The selective reductions are not the embryos that stem cells are harvested from, though. True, selective reduction aborts implanted embryos - but there are still half a dozen or more blastocysts that are never implanted at all. Those are the ones we could harvest stem cells from - at 4 or 5 days old. Once it’s at the implantation stage, it’s too old to harvest stem cells from anyway.
I think it’s the lack of outrage at the 4 or 5 day old blastocyst disposal that has us scratching our heads.
But, since you bring it up, I’ve not heard any outrage over the selective reduction aspect of IVF, either.
And, bracing for the flames, I suspect it’s because women seeking IVF aren’t “whores” who got knocked up via irresponsible recreational sex. At the heart of the matter, if life is sacred from conception, then there should be picketing outside IVF clinics and graphic posters of blastocysts with hateful words under them, and infertility specialists should be the target of death threats and bombing. It’s not. It’s only the young, single women who are targeted, and the providers helping them.
Oh, it’s been considered. The Catholic Church is very much IVF, and this is one of the reasons. Typically, more embryos are created than the # of children desired. This is precisely because, as you say, typically they do not all implant. In fact, there are 2 ways that embryos might be destroyed in IVF. First, they do not all implant. Second, too many implant, and some have to be “selectively reduced (which is the real term for it),” meaning essentially an abortion is performed on one or more of them, and one or two are left to develop. The pro-life community generally considers the first to be an outcome of dubious morality, and the second to be outright wrong.
I should add that, as John Mace points out, selective reduction is not considered any different from any other abortion in the pro-life community, at least not from anyone I have encountered. Anyone who believes that abortion is wrong, and selective reduction during IVF is OK is a hypocrite…it is the exact same thing.
I’m just about as pro-choice as a person can be, but this is nonsense. You haven’t heard any outcry and therefore there is no outcry? I spent 3 seconds doing a google search and came up with this:
Now, don’t get wrong-- I disagree with this entirely. But the outrage is out there, whether you happen to see it or not.
Where I find hypocracy in the right-to-lifers are those who say abortion is murder, except in the case of incest or rape. But we’ve done that topic to death in GD, so I’m not attempting to hijack this thread.
If there’s already an infertile wife/housekeeper does a man really need a fulltime concubine? The older wife may not be capable of bearing children, but she can feed and care for them. Perhaps we should put the younger fertile women into a pool. They’d be assigned to worthy men as needed. They’d live in his household and have sex a couple times a month until she got pregnant. After she gives birth she’d be assigned to another household. Of course we’d need older infertile women to train the young ones. And the wives of powerful men would need other poorer women to help keep the homes clean.
I find it strange that so many people worry about a fertilized egg, call themselves “Pro” life but think it is okay to kill some one in a war, or warrent the death penalty.Then incourage a woman to bring the egg to full term and not be concerned as to if they can love, feed, educate and raise the child to adulthood.
South America,and Africa bring this to mind.Many starve to death and some people have several children who are neglected.
I think all( so called) pro-life people should adopt or support any child from adulthood that they force a woman to have. Support to me means every day until adulthood. Baby sit, feed, educate, help the woman with the household chores etc. This is a radical approch but it would prove they are truly pro-life not just pro-birth.
Hmm…OK, that’s fine, except that I didn’t say anything about any of the above. Many pro-life people ARE against war and the death penalty, but even if they aren’t, these are not analagous situations to abortion, anyway.
I also didn’t say anything about legalities, or “forcing” a woman to have a baby. I am not particularly interested in legalities. Many things I think are immoral or unethical are perfectly legal…legality doesn’t make them right.
My statement only has to do with the assumption in the OP that pro-lifers have never noticed and/or cared that IVF typically kills off embyros that are specifically created for the IVF process. The pro-life movement has indeed noticed, and cared, about this issue, and it is considered just as wrong as any other abortion.
To be fair, many of the pro-life movement back in the 80’s, especially in the Catholic church, did express concern about this issue back then. IVF was considered “playing God” and their concern was that it would be a “slippery slope” towards other biological tinkering. In the end, they were shown to be correct withe development of stem cell research.
It is correct as well, that as IVF became accepted by many people, because of the emotionality attached with having babies, that many of those arguments went away. They just came back with stem cell research.
I am not saying I agree with them, but they were previously protesting the same efforts. As an aside, many of the pro-life movement are also against the death penalty, war, suicide and any other issues associated with life such as poverty, environmental degradation and crime.
President Bush, and his “culture of life” supporters, who approve of War and other items, are not representative of true “pro-lifers”.
They are analagous in the sense that innocent life is or can be destroyed, one cannot gaurentee no innocents will be killed in a war, there are times abortion may be a matter of self defense for a woman and her need to look out for already born children’s benifit.
Legality may not make things right but neither does some religious beliefs, Like birth control is a sin, but having children one can’t afford,already having children one can’t care for or abuse is just as wrong as having an abortion, The morning after pill is faught against by some when the fertile egg is not yet implanted.
Many people who want a woman to carry a fertilized egg to become a person are the ones who fight not to pay taxes to welfare mothers. Like it or not it takes money to raise a child. Look to Mexico, Africa, etc. and some other countries and see the poverty and suffering, a lot brough on by lack of proper birth control.
The so called natural method of birth control does not make for many happy marriages, it is unnatural to have or expect a couple to have sex only when they are sure no conception will take place.
If one wnts to follow their religios teaching and be celibate that is their right, but other people should not be force to do it because some religion says it is a sin. It may be a sin to the person who believes that, but not to one who doesn’t.
Npt sure what your getting at here, but no, they are not true pro-lifers, as many pro-life people would say. He supports the death penalty, chose war instead of peace and pulled life support on people who could not pay their bills in Texas. That is not a pro-life person. He uses that term to refer only to abortion, or when it is politically expedient.
Well, I have debated most of these points in many other threads, and they have nothing to do with the OP, so I will leave this as your opinion.
Again, the point of the OP is that “fundies” and other pro-lifers are well aware that embryos are deliberately destroyed during IVF. I can’t speak for “fundies,” as I don’t know any, but I can assure everyone that the pro-life movement has always opposed this practice.
I know he’s being silly, but we also “allow” women to have a period nearly every month, which kills many eggs. Eggs are alive, and so is sperm. Sure, the point where the two come together to create a fertilized eggs is a line. But so are certain points along the developement of the “fertilized egg” to “embryo” to “fetus” to “baby”.
So we have a line: eggs/sperm–>fertilized egg–> embryo–>fetus–>baby–>child–>adult. Death is a tragedy anywhere along that line. Why is it that the “right-to-life” dudes only want to protect #2,3 & 4? (& maybe 5). Why isn’t an “egg” alive? Why is killing an adult OK?
Some forms of birth control reduce the number of dead eggs- why is birth contrl “bad” then?
When eggs start spontaneously developing into babies without the benefit of being fertilized, then you will have a valid comparison. That first item in your line is egg/sperm…you could never have the same progression if it was just egg or just sperm. It really ought to be: egg+sperm–>fertilized egg–> embryo–>fetus–>baby–>child–>adult.
I stand by my position that people who think killing human embryos is wrong… but killing, say a gibbon embryo is not wrong, are totally fucked up amoral dipshits.
