throwing away-experimenting with fertilized eggs

[javan]

someone made a good point about all the people kept alive because of technology and how everyone already doesn't know where their food comes from.

well it's also the quality of life that counts. today i am still hardcore dealing with my newly (a month ago) ex-boyfriend having cheated on me for four months before he broke up with me. so some could say we should get rid of the "handicapped" ones because their life will be miserable. then i guess you should kill me then. saying you should terminate a pregnancy or unborn child who is found to be handicapped is wrong. i agree with what people say about those people make great things of themselves. who are we to decide who comes and who goes. murder is murder and the Bible is very clear about that. one of my best friends has downs syndrome. she has a very successful life in spite of her handicap. i doubt it in my case (sorry sarcasm 'cause i'm mad at my life right now), but for all we know i could turn out to have a great marriage one day. it's about not giving up. it's about the natural way. ivf is an alternative to the well desired (and enjoyed) natural way. not the other way around. why would i get a new nose if it hadn't been burned off in a fire. my natural nose is just fine. if we start messing with nature it will 100% BACK FIRE ON US! some of these so called "mistakes" in genes could actually ironically end up being the one thing that alters our species for it's only chance of survival. something only God could see coming, not us in our minute brains.

i just feel bad for the unborn fertilized eggs, "wee" people, sitting in a pertrie dish, helpless and being murdered at the expense of someone not caring for them properly.

i am so glad at something someone shared about one country reducing the multiple births by using less eggs. thank God, i am so happy.

 

[ebia]

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.

In other words, IVF is as evil (or not) as using birth control. I can live with that summary.

Of course, IVF creates far less embryo's that won't make it to being children than sex does.

 

[kopilo]

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

Moving goal posts? I was responding about someone with a genetic disorder, if a genetic disorder takes away someone's cognitive ability, I don't see how they could choose to every have a child and thus to prevent them from becoming pregnent (through rape or other malevolent means), I don't see how sterilization would be a bad idea.

 

[kopilo]

I'm speaking of intelligence, however, assuming this was addressed to me.

Sorry I'm just use to Mensa being the ambassador for intelligence and thus I don't hold IQ in high reguard.

Being able to understand one's own child is probably more important then the money spent on IVF.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Moving goal posts? I was responding about someone with a genetic disorder, if a genetic disorder takes away someone's cognitive ability, I don't see how they could choose to every have a child and thus to prevent them from becoming pregnent (through rape or other malevolent means), I don't see how sterilization would be a bad idea.

Mentally retarted people can still have rights over their own bodies and may choose to have children. The fact that sterilization is "necessary" reveals that a right to self-ownership is being removed from these people.

Trickster

 

[kopilo]

Mentally retarted people can still have rights over their own bodies and may choose to have children. The fact that sterilization is "necessary" reveals that a right to self-ownership is being removed from these people.

Trickster

Does a "vegetable" have rights to euthanasia? How do they communicate this? How can we make an assumption that they do or do not want to have euthanasia if there is no legal document to say.

By all means I know it seems off topic but the implications are the same, as you are suggesting, "rights = choice" in similar circumstances.

In the Society I come from, if someone does not have cognitive ability then a power of atterny is given to the Guardian, next of Kin or whatever is legally stated. If they are unacceptable (not mentaly stable, etc) and there is no one else to pass guardianship to then the guardianship is passed to the guardianship board who assigns a public servant as a legal guardian to make certian decisions (such as to do with nursing home placement).

Do you think this system is wrong?

 

[sparklecat]

Sorry I'm just use to Mensa being the ambassador for intelligence and thus I don't hold IQ in high reguard.

Being able to understand one's own child is probably more important then the money spent on IVF.

I'll concede many Mensans are probably rather arrogant; did you have other issues with them?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Does a "vegetable" have rights to euthanasia? How do they communicate this? How can we make an assumption that they do or do not want to have euthanasia if there is no legal document to say.

Someone with mental retardation is far from "a vegetable". Also, any mandatory sterilization would be based on IQ tests, which (for tests normed in America) largely favor sterilization of minorities and the poor. Historically, the deaf, blind, and the mentally ill were also sterilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Compulsory sterilization is a gross violation of personal freedoms, which most civilized countries at one time practiced, but now reject as tantamount to genocide. Most respected medical associations in the US reject this type of activity outright.

Trickster

 

[skullcrush]

[/font]

Well that verges, to me on a whole other issue, which is the values of society. If appearance was held in no regard then those disfigured would have no reason to want to change their appearance. But that's an ideal which is only a potential, so I'd probably agree with you for now, but only for that field of cosmetics.

The majority of it, lipgloss those sort of things is what I meant.

Are you saying that appearence of a person doesn't matter to you? You'd be the first person.

 

[javan]

sterilization without someone's permission first violates freedom. that is evil. also, who would want to ask, it's just mean. it's like saying you suck..... "we don't want YOU to reproduce".....what a horrible thing to say to someone.

 

[[serious]]

The rate of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is at least 15% and likely higher (since abortions prior to pregnancy being known wouldn't be counted). They fertilize multiple eggs because chances are a few of them aren't going to be viable.

As for the other fertilized eggs, they are going to die. The death of a child that could have been saved by stem cell research is far more tragic than the death of a blastocyst that can never be born anyway.

Also, if a newborn child can be an organ donor, why can't an unborn child be one?

 

[Monica02]

In other words, IVF is as evil (or not) as using birth control. I can live with that summary.

Of course, IVF creates far less embryo's that won't make it to being children than sex does.

The important difference is that God contols the embryos created natuarally and man controls the IVF results. Big difference. God does have the right to do as He pleases, man does not.

 

[nvxplorer]

The important difference is that God contols the embryos created natuarally

What exactly are you saying? The reproductive process is well understood by biologists, and nowhere is the hand of God seen to be operating. The genetic makeup of an individual is a product of chance, as millions of sperm compete to fertilize the egg. The age and health of the mother, her genetic makeup, her behavior during pregnancy, the environment, all these things play a role in whether a pregnancy will be successful. Pregnancy is controlled by, and is a result of natural causes. Saying that God controls pregnancy is like claiming that angels push clouds around.

 

[TheMissus]

The important difference is that God contols the embryos created natuarally and man controls the IVF results. Big difference. God does have the right to do as He pleases, man does not.

Once conception (natural or IVF) has taken place, the pregnancy is mostly up to the woman, not God. God doesn't force women to take prenatal vitamins, go to doctor's appointments, eat right, and control their stress levels. It's up to the women, not men and not God.

 

[ebia]

The important difference is that God contols the embryos created natuarally and man controls the IVF results. Big difference.

Is it? Why?

God does have the right to do as He pleases,

Not if ideas like morality, love, mercy, justice, etc have any real meaning. Nor is it compatible with biblical suggestions that we should model our life and behaviour on that of God.

But that's drifting off my original point, which was that I accepted that IVF and contraception are morally equivalent.

 

[kopilo]

Someone with mental retardation is far from "a vegetable".

And so is someone with demensia who is a danger to themselves and others due to their forgetfulness (second stage of demensia).

Also, any mandatory sterilization would be based on IQ tests, which (for tests normed in America) largely favor sterilization of minorities and the poor. Historically, the deaf, blind, and the mentally ill were also sterilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

Compulsory sterilization is a gross violation of personal freedoms, which most civilized countries at one time practiced, but now reject as tantamount to genocide. Most respected medical associations in the US reject this type of activity outright.

You've failed to answer the other question, which is primarily concerned with rights and choices as you have mentioned again.

Ohh and the genocide is what YOU think, we established this to start with. By the way you've given a bandwagon argument as well as no supporting evidence for it.

 

[kopilo]

sterilization without someone's permission first violates freedom. that is evil. also, who would want to ask, it's just mean. it's like saying you suck..... "we don't want YOU to reproduce".....what a horrible thing to say to someone.

Yeah imagine saying that to a convicted rapist, who is proud of the crimes they have commited and has sworn that they will try to rape as many people as they can.

You've got to remember that sometimes people are trying to take the path of least dangerous consiquences, if someone has down syndrome and they have a child but they are unable to take care of that child, are you going to seperate the child from the mother? Are you going to allow what falls under "child abuse" to occur? Are you willing to fork out thousands (possibly millions) of dollars per year just so one child can be properly cared for? What is your solution.

 

[Monica02]

What exactly are you saying? The reproductive process is well understood by biologists, and nowhere is the hand of God seen to be operating. The genetic makeup of an individual is a product of chance, as millions of sperm compete to fertilize the egg. The age and health of the mother, her genetic makeup, her behavior during pregnancy, the environment, all these things play a role in whether a pregnancy will be successful. Pregnancy is controlled by, and is a result of natural causes. Saying that God controls pregnancy is like claiming that angels push clouds around.

I am not getting the feeling tht you believe in God.

 

[nvxplorer]

I am not getting the feeling tht you believe in God.

Whether I believe in God is irrelevant. Reproduction is a natural process. This isn't up for debate. The fertilization process is well understood, which is why we are able to artificially fertilize an ovum. There is nothing supernatural about reproduction.

 

[flicka]

Whether I believe in God is irrelevant. Reproduction is a natural process. This isn't up for debate. The fertilization process is well understood, which is why we are able to artificially fertilize an ovum. There is nothing supernatural about reproduction.

Absolutely.

Even if God exists and he actually did start thing, the process of reproduction is still biological.

I think some Christians take that line about being 'knit together' in the womb a little too seriously.