There is no way it is acceptable to put a delberate time limit on a life.
No way it’s acceptable for *us * to put a deliberate time limit on life, I assume. The big guy is allowed.
Ok, another question. Miscarriages unfortunetly mean many lives end prematurely. Since these are due to nature (assuming it’s not an outside action by anyone else), then trying to get pregnant is still a reasonable course of action, despite the chances of a death. Would that agree with your position?
Let’s say then, that in the future, we come up with a chamber that mean every fertilised egg will continue to develop to 9 months old with no mishaps. This requires that the couple in question go to a doctor, supply a single egg and sperm, which are then brought together and then placed in the chamber. This would be an improvement upon nature; since at the moment not all fertilised eggs will develop normally. Is an* improvement* upon nature acceptable to you, given that it would seem to defy God?
I stated in an earlier post that I believe the destruction of an embryo is immoral when it is intentional and predetermined. Destruction for the purpose of experimentation is clearly on the far side of that line.
IVF is more ambiguous. The intent is to use the embryos to create a living child. Deliberate destruction of leftover embryos is a foreseeably possible, but not necessary, outcome of that process. My conscience tells me that this foreseeable destruction makes the process immoral, and the correct choice is not to participate in IVF. But I also acknowledge that there are legitimate, logical arguments that it is not immoral. So in this case I think everyone needs to answer to their own conscience.
Well, I don’t believe that God does this. He doesn’t direct or decide which will live and which will not.
Of course. As I said, however, I personally would not continue to try to get pregnant if I was likely to have repeated loss of embryos through bad implantation, or some other condition that caused them to be killed off prematurely. At this point, I would opt to not have children, or to adopt.
Well, this would have saved me some heartache, to be sure. Personally, if I were to have any trouble as I had, I would still opt for adoption, rather than this choice. I think that sometimes, nature is trying to tell you to go in another direction, and that’s ok, too. I do not necessarily think this would be more moral than the natural way. As I said, I do not consider it wrong to have a mishap happen during the natural course of events.
I don’t understand. The option is there that will mean more persons (fertilised eggs) will survive. How, from your view, can you do anything but consider that the more moral choice?
I believe i’ve mistaken your position. I thought your prime concern was the life of persons, but instead it seems to be to keep things going “the natural way”.
I should have added this to my post. I agree with everything you say here.
I don’t consider having children the natural way to be immoral. That’s all.
First off, we don’t have children the natural way anymore. It’s evolved over time; it used to be that girls of 12 would become pregnant, and in fact human bodies are designed for women to have children during their teens/twenties, a trend that is not “natural” today. In addition, medical advances mean that the majority of births take place in a hospital, where any problems with a baby that (in the natural way) would kill them can be immediately solved (or at least an attempt may be made). What makes these things not immoral?
Does whether or not a fertilised egg has personhood matter to you at all? That it doesn’t matter is the the only thing I can draw from your answers, here; if i’m wrong, please explain how you can think that the use of the hypothetical chamber in my example can be anything but more moral
The general point isn’t always true either, especially if you count consent by legal guardian, next of kin, or durable power of attorney. Consider that when organs are harvested, someone has made the decision that keeping the donor alive (for however long they have left) is less “worthy” than the chance that these organs will save other peoples’ lives.
What does this have to do with anything? Choosing NOT to become pregnant because you can’t handle having children (because you are 12, for example), is not immoral.
I never said there was anything wrong with medical science. If I have a baby in the hospital because I think it’s a smart thing to have doctors & equipment around, that is great. On the other hand, having a baby at home, the old-fashioned way with a midwife is not immoral.
Yes, the personhood matters. However, it cannot be more moral than the natural process designed by evolution. Mother nature is not moral or immoral, it just is what it is. The best analogy I can think of is this. I do everything I can within reason to keep my daughter safe. I could do more, perhaps, such as keep her in a padded room where she can’t get injured, but neither God nor any person would expect me to take that level of precaution. Through NORMAL LIFE, we constantly take risks. Medical science is great, but it can’t and shouldn’t protect us from every possible risk there is.
Well, I agree that creation of an embryo just to destroy it for research is wrong. The best reason against cloning is that, for now at least, any cloning experiments are sure to create fetuses that will die.
Bingo. Welcome to our side. 
Given that embryos are created for this good purpose, and given that they will be destroyed anyhow, and given that they are donated by the mother who is answering to her conscience, and given that no embryos from anyone with qualms about this would ever be used, do you now support the bill?
True, but it’s also not natural. You seem to be putting “natural” as the prime concern, here.
Even if you have reason to believe that baby will have considerable problems at birth? If you’ve had an ultrasound or some other technique which allows you to see there may be a problem with your child upon birth, one that could potentially be fixed or at least helped by medical technology, then having it born at home would be immoral.
I agree. But if she has asthma, you’d get her an inhaler. If she had diabetes, you’d be prepared to inject her with insulin on a regular basis, and monitor her food content. And even if there’s no problems with her, you’re not prepared to let her eat raw food, or walk around naked. There’s a limit to how far nature can take us without it becoming immoral compared to an alternative.
There was no “her” after she was concieved. What was there was nearly as different from a human being as something could possibly be and still be alive. The pretending that functions to pretend that’s a person can operate just as well before anything is there at all.
A baby is not a mass of cells. A “her” is implies a person. There was no person. You can picture a personality in your imagination, but it did not yet exist. Just because someone like Senator Brownback can draw a picture of an embryo with a happy face or sad face doesn’t mean an embryo can be happy or sad, or even have a face. I know you deny that you make such projections, but then you go right ahead and use language that gives the whole thing away all over again.
But none of them are there yet. The “unique human DNA” standard is nonsense. No one can defend the “unique” part, because clones and twins are just as much people as anyone else: whether or not it is “unique” is irrelevant. And the human DNA part is likewise silly, because DNA is not a tiny homonculus of a person. It instructions on what steps to carry out that, if done in conjuction with the right environmental conditions. The same instructions are present in nearly every single cell in your body.
It isn’t a simple minded argument. Your position is deeply morally confused, because it is unrooted in any meta-ethic as to why this or that life is important or not. You have a standard that is literalistic, but makes no sense when translated into more a basic functional, reality based level and out of the abstract, imaginary world of personalities.
These concerns are not matters of life or death for the embryo as matters pertaining to stem-cell research and IVF are, so I think that these objections are rather insignificant in context of the discussion.
I agree; this is a side discussion i’m having with Sarahfeena. I apologise for the hijacking, but it is relevant to the issue at hand.
I never said she could be happy or sad. But, she could be healthy or unhealthy. I don’t think you can deny this is true…there is an entire medical specialty dedicated to the health of developing babies.
Unique in the sense that it is not the same DNA as the mothers…it is a distinct entity from her.
The instructions are there in most cells, but they do not have the ability to develop into a person, as the embryo is more than likely to do.
Trust me, I am not confused in the least. My moral stance is rooted in the ethic that ALL human life is important, by virtue of its existence. I live my life according to this ethic, and if you don’t, then I am sorry for you.
I’m actually not sure how it is exactly relevant. We don’t have this techology, or anything close to it…it is at best an extremely far-fetched hypothetical. As I said before, if IVF didn’t waste any healthy embryos, then I’m all for whoever wants to do it to go ahead and do it.
Sorry. I guess I was going a bit offtrack. Here’s the comparison, anyway;
-
IVF means there is a certainty that some amount of embryos will be destroyed. The plus side is a couple who were previously unable to have a child will be able to have one. However, in your view, this is immoral, since the embryos being destroyed is the prime concern.
-
In the hypothetical, we look at normal pregnancies, in which some will certainly miscarry. The plus side is that many pregnancies will carry to term. Since the chamber would mean no embryos are destroyed, clearly to use it instead of normal pregnancy is the more moral view. Yet you suggest it isn’t.
I don’t see how you can reconcile the two views. It seems as though you’re using a different standard to judge both.
No, because even if I allow that the creation of the leftover embryos was not an immoral act, I still think that destroying them through experimentation is inherently immoral. As much as it may pain me to utter the following phrase :), I agree with President Bush on this.
just because it was going to be destroyed anyways does not give you any right to mess around with nature and the natural ways. If you die, does that mean I should get your organs even if you didn’t sign any release form or donate them? No, I don’t get them and have no say in it. Unless it’s your own stem cells, you have no say
Maybe you’ll think twice when a generation of babies gets born with no arms and legs becasue of modern science and experiments