Where have these fundies been?

The BBQ Pit
21

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.

22

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I have an aquaitance who had IVF. They implanted 5 embryos, IMS, and the decision was made to only have two continue gestation, or some such phrase. No one (except her SIL) thought much about the “sacrificing” of these three lives. This same woman underwent IVF twice, and has two sets of twins to show for it. I dont’ know if the second IVF involved “selective gestation” (I made that phrase up; I made up ‘lactivist’, too–I like to make up pseudo-scientific phrases in my spare time, it’s less costly than a lot of bad habits).

In practical terms, the above procedure seems sensible. I too wonder where the outrage has been. whynot brings up a good point. Perhaps it’s something the pro-birth contigent never considered?
[/QUOTE]
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.

23

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
But, since you bring it up, I’ve not heard any outrage over the selective reduction aspect of IVF, either.
[/QUOTE]
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.

24

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
It would seem obvious to me that killing an embryo by throwing it in the trash is morally “worse” than using that same embryo for research that could save many lives. Yet, fertility clinics have been throwing embryos in the trash for what, almost 30 years now? And I don’t recall any outcry about trashing embryos, ever. (If there was such an outcry at the beginning I’m too young to remember it.) Why is there no effort to ban this practice? It just seems totally backwards. For years, nobody says a word about throwing embryos out. Then, when scientists come up with a way to use those embryos for something beneficial, people go nuts and cry on message boards about the “holocaust.”
[/QUOTE]

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.

25

[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Where were the ted_baskervilles 10 years ago, weeping for the embryos
[/quote]
I am irresistably reminded of a favorite Star Trek episode.

No one weeps for the Horta anymore. :frowning:

26

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
No, no! Infertile women should allow their husband to take other, more nubile wives…The older wives can be retained since they may have superior housekeeping skills. It’s more humane to keep them since, they cannot make their own way in the outside world…
[/QUOTE]

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.

27

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Monavis

28

[QUOTE=monavis]
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.

Monavis
[/QUOTE]
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.

29

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”.

30

[QUOTE=Lissa]
President Bush, and his “culture of life” supporters, who approve of War and other items, are not representative of true “pro-lifers”.
[/QUOTE]

Not true Scotsmen, are they? :dubious:

31

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Monavis

32

[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
Not true Scotsmen, are they? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

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.

33

[QUOTE=monavis]
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.

Monavis
[/QUOTE]
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.

34

So when do we outlaw masterbation. Living critters that could potentially impregnate and cause life.A potential life is being wasted.

35

Insert Meaning of Life reference here

36

Bad news: there is no meaning to life. Good news: doesn’t need one.

37

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Are you Margaret Atwood?

:stuck_out_tongue:

38

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
So when do we outlaw masterbation. Living critters that could potentially impregnate and cause life.A potential life is being wasted.
[/QUOTE]

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?

39

[QUOTE=DrDeth]
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?
[/QUOTE]
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.

40

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.