No, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a huge, huge moral problem with those embryos existing in the first place. There are lots of things I think are morally wrong that I also think can’t be made illegal.
What exactly is your moral problem with the existence of embryos? That they might force people to endure good health and lifetimes filled with happiness? What could your objection possibly be? That god didn’t make them?
My moral problem is that they are human beings, and they were created without the intention of letting them live. You know, you may disagree with me, but I did not say that IVF or using these already-created embryos should be illegal. My moral issue with it infringes on you not at all, so do you really need to jump all over me about it?
I’m asking questions because I want to understand why you feel that way. Many of them are, in fact, created with the intention of being brought to term eventually. The ones that don’t develop into human beings can be used to make existing human beings’ lives better. How can that be bad?
No they’re not, Sarahfeena, no more than a spermatozoon.
You know, I am not particularly intersted in rehashing this argument, but I think you are too intelligent of a person to really believe that an embryo and a sperm cell are equivilant. You may think that LEGALLY there is no difference, or MORALLY there is no difference, but I actually don’t believe that you think that BIOLOGICALLY there is no difference.
Is that really the case? My impression was that multiple embryos are created because the chances of success are relatively low and the expenses are considerable; ie. there are multiple made in the hopes that at least one will survive and grow into a baby. The nature of probability being what it is, making enough to ensure a certain success rate will often lead to multiple viable embryos, but they weren’t made without the intention of letting them live; they were made precisely so that they would live.
I notice that many replies are directed at you, so I hope you don’t feel piled on.
It’s bad because it is not right to bring one person into being at the expense of another. You make it sound very sterile…you intend to allow them to be brought to term, and then somehow, they just don’t? The truth is, they are NOT intended to be brought to term. Almost invariably, multiples embryos are created, when the intention is only to bring one to term. I find this morally wrong. Personally, I could never have a baby and enjoy the mothering of that child, knowing that there were others like it languishing in a freezer somewhere, or given over to medical science to be destroyed.
On the other hand, what is done with them once they are in this unfortunate circumstance is a different issue.
Thanks for that last sentence…I appreciate it, and no…I don’t mind. I find myself in this position a lot around here.
As I was just saying to Kalhoun, you are right that multiples are made for this reason, the chance of success is relatively low. But I believe the reason it’s low is because it is hard to get them to implant correctly. I don’t believe it is morally right to create life knowing that the success rate is low, and taking the risk that the extras are lost through bad implantation and/or left in a freezer.
How do you feel about the success rate of old fashioned missionary-position procreation? That has a pretty low success rate as well; lots of embryos are conceived, but never implant successfully. Is that immoral as well?
Not if it happens naturally, no.
Why is that different? If a woman knows she has a medical condition that prevents implantation of an otherwise normal embryo, isn’t that just as bad? After all, it is in her power to prevent the death of a child, right?
You don’t see the difference because you don’t consider the embryo to be a human life. **Sarahfeena **does. Rephrase the question in terms of people dying, and you’ll see it from her perspective. People die every day-- what difference does it make if we intentionally kill a few more?
Exactly my point. If it is wrong to “kill” an embryo to develop a treatment that may save a life, it is also wrong to knowingly sacrifice numerous “lives” in the selfish attempt to procreate against the odds.
It’s different, because in one case I intend to create life and destroy it, and in the other case, I don’t. If I fully intend to bring any life I create to term, and for some reason, my attempt fails through no fault of my own, then I am not culpable in that death.
If I had such a medical condition, I would use a barrier method of birth control to ensure that did not happen. I would expect that this is what a woman with this problem would be advised to do by her priest.
What is natural? Is it natural to fornicate at times when fertility is low? Is it natural to take Zoapatle, a Mexican plant which apparently dislodges implanted zygotes? I don’t like the “natural” line–it’s a line people draw all the time, but it can be drawn in too many places.
Here are the facts of the case, ladies and gentlemen, and they are not in dispute–
There is little doubt that we, as a nation, are hampering our research efforts because of a presidentially-imposed moratorium on stem-cell research. If anyone is prepared to let our scientific dominance in cell biology slip away because of this negligible issue–the issue of whether or not we can use embryos already fated for destruction for good–then please, speak up now to your elected representative.
Would a debate on whether or not a blastocyst represents a human life be worthwhile, or has that pretty much been hashed out to death?
So your morality hinges on good intentions? Does that make the cries of the unborn easier to bear?
A Catholic priest? Recommending a condom or a diaphragm? I tell ya, the Church sure has gone to pot since Vatican II.
You prove my point from above; even your own child, you regard as no better than a tiny lump of frozen cells. If mind and personhood matter so little to you, get a pet iguana, not a kid.
Just for perspective…
This is a human blastocyst. At this stage, it is comprised of approximately 100 cells, none of which are differentiated. That is, there are no neurons, there are no muscle cells, there are no skin cells. There is nothing but What Could Be But Is Not. This is the stage at which human embryonic stem cells are obtained. For comparison, here is a mouse blastocyst, here is a frog blastula, and here is a sea urchin blastula.
You guys should leave Sarahfeena alone. She has stated her personal moral belief, she opposes IVF as well as using embrionic stem cells for reaserch, so she’s consistant, she has repeatedly stated that she is only talking about her personal morals and not about making public policy, who the hell are y’all to take issue with that?
Now, I don’t agree with her, but criminy! Leave her alone. You got no right to dictate her moral choices, just like she has no right to dictate yours.