Frozen Embryos

I was wondering if I was the only one who was smelling a catholic?

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

.. this stupid religion ...

Not only the Catholic/Christian religion is seen by some as "stupid" :wink:

0 Replies

I know Walter, I treat all religions with equal respect. Wink

0 Replies

Re: Frozen Embryos

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Linkat wrote:
It certainly seems to be a tough choice

I suppose it might be for some.

Unfortunately, it might also be an easy choice for some: throw them away

It's hard to imagine a couple so bound and determined to procreate that they go through this process, only to cast aside the surplus.

Some will, no doubt, take the position that it's entirely up to the couple, and legally I guess it is. The question, of course, is, should it be?

What seems tragic to me is that the almost casual destruction of human life has become so elemental to the cause of female equality. Doesn't that seem perverse?

I understand why feminists insist that women must have control over their bodies, but I just can't square it when that control involves the destruction of budding life.

The argument that a fetus (at least at some point) is not human life, seems to me to be desperate denial.

The politics of the issue seems corrupting.

Did you know that human embryos are exactly identical in stage to all the other embryos on the planet in the early stages of development?

A fetus starts out as something like a parasite. It has no self awareness, it has no feeling (no nerves) it is simply potential. It is a combination of the genetic material of two people.

I don't think the question is whether or not that dot is is human. I think the question is at what point is it amoral to kill that fetus, and at what point is it amoral enough that we feel the federal government should regulate it?

I tend to agree with the three month laws - which let you terminate a fetus before it has developed basic tenets of humanity like a brain. I was also sad to see the elimination of a partial birth abortion option where it might save the life of a mother.

You should be aware that most fertilized eggs never make it to birth.

I think that your defintion of "human" is probably based on the belief that there is a soul or spirit which is implanted upon the sperm meeting the egg by a g-d. This defintion is fine and I understand why you would feel killing the fertilized egg is wrong. However, our government is a secular one and should not make rulings based on religious beliefs.

I think a woman should have a right to control her own body. If she does not want to carry a baby for whatever reason, she should not be forced by law to have to carry to term. This can be detrimental in a variety of situations - she could have been raped, the baby could have birth defects that would make it unable to live or lead a full life, it could be born with drug addiction, it might be dangerous for the mother's health to carry to term, she might be too young to be pregnant, or maybe the woman is not ready for a child yet. I do not think this is for the government to decide for her.

For some comments by real women who have chosen to get abortions and why they have made the choice, check out ofshoot of planned parenthood page

I wish stem cell research wasn't banned in America. Fortunately, we can probably just steal the technology and information from other countries once they develop it.

0 Replies

Just to add to Portal Star's post, the USA better wake up and chuck out their religious right agenda, because they will find themselves way behind other countries, many of whom were former enemies, who used US funding for more practical purposes than say, hunting down Osama.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I think the right choice would be to use the embryos for stem cell research, should they qualify. If not, sure, give them to a needy couple. As far as completely idiotic Catholic guilt goes, isn't one of the prime tenets of this stupid religion to perpetuate life without enjoying sex? How could this godly quest be better fulfilled than by donating an embryo...

Can we assume, you're not a Catholic?

0 Replies

Oh, I've been caught. Yes Miller, that would be a fair assumption, although I did marry a Catholic, lapsed, of course.

0 Replies

I do not believe that stem research is banned in America, there are just federal restrictions - not sure exactly what these restrictions are except that federal funding has been stopped in 2001. Even so, Harvard is publicly launching what could be a $100 million initiative to perform the research without government money. One aspect of this is to find a cure for diabetes. They plan on using donated frozen embryos donated from fertility clinics that would otherwise be thrown away.

Cavfancier - you should not be so biased as to call a religion stupid. Just because you do not believe in something does not make it stupid, it makes you as closed-minded as the religion you are accusing.

0 Replies

Point taken Linkat, and no offence intended.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

The same way it could be impacted by women's rights, which you asserted, Finn.

Not to be argumentative edgar, but my question was how does the central question of this thread impact upon human rights, not how human rights impacts the question. It's not quite the same thing.

In any case, it seems as if your answer is that you are placing a broader name (human rights) on the political issue of women's rights.

Clearly, women's rights is a subset of human rights the same way women are a subset of humans, but the conventional use of these terms is something else. Generally speaking, "reproductive freedom" doesn't come under the heading of "Human Rights."

If there is a Human Rights issue, applicable to this thread, that is different than the Women's Rights issue of "Reproductive Freedom," then I would be interested in hearing of it.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

You are looking at the embryos as already being children, where the couple is looking at them as the potential to be children.

No I am not Linkat. I too am looking at them as "potential children."

If one doesn't want to throw away "potential children" or give "potential children" to others, I 'm still at a loss to understand how it is acceptible to give "potential children" to scientists for research.

That I am "different" from these folks, doesn't make me right, but neither does it make them right. Of course if you don't accept the concept that some things are right and some things are wrong, then "difference" can serve to explain all manner of behavior.

0 Replies

Word games don't play well with me, Finn. You suggested that I, instead of thinking for myself, allow association with movements or causes to dictate my conclusions. Not true.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As far as the embryos are concerned, donating them to research is no different than throwing them away. I don't see how other people raising their "children" could be worse.

I notice the tone of this post was very final. So obviously you believe that your opinion is the only correct one. EVERYONE ELSE is wrong?

No, you perceive the tone of the post to be "final" (whatever that means).

Are you going to argue that to the embryos there is a difference between throwing them away or donating them to science? Please do, if you can.

You will note that my following statement was "I don't see how other people raising their "children" could be worse," rather than "Other people raising their children could not be worse." There is a significant difference to these two statements, but I suspect it is lost on you.

Frankly, I do have faith in my opinions, and to that extent, my sense is that that those who do not agree with my opinions are "wrong." Does their differing with my opinions make them definatively wrong? Of course not. I make no claim to infalibility, but neither am I so hamstrung by moral relativism that I suffer from crisis of conviction.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Word games don't play well with me, Finn. You suggested that I, instead of thinking for myself, allow association with movements or causes to dictate my conclusions. Not true.

What else is their, in these forums, but word games? Besides, it was you that introduced Human Rights as some sort of trump to Women's Rights.

Actually I did not suggest that you were not "thinking for yourself." I am sure you are. I am suggesting that your thinking might be influenced by political imperatives. Whether or not it is, I certainly can't say for certain, and I'm not trying to. I do wonder whether or not you and millions of others would have the same ideas about embryos etc if there was not a Women's Rights issue centering on abortion. I acknowledge that we can never know, but perhaps you can.

0 Replies

Re: Frozen Embryos

Portal Star wrote:

Did you know that human embryos are exactly identical in stage to all the other embryos on the planet in the early stages of development?

Oh grand, another biology lesson.

Portal Star wrote:

A fetus starts out as something like a parasite.

Comparing an embryo to a parasite is a huge stretch, and totally ignores the fundamental biological imperative of reproduction. A full grown gorilla is something like a parasite too if you allow your definitions to be broad enough.

Portal Star wrote:

...it is simply potential.

And herein lies the gap of our different opinions: one's value of potential, particularly when it comes to Life.

Portal Star wrote:

I don't think the question is whether or not that dot is is human. I think the question is at what point is it amoral to kill that fetus, and at what point is it amoral enough that we feel the federal government should regulate it?

I think you mean immoral, but the question of whether or not the destruction of an embryo is immoral is very definately tied up in whether or not an embryo can be considered "human" or "potential human." How else would immorality come into play?

Portal Star wrote:

You should be aware that most fertilized eggs never make it to birth.

Thank you. I was advised of this by another bio major on this thread.

Portal Star wrote:

I think that your defintion of "human" is probably based on the belief that there is a soul or spirit which is implanted upon the sperm meeting the egg by a g-d. This defintion is fine and I understand why you would feel killing the fertilized egg is wrong.

Why is it that you Wilso and cavfancier assume that a desire to preserve potential human life is necessarily an expression of religious belief. Notwithstanding Wilso's smug assumption, I am neither Catholic nor catholic. I am not a Christian or, for that matter, a member of any organized religion, and my objections to discarding embryos or killing fetuses has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a "soul."

Portal Star wrote:

However, our government is a secular one and should not make rulings based on religious beliefs.

Here again, you assume that the contrarian position is, perforce, advanced by religious beliefs. I don't know for certain, but I would be willing to wager that you don't have a similar problem with our secular government making judgments on the propriety of capital punishment. What is the difference?
Not killing a fetus is a religious belief, but not killing a criminal is a secular one?

Portal Star wrote:

I think a woman should have a right to control her own body.[/quote/

Thanks you. This is my point.

[quote=I"Portal Star"] I wish stem cell research wasn't banned in America.

It isn't. Why do you think it is, and if it were, why would you feel this way?

0 Replies

Portal Star

Sorry - You corrected your statement that stem cell research is banned in America. I missed it.

In my response to you I succumbed to sarcasm for which I also apologize.

0 Replies

I don't wish to nit-pick, Finn, but you are trying to place motive where there is non appropriate.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Portal Star

Sorry - You corrected your statement that stem cell research is banned in America. I missed it.

In my response to you I succumbed to sarcasm for which I also apologize.

Finn - I assume you are religious for one reason - you seem uninterested in the biological facts.

"Did you know that human embryos are exactly identical in stage to all the other embryos on the planet in the early stages of development?

finn wrote: Oh grand, another biology lesson.
Portal Star wrote:
A fetus starts out as something like a parasite.

Comparing an embryo to a parasite is a huge stretch, and totally ignores the fundamental biological imperative of reproduction. A full grown gorilla is something like a parasite too if you allow your definitions to be broad enough."

Actually, an embryo starts out almost exactly like a parasite. This is part of why the female body often rejects it. The embryo actually has to fight and overcome conditions in the womb to be able to feed in the womb. Biology is weird like that. It has to do with competition for survival.

I consider the biological facts to be important here. If you are uncaring about science (the material facts), doesn't that immediately make your concerns religious ones? Or do you have a strong moral sentiment about potential not stemming from a religious view?
Are you a vegan?

You may find this suprising, but I also think it is morally wrong to kill a fetus. However, I think it is more wrong to tell a woman she cannot control her own body, to have the government force her into life decisions she does not want.

I believe the woman, a being which has senses, feelings, a brain, a life, experiences, and judgement, is one hundred times more valuable than a speck of undeveloped genetic material. I would protect that human's rights and choices over that potential anyday.

I thought Bush signed something that banned stem cell research in America. I don't have a valid information source to back this up, I have only heard people complaining about it. What -are- the laws in America?

If it isn't allowed it makes me sad because I think that stem cell research would be of enough benefit to humanity that it is worth the cost of having to experiment on fetuses.

0 Replies

what's the big fuss about; we in Canada 'all' started out as 'frozen embrios';
and sometimes, in the dead of winter we all return to this state just as a reminder. Shocked

0 Replies

Finn I am not saying either is right. And for some reason you seem very angry. It surprises me that you act angry towards me as I have not once stated that you were wrong - I only stated that your misunderstood why the couple choose as they did. If you thoroughly read through the article, you will see it wasn't the thought of throwing away potential children, but throwing away all they went through. She thought of all the work that went into creating them -- her own ups and downs, the "humiliation" of her husband going into a room with adult magazines, even the hours her father spent waiting for her in the parking lot for clinic visits. "It just seemed like such a waste to throw them away," Dooley said. "Science gave me a gift," she said, as her children circled around the dining room table. "I felt I should give back."

As this is a moral issue, Finn, neither the couple nor you are wrong. However you seem very angry at the couple's decision even though if you do read the entire article (see my previous post), you will see that it was well thought out. Just because you do not agree with their decision, does not make them wrong.

Cavfancier - thanks for the response! I can understand that sometimes hearing people make such closed minded comments can sometimes cause even the most open minded people to say things that do not really mean.

0 Replies

Frozen Embryos

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know