In Vitro Fertilization

[indra_fanatic]

Proof by yuch factor?

Obviously a personal emotional reaction can't be proven, disproven, or used as a substantial reason for someone else. I merely said how IVF made me feel--that is all.

Adopting does not fulfill the God given, biblically celebrated, need that most people

Are you implying that God wants everyone to have children? Scripture please...

women in particular

Aha... I think you just said a heck of a lot more than you anticipated. Women in particular... that basically states what most of us have known all along anyway--that there are differences in gender socialization that cause females to brought up with procreation as a centrally defining life event much more so than men. This is particularly a problem in the church, where girls are invariably explicitly taught either that motherhood is an absolute norm and necessity (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, some branches of Lutheranism, and many small "quiver-full" Protestant groups) or is the general norm and aspiration for womankind (most evangelical denominations).

I really, really think that the atheists/agnostics/Pagans among us have a far healthier mentality on reproduction, as a general rule, than do most believers. Ebia, did you follow at all the discussion started by 4 Jacks in the Marriage Ministry forum?

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.

I conceded long ago that IVF, if done with these rules in mind, may not be necessarily morally objectionable. Yes, there are some people who act with these scruples. However, the majority of fertility docs and prospective IVF parents do not, and there are no laws requiring that they do so. If such regulations were proposed, they would undoubtedly quickly be shot down either through the lobbying efforts of reproductive-rights/pro-choice activists or activist judges. This is why we have horror stories in the news such as the McCaughey septuplets--whose parents, might I add, profess to be devout Christians (of the quiver-full variety, needless to say).

 

[depthdeception]

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?

Your approach to this discussion is not helpful. For everything I post, you immediately jump to a mischaracterization of my meaning.

Despite your belligerent approach, my meaning is this: The more we understand embryonic structure and development, the better our chances of developing truly productive technologies will be. For example, one must not assume that stem cells will always be needed for the therapies--once we better understand the nature and function of stem cells, it is very probable that we will be able to artificially create stem cells without the need of using embryos.

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.

And as reproductive technologies continue to develop and progress, the costs of procedures such as IVF will decrease as well. The cost issue is still a dead end.

I admit this is irrelevant, except that adoption is an inherently "unselfish" act.

How do you suppose? Most do not adopt simply to give an abandoned child a home. Rather, most adopt to satisfy the perfectly natural--but selfish--desire to have a child.

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?

I do not necessarily disagree with you. HOwever, I do see a huge difference between abortion and embryonic research.

Actually nothing of the sort was even remotely demonstrated

THis is incorrect.

Merely that embryos cannot speak up for themselves...

I still do not understand what your point is...

Why don't you tell me exactly what you thought of my examples?

I think your examples are ridiculous.

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?

What notion? I have no idea what the relation of a "socialist paradise" has to do with embryonic research.

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?

Again, this is apples and oranges. I am not interested in discussing the broad ethical category of utilitarianism. I am more interested in discussing how this relates to the topic of this thread. However, you seem content to make gross generalizations and inappropriate comparisons between two completely unrelated topics.

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

I have made myself very clear in regard to the types of examples that I think are appropriate and unjustified.

 

[indra_fanatic]

it is very probable that we will be able to artificially create stem cells without the need of using embryos.

It's possible to get stem cells now from adult cells and from the cord-blood of neonates.

And as reproductive technologies continue to develop and progress, the costs of procedures such as IVF will decrease as well. The cost issue is still a dead end.

The need issue is, too. Other than the possible area of stem-cell research, which we will disagree on, there are no greater, "for the common medical good" reasons why we must do IVF as a society.

How do you suppose? Most do not adopt simply to give an abandoned child a home. Rather, most adopt to satisfy the perfectly natural--but selfish--desire to have a child.

What would you say about the need, then, to perpetuate your genes and have a kid of your own? Is that not inherently more selfish than adopting?

I do not necessarily disagree with you. HOwever, I do see a huge difference between abortion and embryonic research.

Does the embryo have to die for embryonic research? You answer that question.

THis is incorrect.

So you were her doctor? You knew her better than her parents, nurses at the hospital, etc.? If it were so easily proven that she was completely vegetative, why did so many people insist otherwise?

What notion? I have no idea what the relation of a "socialist paradise" has to do with embryonic research.

Do I sense a dodge here? I gave you not one, but two scenarios--the mass murder of peasants in order to create a socialist paradise and the mass abuse of workers to create a capitalist paradise. Do you really see no problem with these?

Again, this is apples and oranges. I am not interested in discussing the broad ethical category of utilitarianism. I am more interested in discussing how this relates to the topic of this thread. However, you seem content to make gross generalizations and inappropriate comparisons between two completely unrelated topics.

Look, if you are a utilitarian (which you seem to be), just say so. If you want to have a debate with me on ethical theories, that's fine. Just have them directly with me.

I have made myself very clear in regard to the types of examples that I think are appropriate and unjustified.

You have made it very clear that you don't want to consider any interpretation of facts besides your own. Your insistence of "we have proven 100% for a fact that Terri was completely brain-dead" is just one example of this. I have always admitted it in this debate where there is room for ambiguity on my part or interpreting things another way. You have done absolutely nothing of the sort.

It is rather funny that while your signature states that you are dedicated to fighting fundamentalism, you seem to be fighting for your very own version of it.

 

[depthdeception]

It's possible to get stem cells now from adult cells and from the cord-blood of neonates.

True enough. However, neither of these has quite the potential of embryonic stem cells.

The need issue is, too. Other than the possible area of stem-cell research, which we will disagree on, there are no greater, "for the common medical good" reasons why we must do IVF as a society.

Sure there are. Through technologies developed as a result of IVF research, it will one day be possible to implant embryos that will have little or no possibility of developing severe genetic disorders.

What would you say about the need, then, to perpetuate your genes and have a kid of your own? Is that not inherently more selfish than adopting?

No.

Does the embryo have to die for embryonic research? You answer that question.

At this stage of research, that seems to be the case. However, through these technologies, it is entirely possible that further reproductive research and development will require zero embryo loss.

So you were her doctor? You knew her better than her parents, nurses at the hospital, etc.? If it were so easily proven that she was completely vegetative, why did so many people insist otherwise?

ONce again, I do not want to derail by pursuing issues that are quite tangential to this discussion. However, in the case of Schiavo, the opinions of the doctors which submitted reports (to the effect that Schiavo was in PVS) should trump the opinions of nurses and family members.

Do I sense a dodge here? I gave you not one, but two scenarios--the mass murder of peasants in order to create a socialist paradise and the mass abuse of workers to create a capitalist paradise. Do you really see no problem with these?

I never said I didn't see a "problem." My point is that these issues are not pertinent to the OP. If you want to have an ethical discussion about these, start a new thread.

Look, if you are a utilitarian (which you seem to be), just say so. If you want to have a debate with me on ethical theories, that's fine. Just have them directly with me.

But you are not allowing me to. You insist on conflating the ethics of embryonic stem cell research with Russian gulags and economic repression. They are not equivalent--how then are we to have a "direct" discussion?

Your insistence of "we have proven 100% for a fact that Terri was completely brain-dead" is just one example of this.

Where did I say this?

I have always admitted it in this debate where there is room for ambiguity on my part or interpreting things another way. You have done absolutely nothing of the sort.

I do not deny that ambiguity is a huge part of ethics. My opinions are far from perfect.

 

[ebia]

Are you implying that God wants everyone to have children?

No. If I had meant that I'd have said that.

Aha... I think you just said a heck of a lot more than you anticipated. Women in particular... that basically states what most of us have known all along anyway--that there are differences in gender socialization that cause females to brought up with procreation as a centrally defining life event much more so than men.

This is news?

This is particularly a problem in the church, where girls are invariably explicitly taught either that motherhood is an absolute norm and necessity (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, some branches of Lutheranism, and many small "quiver-full" Protestant groups) or is the general norm and aspiration for womankind (most evangelical denominations).

It's undoubtably true that some (many?) inside and outside the church put excessive pressure on people to have children, but I challenge you to present evidence that the "need" to have children is a result of these pressures.

I really, really think that the atheists/agnostics/Pagans among us have a far healthier mentality on reproduction, as a general rule, than do most believers.

Can't say I've seen much difference, to be honest.

Ebia, did you follow at all the discussion started by 4 Jacks in the Marriage Ministry forum?

No.

I conceded long ago that IVF, if done with these rules in mind, may not be necessarily morally objectionable. Yes, there are some people who act with these scruples. However, the majority of fertility docs and prospective IVF parents do not, and there are no laws requiring that they do so.

Then your campaign should be to change your country's laws. It appears that the laws here are tighter than the laws there, so it can be done. Or campaign to get people to do the right thing.

Your approach alienates those who do try to do the right thing (doctors and parents), and is highly offensive.

If such regulations were proposed, they would undoubtedly quickly be shot down either through the lobbying efforts of reproductive-rights/pro-choice activists or activist judges.

Maybe they would, but what do you hope to achieve by attacking all involved in IVF on the basis of the behaviour of some?

If your problem is with the practice in your country, rather than the principle and the way it is practiced in other places, then you need to make that a lot clearer in your argument if you want to sound credible, not to mention avoiding causing hurt to those trying to do the right thing.

 

[ebia]

What would you say about the need, then, to perpetuate your genes and have a kid of your own? Is that not inherently more selfish than adopting?

No. The fact that most couples will only take a nice, healthy, white baby (of which there is a shortage) and wouldn't consider an eleven year old black kid who is starting to show signs of mental illness due to his horrific and unloving past, demonstrates that most people's reasons for adopting are equally selfish.

 

[indra_fanatic]

True enough. However, neither of these has quite the potential of embryonic stem cells.
Once again, here you are stating as scientific fact something that is neither known or unknown at this time. Just what was your degree in, anyway? Both have immense potential--especially the cord blood stem cells.

Sure there are. Through technologies developed as a result of IVF research, it will one day be possible to implant embryos that will have little or no possibility of developing severe genetic disorders.

If you want to reinvent the wheel, I suppose. In the meantime, the socially and ethically responsible thing for known carriers of severe genetic disorders to do is not pass it on. This is hardly my idea; you really should look into it sometime--for this is exactly the goal of the massive Huntington's Disease educational project now underway in Venezuela among families that suffer from this hideous, Alzheimer's like condition.

No.

Once again, here we have you being the one stating an opinion as absolute fact, while I am the one seeing various nuances and gray areas. To spell it out--is it selfish to want to have a child? Not necessarily. Are there selfish reasons for having a child? Absolutely.

At this stage of research, that seems to be the case. However, through these technologies, it is entirely possible that further reproductive research and development will require zero embryo loss.

I think I said sometime ago that if doctors, as a matter of practice, had limited their IVF attempts to one spermatocyte, one egg, and one implantation from the get-go, many of my ethical criticisms would be, at the minimum, reduced. We don't need to kill 10,000 embryos to see what works best.

ONce again, I do not want to derail by pursuing issues that are quite tangential to this discussion. However, in the case of Schiavo, the opinions of the doctors which submitted reports (to the effect that Schiavo was in PVS) should trump the opinions of nurses and family members.

Who are these "doctors"? Doctors that were hired by Michael Schiavo and George Felos? Doctors who from the beginning, much like Felos, personally subscribed to the pro-choice and "right-to-die" movements (the latter of which I actually have little problem with providing those involved are actually CHOOSING to die)?

Are you implying no professionals ever are capable of bias? Are you implying that all of the people who knew Terri best (save her husband, whose motives have been in question) are somehow all liars?

I never said I didn't see a "problem." My point is that these issues are not pertinent to the OP. If you want to have an ethical discussion about these, start a new thread.

Depth, I brought up the Schiavos because you said the test of humanhood is being fully formed. When I brought up Terri then, you did not like it.

But you are not allowing me to. You insist on conflating the ethics of embryonic stem cell research with Russian gulags and economic repression. They are not equivalent--how then are we to have a "direct" discussion?

The point is that either way, humans are either being killed or suffering severely for what largely, at least in their lifetimes, was/is an absolute pipe dream. Stem-cell research might cure cancer, and it might do absolutely nothing of the sort. That modern miracle of science, Dolly the sheep, aged so prematurely and was so unable to fight off even the most common sheep pathogens that her life was mercifully terminated at a youthful five--a far kinder end than those that die through either abortion or embryonic experiments.

I don't want to be the next guinea pig of these experiments even if it could be "proven" that they will extend my life.

The people who died in stalags/gulags and the people who suffered under Dickensian sweatshops were human beings. The victims of stem-cell experiments may not be human beings yet, but they are definitely distinct human organisms.

Where did I say this? I do not deny that ambiguity is a huge part of ethics. My opinions are far from perfect.

The point is that you have been speaking in absolutes, whereas I rarely have in this discussion. I think the only absolute that I stated even slightly related to this issue was my opinion that abortions not done to save the woman's life are immoral. Otherwise, I mostly stated feelings that, while more-or-less set, are highly subject to individual conditions--hence my concession that perhaps highly limited IVF attempts (i.e. one at a time only) may be acceptable and that indeed even high rates of natural (i.e. failed implantations) embryo loss/miscarriage may be a moral issue.

Somebody who speaks in absolutes, professes to know total truth, and fiercely defends it is a fundamentalist. That's the definition. Fundamentalism has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with political sides or even traditional religion. That is why I said you are a type of fundamentalist.

 

[depthdeception]

Once again, here you are stating as scientific fact something that is neither known or unknown at this time. Just what was your degree in, anyway? Both have immense potential--especially the cord blood stem cells.

I do not disagree that adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells have immense potential. However, it has been definitively proven (read a reproductive medical journal) that embryonic stem cells are by far the most versatile of the categories of stem cells. One does not need a degree in reproductive technologies to know these facts.

If you want to reinvent the wheel, I suppose. In the meantime, the socially and ethically responsible thing for known carriers of severe genetic disorders to do is not pass it on. This is hardly my idea; you really should look into it sometime--for this is exactly the goal of the massive Huntington's Disease educational project now underway in Venezuela among families that suffer from this hideous, Alzheimer's like condition.

I hardly see how this is more ethical than genetic research and customization. The solution which you suggest, however, has more disasterous consequences, for you are impinging on quantifiable ethics (deciding who can and cannot reproduce) while embryonic ethics is, by all parties involved, still only dealing with potential human beings. Regardless of what moral value one wishes to assign to these "potential" human beings, the ethics of embryology is hardly equivalent to the issues to which you wish to compare it.

Once again, here we have you being the one stating an opinion as absolute fact, while I am the one seeing various nuances and gray areas. To spell it out--is it selfish to want to have a child? Not necessarily. Are there selfish reasons for having a child? Absolutely.

How do your "grey" areas relate to your insistance that adopting children is inherently less selfish than wishing to produce a child through IVF? There's not a lot of nuance in that statement...

I think I said sometime ago that if doctors, as a matter of practice, had limited their IVF attempts to one spermatocyte, one egg, and one implantation from the get-go, many of my ethical criticisms would be, at the minimum, reduced. We don't need to kill 10,000 embryos to see what works best.

Apparently, you do not understand IVF technology very well. Doctors do not implant several embryos at a time simply because they have a wish to kill a greater number of embryos. They do it because implantation rates (just like in natural conception and implantation) are not perfect.

Depth, I brought up the Schiavos because you said the test of humanhood is being fully formed. When I brought up Terri then, you did not like it.

I do not recall ever saying the "test for humanhood" was being fully formed...

The point is that either way, humans are either being killed or suffering severely for what largely, at least in their lifetimes, was/is an absolute pipe dream. Stem-cell research might cure cancer, and it might do absolutely nothing of the sort. That modern miracle of science, Dolly the sheep, aged so prematurely and was so unable to fight off even the most common sheep pathogens that her life was mercifully terminated at a youthful five--a far kinder end than those that die through either abortion or embryonic experiments.

It is not appropriate to characterize the potential of technology on the basis of its early failures. Sure, Dolly died. So what? It's not as if Dolly was the height of genetic research, and that genetic research is now a dead end... It's just a step along the way.

I don't want to be the next guinea pig of these experiments even if it could be "proven" that they will extend my life.

Don't worry...you won't be!

Somebody who speaks in absolutes, professes to know total truth, and fiercely defends it is a fundamentalist. That's the definition. Fundamentalism has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with political sides or even traditional religion. That is why I said you are a type of fundamentalist.

I partially agree with your definition. However, I am not nearly the "fundamentalist" that you think I am.

 

[bigat]

Indra -
Tell the couple who has tried to have a baby for several years - but can't get pregnant - that they should do these methods. Tell them that it isn't "God's will".
Many feel it is an answer to prayer to have these procedures give them a child.

I guess you would just shrug your soulders - walk away - and say, "It's not in God's will." Well, maybe it is? Maybe it is God's will that they use these methods to have a child.

 

[blessedmomof5]

Indra -
Tell the couple who has tried to have a baby for several years - but can't get pregnant - that they should do these methods. Tell them that it isn't "God's will".
Many feel it is an answer to prayer to have these procedures give them a child.

I guess you would just shrug your soulders - walk away - and say, "It's not in God's will." Well, maybe it is? Maybe it is God's will that they use these methods to have a child.

Amen to that......
I concider all my children a gift from God, no matter how we concieved them, if He did not want us to have children, nothing Man could do would change that!

 

[indra_fanatic]

No. The fact that most couples will only take a nice, healthy, white baby (of which there is a shortage) and wouldn't consider an eleven year old black kid who is starting to show signs of mental illness due to his horrific and unloving past, demonstrates that most people's reasons for adopting are equally selfish.

I don't necessarily believe this is the case at all. Adoption agencies in the USA (don't know about Australia, admittedly) almost always place kids only with parents of the same race.

Since African-American families of sufficient means to adopt a baby are fewer in number than Caucasian ones, this means black children have a far lesser chance of exiting the system.

 

[indra_fanatic]

I do not disagree that adult stem cells and cord blood stem cells have immense potential. However, it has been definitively proven (read a reproductive medical journal) that embryonic stem cells are by far the most versatile of the categories of stem cells. One does not need a degree in reproductive technologies to know these facts.

Doctors specializing in reproductive medicine are almost entirely, as a simple matter of the line of profession, pro-choicers. This doesn't mean they are bad people, but it does mean they will have certain biases, particularly because their livelihood (i.e. their supply of research material) is dependent on laws that ensure the availability of "disposable" embryos.

Our country does do a lot of stem-cell research--maybe not like Korea, but quite a bit. There is actually lots of federal funding for it--for the six or so genetic lines that were in existence when Bush took office. He did not end all funding for it! In the four+ years since Bush instituted the limitation on new lines, we have seen virtually no new advances come out with the lines in existence. Shouldn't we at least wait to see some kind of result with the material we have now before mandating that we greatly add to what is already a ridiculously expensive project?

I hardly see how this is more ethical than genetic research and customization. The solution which you suggest, however, has more disasterous consequences, for you are impinging on quantifiable ethics (deciding who can and cannot reproduce) while embryonic ethics is, by all parties involved, still only dealing with potential human beings.

Do you believe that homeless, drug-addicted women with the SARS virus (intentional hyperbole) should be allowed to have as many children as they want, and at taxypayer expense? There comes a time when "ethics" must take a back seat to common-sense morality (i.e. what is best for the potential children) and simple prudence.

Regardless of what moral value one wishes to assign to these "potential" human beings, the ethics of embryology is hardly equivalent to the issues to which you wish to compare it.

Like I said before, they are not human beings yet, but they are human organisms. Left alone, 100% will develop into completely functional human infants and adults. This isn't theology, but basic anat & phys.

How do your "grey" areas relate to your insistance that adopting children is inherently less selfish than wishing to produce a child through IVF? There's not a lot of nuance in that statement...

Okay, how's this statement? Neither (adoption or biological kids) are necessary for survival. Both can be done for vain reasons, but one method of childbearing is more prone than the other.

Apparently, you do not understand IVF technology very well. Doctors do not implant several embryos at a time simply because they have a wish to kill a greater number of embryos. They do it because implantation rates (just like in natural conception and implantation) are not perfect.

Gimme a break. Obviously, I knew this, and obviously, I had a problem with it all along. What I can't understand is why these people (parents and the doctors doing it) can't know when to say when and realize that if a normal zygote will not implant into their womb under any circumstances, maybe nature is saying "no" for a reason. (Note that I said "nature" and not God.)

This is why I say that IVF can be incredibly selfish, vain, stubborn-minded, etc.

I do not recall ever saying the "test for humanhood" was being fully formed...

Your general mindset seems to be that juvenile humans do not possess inviolable sanctity until nine months of age. If I am wrong, please say so.

It is not appropriate to characterize the potential of technology on the basis of its early failures. Sure, Dolly died. So what? It's not as if Dolly was the height of genetic research, and that genetic research is now a dead end... It's just a step along the way.

No, she actually IS the height of cloning research (at this time), and for 275 tries, I think that she was a pretty poor excuse for an apogee. Sure, many (younger) cloned animals are around now, but most are far too early in their development to make any long-term viability assessments about.

I partially agree with your definition. However, I am not nearly the "fundamentalist" that you think I am.

I think you are a fundamentalist in your own way. This isn't an insult, but merely something I want you to realize in light of your signature. Believe me, I am not one to consider "fundamentalist" a dirty word like so many in America and the rest of the West do today. I won't deny that I meet all the prerequisites for one--and so do you.

Every philosophical system has its absolutists (read fundamentalists). There are Islamic fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, Confucian fundamentalists, and humanist fundamentalists. All are 100% convinced that they are right and have a duty to spread their definition of truth with the world.

 

[ebia]

I don't necessarily believe this is the case at all. Adoption agencies in the USA (don't know about Australia, admittedly) almost always place kids only with parents of the same race.

Since African-American families of sufficient means to adopt a baby are fewer in number than Caucasian ones, this means black children have a far lesser chance of exiting the system.

Take out the race issue, and my point still stands - the kids arguably most in need of adoption (older kids, kids with disabilities) are not the kids adoptive parents are happy or willing to take. Any potential adoptive parent who insists on a baby is in the same category as anyone using IVF.

 

[indra_fanatic]

Take out the race issue, and my point still stands - the kids arguably most in need of adoption (older kids, kids with disabilities) are not the kids adoptive parents are happy or willing to take. Any potential adoptive parent who insists on a baby is in the same category as anyone using IVF.

Perhaps, and indeed someone who only wants a baby is being rather selfish, but the fact remains that there is so much de facto segregation in U.S. adoption policies that these are often totally moot points.

In many cases, interracial adoptions are only allowed when the birth mother specifically relinquishes her infant to the adoptive parents of the other race.

 

[ebia]

Perhaps, and indeed someone who only wants a baby is being rather selfish, but the fact remains that there is so much de facto segregation in U.S. adoption policies that these are often totally moot points.

In many cases, interracial adoptions are only allowed when the birth mother specifically relinquishes her infant to the adoptive parents of the other race.

Forget interracial. Concentrate on the other two (age and health). They are most definitely not moot points.