-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
throwing away-experimenting with fertilized eggs
- Thread starter javan
- Start date
kopilo
Envisioner
Yeah probably is.
Although I was thinking that for IVF to even come into existance in the first place, surely they had to experiment on zygotes in the first place.
However some people think stem cell research is immoral where IVF research isn't (see the OP for an example).
Upvote
0
ebia
Senior Contributor
- Jul 6, 2004
- 41,711
- 2,142
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- AU-Greens
I can't say I've researched early IVF research. However, much medicine is dependent on research done in the past that we would now question the ethics of. So, IF early IVF research was ethically contentious in some way I don't think it would necessarly follow that IVF proceedures now are unethical.
I'm not aware of any big questions over current IVF research - if anything IVF practice is becoming increasingly ethical as it becomes more reliable.
Personally, I'm undecided on the ethics of stem-cell research.
Upvote
0
But is not DNA what differentiates a human from a tortoise? I agree in-utero effects apply, but they're certainly not the dominant force. Someday the uterus may be mimicked in the lab (though I make no claims to the ethics of that).
Trickster
Upvote
0
I think this is a terrible idea. There are some places where nature does a better job than people, and making people is one of them. I can just imagine what would happen if people were able to choose even something as simple as the sex of their baby... Can you say "overabundance of males"? Followed by "exponential increase of sex crimes and violence"? (Not only because they are men; also because they'd be fighting over limited female resources, some resorting to rape, etc.)
Trickster
Upvote
0
The technology for "designer babies" is used to screen out disease and genetic abnormalities. Sometimes nature doesn't know best.
Upvote
0
Nature screens them out just fine already. Our rate of stable births is acceptably high, and many people you would eugenically destroy have become great women and men. Hawking comes to mind.
I'm against playing God. People should not have a hand in custom design of those with no choice. I agree after they pop out, all bets are off, though; people should be able to modify themselves as they choose. I'm a transhumanist but not a eugenics supporter. We used to sterilize the mentally retarded in this country, and this form of genocide is abhorrent to me.
Trickster
Upvote
0
kopilo
Envisioner
You be surprised by how many disorders could be advoided just by the diet and lifestyle the parents choose.
This is just an online published example, http://www.daca.org.au/cannabis/foetal_abdom.htm .
Upvote
0
fillerbunny
Well-Known Member
- Feb 16, 2006
- 742
- 120
- 42
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I have mixed feelings on the 'designer baby' issue.
In most instances, I find the idea abhorrent.. but in terms of weeding out certain genetic defects, I don't really see the problem.
For example, if a couple finds that they are carriers of an invariably fatal condition like Tay-Sachs disease through the loss of a previous child, and they wish to ensure that their future children are not born with the condition, that doesn't concern me.
Granted, adoption is always an option for these individuals.. but if for some reason they feel the need to bear their own child, I don't begrudge them that.
In most instances, I find the idea abhorrent.. but in terms of weeding out certain genetic defects, I don't really see the problem.
For example, if a couple finds that they are carriers of an invariably fatal condition like Tay-Sachs disease through the loss of a previous child, and they wish to ensure that their future children are not born with the condition, that doesn't concern me.
Granted, adoption is always an option for these individuals.. but if for some reason they feel the need to bear their own child, I don't begrudge them that.
Upvote
0
kopilo
Envisioner
Hang on, in my country they still sterilize people with specific disorders and it doesn't mean genocide.
Genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." - dictionary.com
Where as sterilization has to do with preventing them from procreating, nothing to do with actually killing/exterminating/slaughtering etc and I wasn't aware that all people with disabilities were part of the same national, racial, political or/and ethinic group.
Upvote
0
I consider it genocide. I find the act of sterilizing people to be horrendous. You don't have the authority to remove someone's reproductive rights without their consent, and neither should the state if the state is free.
Trickster
Upvote
0
Then let them do IVF from a more suitable donor if they must bear the child themselves. Anything else is a dangerous slope. What if a society considers homosexuality worse than Tay-Sachs? There are many such societies on Earth.
Trickster
Upvote
0
I don't think custom-designed babies are a good idea, because we don't fathom everything about how nature works. We would be changing the face of our genetic lineage based on short-term social norms. The fact that so many people who support designer-babies would terminate a "gay" baby should tell you enough about the potential for abuse.
Yes, a clump of cells has no choice. But what about the baby you have that finds out the reason it's light skinned is because you didn't want a dark-skinned baby? Kind of makes getting a tan shameful.
A lot of transsexuals are people who had sex reassignment surgery at birth. Not only because they're borderline genetically speaking, but also because they know they had no choice in a matter that could have gone either way, and someone else made the decision for them. I don't think people should make those decisions unless forced by some greater dilemma.
Trickster
Upvote
0
sparklecat
Senior Contributor
I have no reason to think I won't be able to conceive naturally when I wish to.
Upvote
0
sparklecat
Senior Contributor
I'm speaking of intelligence, however, assuming this was addressed to me.
Upvote
0
IVF is immoral. I was so happy to hear our priest affirm this in the homily last week. The Church is so reluctant to touch this issue in the parishes. Just look at all the problems these "leftover" humans are creating. Evil just spawns more evil.
IVF is one of those things that seems good but is really foul. Helping couples have children is in and of itself a good goal.
IVF however has seperated sex from procreation ( as has artificial BC). Very small humans are left as waste some people think we should experiment on. Evil, evil evil.
IVF is one of those things that seems good but is really foul. Helping couples have children is in and of itself a good goal.
IVF however has seperated sex from procreation ( as has artificial BC). Very small humans are left as waste some people think we should experiment on. Evil, evil evil.
Upvote
0
You mean evil, like creating additional lines for stem cell research that may end up curing terrible degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's? I think it's more of a moral mix, like all technology.
Sex was separated from procreation long before humans first appeared. That's why there are two different words for them.
I agree that this is a moral issue, but "very small humans" is an bit of a judgment call.
Trickster
Upvote
0
Similar threads
