother of 5 children, 2 sets of twins in there, they were conciieved through fertility drugs and iui's.......but had i had to go the IVF route, i would have used the rest of the eggs for myself, not kept them in limbo, or donated them to some deserving couple that could not have had children otherwise...

 

[depthdeception]

I would disagree that the human race has any need to "evolve" further. Such attempts invariably end in hideousness (i.e. Hitler's eugenics). All we need to do is convince people with grave genetic defects (i.e. Lou Gehrig's, muscular dystrophy, etc) that they should refrain from reproduction in order to spare needless suffering to any more lives. No need to butcher embryos in some petri dish.

LOL! It's funny how in the first sentence you disparage the idea of human evolution, but then in the next sentence advocate it! (i.e., natural selection...). Your genetic prejudice is little different from the programme which Hitler followed. In fact, the theory is exactly the same. THe only difference is that you have yet to act upon it.

One involves a conscious human choice.

It seems that every time I've had sex, it was based upon a conscious human choice...

Hence my grave, already-noted objections to IVF in general.

Yes, your alternative suggestions were much better...actually, they weren't.

There is one basic reason, and that is that they all involve man willfully acting to terminate the lives of distinct human organisms.

You are deliberately mischaracterizing IVF procedures. The purpose of IVF is not to terminate human embryos. At this stage of the technology, this is, unfortunately, a by-product of the procedure. But as I have said before, what occurs in IVF is not much different (and many times more successful) than what occurs in natural conception (re: embryo destruction).

 

[indra_fanatic]

Indra_fanatic,

Where personally do YOU stand on IVF?

well, being the mother of 5 children, 2 sets of twins in there, they were conciieved through fertility drugs and iui's.......but had i had to go the IVF route, i would have used the rest of the eggs for myself, not kept them in limbo, or donated them to some deserving couple that could not have had children otherwise...

Honestly it all creeps me out and I can't see why people don't just adopt...

My two cents, Brian

 

[indra_fanatic]

LOL! It's funny how in the first sentence you disparage the idea of human evolution, but then in the next sentence advocate it! (i.e., natural selection...). Your genetic prejudice is little different from the programme which Hitler followed. In fact, the theory is exactly the same. THe only difference is that you have yet to act upon it.

No. Natural selection and orthodox evolutionary theory are so different that they are almost diametrically opposed. Evolution teaches that genetic lines, through accumulated mutations at opportune times, are capable of improving and even turning into something they are not now (i.e. a sharklike cartilaginous fish into a bony fish, a bony fish into an amphibian, etc.) Natural selection says that nature will favor those genetic lines that already have beneficial characteristics.

You are the one who seemed to be advocating the creation of "supermen" based on the best parts of each zygote or something like that (verbatim, you said "how do we know that IVF is not part of God's plan for human evolution").

It seems that every time I've had sex, it was based upon a conscious human choice...

LOL, whatever. Let's not go here. There are other threads here for the debate of the morality of extramarital sex.

Yes, your alternative suggestions were much better...actually, they weren't.

Umm, fine. If we have differing views on what constitutes humanhood, then of course you won't care for my suggestions.

You are deliberately mischaracterizing IVF procedures.

The PHILOSOPHY of IVF is that mankind "owns" human reproduction and has the right to do everything in its power to control human life.

The purpose of IVF is not to terminate human embryos.

I never said this, but are you going to tell me that the purpose of stem-cell experimentation isn't to terminate embryos?

At this stage of the technology, this is, unfortunately, a by-product of the procedure

Would you also say that the massacres and intentional famines of dozens and dozens of millions of peasants in the former USSR and Maoist China were but an "unfortunate byproduct" of communal farming and other forced collectivization policies?

The means were hideous, but the ends (a "classless" society of zombies in perpetual subordination to their Stalinist overlords) were plenty evil in their own right.

But as I have said before what occurs in IVF is not much different (and many times more successful) than what occurs in natural conception (re: embryo destruction).

I already granted you that, and in fact, I might well ask if it is really moral for an infertile couple to keep trying to conceive naturally if they know for a fact that they have some sort of condition that is keeping their embryos and fetuses from surviving.

 

[blessedmomof5]

If the system would make it easier for people to adopt then i am sure alot more would. but when you have a system that puts children back into a family with a history of abuse there is something wrong with that.....so while it creeps you out, in my view if God did not want us to have them they we would not....no matter how hard the dr's tried.......IMHO

Denise

 

[Crazy Liz]

LOL, whatever. Let's not go here. There are other threads here for the debate of the morality of extramarital sex.

Are you accusing dd of adultery?

 

[indra_fanatic]

Are you accusing dd of adultery?

It depends. Was he referring to his wife or not? He was distressingly unclear on that. Verbatim, I said "extramarital" (which is defined as "outside of marriage"), which within most stretches and interpretations under the English language includes premarital. In fact, that was what I was insinuating more than anything else.

If DD indeed meant nothing wrong (sex with his wife), then he should disregard what I said entirely. What I meant was that I did not want to get into a sex talk. If he did mean any kind of sex outside of marriage (including with the woman who would become his wife), and he does not believe such activity to be sinful, then yes, I would point him to the threads here about the morality of premarital sexual relations.

 

[indra_fanatic]

If the system would make it easier for people to adopt then i am sure alot more would. but when you have a system that puts children back into a family with a history of abuse there is something wrong with that.....so while it creeps you out, in my view if God did not want us to have them they we would not....no matter how hard the dr's tried.......IMHO

Denise

The #1 reason our adoption system is messed-up is because of the fraternity mentality most agencies have. Since social services personnel are all appointed/hired via civil service (and never elected), the public has no say-so in them, and they cannot be fired. Many adoption agency staffers in fact believe their job is to keep kids from being adopted, honestly believing the system does a better job.

 

[depthdeception]

You are the one who seemed to be advocating the creation of "supermen" based on the best parts of each zygote or something like that (verbatim, you said "how do we know that IVF is not part of God's plan for human evolution").

I advocate no such thing. Being a part of "God's plan for human evolution" is not the same as the ideal of Hitler-esque "superman." Providing means of reproduction that limit embryonic loss is far from your characterization of IVF and other reproductive technologies.

LOL, whatever. Let's not go here. There are other threads here for the debate of the morality of extramarital sex.

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

The PHILOSOPHY of IVF is that mankind "owns" human reproduction and has the right to do everything in its power to control human life.

That is your characterization of the philosophy of IVF. However, simply because you have an opinion about something does not mean that such is actually the reality.

I never said this, but are you going to tell me that the purpose of stem-cell experimentation isn't to terminate embryos?

No, the purpose of stem-cell experimentation is not to terminate embryos. The purpose of this experimentation is to develop therapies and technologies that can prevent and help cure diseases, as well as better understanding the varied levels of human genetics.

Would you also say that the massacres and intentional famines of dozens and dozens of millions of peasants in the former USSR and Maoist China were but an "unfortunate byproduct" of communal farming and other forced collectivization policies?

This has nothing to do with our discussion.

I already granted you that, and in fact, I might well ask if it is really moral for an infertile couple to keep trying to conceive naturally if they know for a fact that they have some sort of condition that is keeping their embryos and fetuses from surviving.

Is it really moral for fertile couple to try to conceive when dozens of their embryos will inevitably be discarded by the woman's body?

 

[indra_fanatic]

I advocate no such thing. Being a part of "God's plan for human evolution"...

Explain then just what you are referring to. Why do we need to "improve" ourselves in some laboratory at all?

What in the world is this supposed to mean?

See above in my response to Crazy Liz. I was not sure whether or not the sex you were referring to was with your wife or premarital.

That is your characterization of the philosophy of IVF. However, simply because you have an opinion about something does not mean that such is actually the reality.

What is your characterization of the philosophy of abortion, if I may ask?

No, the purpose of stem-cell experimentation is not to terminate embryos. The purpose of this experimentation is to develop therapies and technologies that can prevent and help cure diseases, as well as better understanding the varied levels of human genetics.

What I meant is that as a matter of necessity for stem-cell research, embryos must be dissected, not that the final goal is just to kill embryos.

This has nothing to do with our discussion.

Ah, it had everything to do with it. The gist here is that you seem to believe that terrible atrocities may be justifiable if the end goal is noble. I was here not only to disagree with that, but the notion that any part of the goal is justifiable. There is just no need to make more humans, especially in some hideous laboratory. Why can't people just consider adoption?

Is it really moral for fertile couple to try to conceive when dozens of their embryos will inevitably be discarded by the woman's body?

I think I stated in my very first response to you that this may indeed be a gray area.

 

[depthdeception]

Explain then just what you are referring to. Why do we need to "improve" ourselves in some laboratory at all?

It has nothing to do with "need." Part of being human is advancement and progress. One should not be surprised that reproductive technologies are being pursued along these lines.

See above in my response to Crazy Liz. I was not sure whether or not the sex you were referring to was with your wife or premarital.

I still do not see what this has to do with the discussion. Regardless of whether or not I have sex within the confines of marriage has no bearing on whether or not my decision to have sex is a conscious one.

What is your characterization of the philosophy of abortion, if I may ask?

You will have to define what you mean by "abortion," and whether you are referring simply to the practice of abortion, or to the legal provision to obtain abortions.

What I meant is that as a matter of necessity for stem-cell research, embryos must be dissected, not that the final goal is just to kill embryos.

Perhaps in the future you should avoid gross mischaracterizations and be more specific about your meaning.

Ah, it had everything to do with it. The gist here is that you seem to believe that terrible atrocities may be justifiable if the end goal is noble. I was here not only to disagree with that, but the notion that any part of the goal is justifiable.

I still do not think they are equivalent. Your example involves the killing, abuse, and displacement of fully formed, sentient beings. Reproductive technologies involve masses of cells that contain the potential for becoming
the former. While a moral case could be made against reproductive technologies which are potentially harmful to embryos, such pursuits are hardly equivalent to the atrocities which you have described.

There is just no need to make more humans, especially in some hideous laboratory.

This isn't simply about "making more humans." Again, you resort to gross mischaracterizations instead of critically engaging the subject matter. Reproductive technologies are about providing women with safe and effective means for bearing children.

Why can't people just consider adoption?

I agree that it is a shame that more people do not consider adoption. However, I can also understand the desire to have a baby of one's own...

I think I stated in my very first response to you that this may indeed be a gray area.[/QUOTE]

 

[indra_fanatic]

It has nothing to do with "need." Part of being human is advancement and progress. One should not be surprised that reproductive technologies are being pursued along these lines.

We're not talking about curing cancer here--we're talking about a nonessential, and possibly vain, need. How many sick people in the third world could be easily cured of their diseases for the cost of one round of IVF?

I still do not see what this has to do with the discussion. Regardless of whether or not I have sex within the confines of marriage has no bearing on whether or not my decision to have sex is a conscious one.

Did you only have sex for reproductive purposes?

You will have to define what you mean by "abortion," and whether you are referring simply to the practice of abortion, or to the legal provision to obtain abortions.

I mean seeking the legal or illegal termination of a pregnancy for reasons other than your life being at stake.

Perhaps in the future you should avoid gross mischaracterizations and be more specific about your meaning.

My meaning was clear enough. IVF may not specifically require that embryos be destroyed, but stem-cell experimentation does.

I still do not think they are equivalent. Your example involves the killing, abuse, and displacement of fully formed, sentient beings...

Like Terri Schiavo?

Reproductive technologies involve masses of cells that contain the potential for becoming the former.

I would disagree with such an extreme depersonalization.

While a moral case could be made against reproductive technologies which are potentially harmful to embryos, such pursuits are hardly equivalent to the atrocities which you have described.

Only because the victims of the former don't yet have anthropomorphized faces and voices by which to relate their suffering.

Reproductive technologies are about providing women with safe and effective means for bearing children.

Do the ends always justify the efforts pursued to get them? What would you say if some dictatorial power began killing women of "undesirable" races for their ovaries/eggs so that infertile women of the favored class could have a shot at motherhood?

I can understand too, but at what cost? Earlier this year there was a highly-publicized case involving a woman who stalked a pregnant woman she met over the Internet, found her, and cut the fetus out of her abdomen. She too desperately wanted to be a mother.

There has to be a time and place, for the sake of sanity, where for the love of sanity, these excesses have to stop.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Spinoff from the vasectomy thread for Junkyard, Sam Gangee, Bigat, and everyone else:

Is IVF morally wrong? I am pretty strongly convicted that it is akin to abortion in God's eyes. Even if you don't look at the widespread practice of selective abortion or the thousands of embryos dumped down the sink each day because there is no use for them, what about the simple fact that for every successful implantation, there are around 20 embryos that just die?

You said it yourself. The embryos just die. This is not the same as abortion, because abortion involves the willful destruction of life.

 

[indra_fanatic]

You said it yourself. The embryos just die. This is not the same as abortion, because abortion involves the willful destruction of life.

So what is flushing embryos down the toilet, then?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Perhaps then you should edit the OP so as to remove the phrase "just die", which suggests that embryos are merely killed in the process of in vitro fertilization, rather than being willfully destroyed. Anyway, I still do not think it is the same as abortion, because the purpose of abortion is to detroy life, as opposed to IVF, which intends to create life.

 

[ebia]

We're not talking about curing cancer here--we're talking about a nonessential, and possibly vain, need. How many sick people in the third world could be easily cured of their diseases for the cost of one round of IVF?

Be very careful. You have no right to tell others that what they see as an essential expense is frivolous and they should donate that money to the third world. Going through IVF is a matter of huge personal sacrifice, of which the cash is not the major part - no-one does it unless for them it is of vital importance. How many could be cured for the cost of your computer/car/house/something else you have that you could survive without?

My meaning was clear enough. IVF may not specifically require that embryos be destroyed, but stem-cell experimentation does.

Why confuse the two issues? Being pro-IVF does not equate to being pro-stem-cell experimentation.

I can understand too, but at what cost? Earlier this year there was a highly-publicized case involving a woman who stalked a pregnant woman she met over the Internet, found her, and cut the fetus out of her abdomen. She too desperately wanted to be a mother.

There has to be a time and place, for the sake of sanity, where for the love of sanity, these excesses have to stop.

What to you is an excess, to the people making the choice is a necessity.

Honestly it all creeps me out

Proof by yuch factor?

and I can't see why people don't just adopt...

Adopting does not fulfill the God given, biblically celebrated, need that most people, women in particular, have to bring children of their own into the world. If you don't feel that need, fine, but then you have no right to comment on how others feel.

A few points of information based on how IVF is done here - things may be different in the US, but IVF in principle should be addressed to best practice:

1. Excessive embryo production is limited as far as possible. The controls here are such as to minimise as far as possible the number of embryos produced and not eventually implanted - embryos are not produced willy-nilly. As others have pointed out, the chance of an IVF embryo growing into a baby are now much higher than an embryo produced "naturally".

2. Now that the success rate of IVF is so high, no more than two embryos are ever implanted at a time. If there is reason to be concerned about the mother's ability to carry twins to term, only one embryo is implanted at a time.

3. Many people undergoing IVF are adamant that (as far as humanly possible) all of their embryos should be given a chance either with the original mother or via donation. There is no need for large numbers (or even any) embryos to be destroyed.

If you have an objection to the way IVF is carried out here or in the US, then address your arguments to getting it changed to best practice. Any disagreement on principle needs to be address to best practice.

 

[depthdeception]

We're not talking about curing cancer here--we're talking about a nonessential, and possibly vain, need.

This is your assessment, of course. However, the development of IVF technologies hold promise for providing answers in other areas of reproductive health as well.

How many sick people in the third world could be easily cured of their diseases for the cost of one round of IVF?

This is ridiculous. I could ask the same about how many people in the third would could be easily cured of their diseases for the cost of an adoption...

Did you only have sex for reproductive purposes?

Let's drop this part. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I mean seeking the legal or illegal termination of a pregnancy for reasons other than your life being at stake.

I think that at certain stages of pregnancy, such a practice faces serious philosophical challenges.

Like Terri Schiavo?

You would have to be able to prove that Schiavo was sentient (which has actually been disproved). Nevertheless, this is still an entirely different topic that does not have direct bearing upon the discussion.

Only because the victims of the former don't yet have anthropomorphized faces and voices by which to relate their suffering.

I do not think I quite understand what you mean by "anthropomorphized faces and voices"...

Do the ends always justify the efforts pursued to get them? What would you say if some dictatorial power began killing women of "undesirable" races for their ovaries/eggs so that infertile women of the favored class could have a shot at motherhood?

No, ends do not always justify means. But the examples that you are attempting to equate with the subject matter are wholly inappropriate and nowhere near equivalent.

I can understand too, but at what cost? Earlier this year there was a highly-publicized case involving a woman who stalked a pregnant woman she met over the Internet, found her, and cut the fetus out of her abdomen. She too desperately wanted to be a mother.

Unless you begin to provide examples that are reasonably equivalent to the subject matter, this conversation will continue to deteriorate.

 

[Monica02]

Yes, they are. But how does the sex-procreation link differ from the eating-nutrition link?

Isn't eating only for pleasure and not for nutrition considered gluttony, and immoral? ISTM, these two links are quite similar. Could you explain how they are different?

The links may be similar but the subjects of those links are different.

Gluttony is a sin. The feeding tube, I guess, could be considered no different than spoon feeding a baby or an invalid. A feeding tube is used to keep someone alive and is not considered artificial life support. Artificial contraception disrupts the CREATION of life. While sex can and should be enjoyable, its main purpose is procreation. Eating sustains life, it does not create it. This is a difference between seperation of sex from procreation and seperation of nutrition from eating.

 

[indra_fanatic]

This is your assessment, of course. However, the development of IVF technologies hold promise for providing answers in other areas of reproductive health as well.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that learning how to better create embryos in the lab will make it easier to procure large amounts of stock for stem-cell research?

This is ridiculous. I could ask the same about how many people in the third would could be easily cured of their diseases for the cost of an adoption...

I suppose, but these costs are not inherent in the adoptive process, but rather exist because avaricious lawyers and government agencies have the mentality that adoptive parents (usually upper-middle class) are cash cows. I admit this is irrelevant, except that adoption is an inherently "unselfish" act.

Call me a laissez-faire extremist, but I somehow really believe that the Orphan Train model would do far more good than harm if instituted today, but why should it be when a lot of social services dep'ts would lose so much money?

Let's drop this part. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

My thoughts exactly.

I think that at certain stages of pregnancy, such a practice faces serious philosophical challenges.

So why would a person undertake this in the first place knowing that it will put them in the position of a grave moral dilemma?

You would have to be able to prove that Schiavo was sentient (which has actually been disproved). Nevertheless, this is still an entirely different topic that does not have direct bearing upon the discussion

Actually nothing of the sort was even remotely demonstrated, which was why so many folks were upset about this in the first place. Now, I will admit that whether she really was sentient wasn't proven either, and likely could never be, but it's imperative to err on the side of life where there is a dispute (like Bush said, but did not really mean).

I do not think I quite understand what you mean by "anthropomorphized faces and voices"...

Merely that embryos cannot speak up for themselves...

No, ends do not always justify means. But the examples that you are attempting to equate with the subject matter are wholly inappropriate and nowhere near equivalent.

Why don't you tell me exactly what you thought of my examples? Is imposing grave human suffering on a nation justifiable in the name of creating a socialist paradise that may or may not come true many, many, many lifetimes from now?

Or, perhaps, was the grotesque abuse of workers during the Industrial Revolution justifiable because eventually (in 100+ years) it paved the way for our comfortable standards of living today?

Unless you begin to provide examples that are reasonably equivalent to the subject matter, this conversation will continue to deteriorate.

What examples do you wish for? Explain what you are unclear about or unsatisfied with, and I will do my best to accomodate.