Frozen Embryos

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't wish to nit-pick, Finn...

Nor do I edgar.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

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

First of all I am not disinterested in biological facts, but the ones cited the one erroneously cited in this thread are of little relevance to my points.

What difference does it make how similar a human embryo is to another embryo? I'm afraid I am not impressed by the tossing out of "bio-factoids." If they support a point you are trying to make, please elaborate.

I still do not agree with you contention about embryos being parasitic, however let's assume you are correct -- Again, what point are you trying to support with this contention? That since embryos are parasite like, whether or not they are preserved is of no importance?

Portal Star wrote:

I consider the biological facts to be important here.

In what context? I fail to see any connection that you've made between biological facts and moral decisions.

Portal Star wrote:

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?

Putting aside, for now, your repeated assumption that I am dismissing material facts, you seem to have some difficulty accepting that an argument against discarding potential human life may be totally secular, (and have absolutely nothing to do with being a vegan). Whether I am coming from a spiritual or secular humanist point of view is, frankly, immaterial.

Portal Star wrote:

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 don't find it particularly surprising. I do disagree with your moral priorities though, and your statement goes to reinforcing the notion that there is a very political aspect to this issue.

portal Star wrote:

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.

Now you have to define what you mean by "human rights." It is not, at all, universally recognized that there is a human right to do with potential humans as one pleases. I would agree with you that forced to choose, the fully developed life is more precious that the developing life, but we are not talking about situations where the choice is the life of the mother vs the life of the developing human.

The mothers faced with the choice originally highlighted in this thread, had very little but their own sensibilities to consider. Certainly if the choice entailed their own survival, it would be a very different story. I simply do not believe that any of the considerations (e.g. I don't want someone else to raise my "children) justifies ending the existence of potential human life.

Portal Star wrote:

I thought Bush signed something that banned stem cell research in America.

Research on existing stem cell sequences are allowed. Developing new stem cell sequences are not.

Portal Star wrote:

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.

How humanity preserves itself is as important or more important than the simple goal of preservation.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

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 am not angry with you Linkat, and even if you said I was wrong, I would not be angry with you.

Linkat wrote:

As this is a moral issue, Finn, neither the couple nor you are wrong.

We disagree here. I don't believe that moral issues are simply matters of opinion. I am not a proponent of moral relativism for a number of reasons, and make judgments as I believe we all must and actually do.

Linkat wrote:

Just because you do not agree with their decision, does not make them wrong.

You're right. They are not wrong just because I disagree with them, they are wrong because their decision gave greater weight to their selfish sensibilities than to human life.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

they are wrong because their decision gave greater weight to their selfish sensibilities than to human life.

And you're wrong because you arrogantly refuse to consider any POV that is not yours.

0 Replies

I feel the opposite just as strongly as you, finn, namely that these embryos can be put to good use if not implanted to grow to BECOME human. It is simply a form of "flesh" without brains or soul. I feel it is something akin to superstitious fear that keeps people from accepting the benefits to humanity they represent. Of course some owners of frozen embryos consider that they are sacred, and I sympathize with them, but, the unused ones cannot always be put to their intended use. There are simply too many H g Wells and Robert Louis Stevenson tales embedded in the human brain.

0 Replies

Without the religious aspect, what it comes down to is whether you think a pile of genetic code is more important than the well being and happiness of living, feeling, thinking humans.

I would also like to point out that caring for and planning for a family is much better for the well-being of the child (and family) then forcing yourself to have babies at every possibility, even when those babies might be unhealthy or cannot be properly cared for.

Abuzz, you have neglected to tell us why you feel this issue is morally wrong. Could you be more specific?

0 Replies

To answer the original question that started this thread:

I would donate the embryos for stem-cell research.

I don't count on changing anyone's opinion here, but I recommend everyone check out what's being done with stem-cells. Pretty amazing stuff.

0 Replies

LOL sparky

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
they are wrong because their decision gave greater weight to their selfish sensibilities than to human life.

And you're wrong because you arrogantly refuse to consider any POV that is not yours.

There is quite a difference, Wilso, between refusing to consider other points of view and not being persuaded by them.

By the way, what is your point of view? You have limited your involvement on this thread to expressing a displeasure with the certainty of my position and sharing with us the results of your sniffing the air. Perhaps this contributes to your personal sense of sanctimony, but it contributes nothing to the discussion.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I feel the opposite just as strongly as you, finn, namely that these embryos can be put to good use if not implanted to grow to BECOME human. It is simply a form of "flesh" without brains or soul. I feel it is something akin to superstitious fear that keeps people from accepting the benefits to humanity they represent. Of course some owners of frozen embryos consider that they are sacred, and I sympathize with them, but, the unused ones cannot always be put to their intended use. There are simply too many H g Wells and Robert Louis Stevenson tales embedded in the human brain.

I have no doubt that you do. By suggesting that you may be influenced in your opinion by the politics of Women's Rights, I did not mean to imply that your opinion was frivilous. i think it is wrong (as you, no doubt, think mine is), but not frivilous.

I take issue though with the notion that opposition to the use of embryos in medical research is born of superstitious fear. Undoubtedly, medical research conducted on fully developed humans would result in all sorts of benefits to humanity, but is our rightful abhorence for such practices akin to superstitious fear?

It is a matter of depth or degree, not ignorance or superstition. You view embryos as nothing more than pieces of tissue and precious only in the sense of how they may serve the overall benefit of humanity, while I view them as potential human life and therefore precious in and of themselves. Our opinions as to what can or should be done flows from these starting points.

An underlying theme of this thread seems to be whether or not anyone has the right to an opinion on matters outside of their own personal experiences. You've indicated that you sympathize with the "owners" of embryos who think they are sacred. Does this sympathy extend to non-owners?

True enough that all of the embryos collected by infertile couples are rarely going to be put to their intended use in term of those couples. That is a fact that has given rise to this thread, and the question, What should be done with those the couple cannot use?

I have simply expressed the opinion that it seems somehow perverse to me that a couple would recoil from throwing the embryo away but not from serving it up to the scientist's pipette and petri dish, especially when the perfectly viable alternative exists to donate the embryos to another infertile couple (who presumably cannot create even embryos) and by so doing allow the embryo the opportunity to realize its potential and enrich the lives of two very real and present fellow humans.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Wilso wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
they are wrong because their decision gave greater weight to their selfish sensibilities than to human life.

And you're wrong because you arrogantly refuse to consider any POV that is not yours.

There is quite a difference, Wilso, between refusing to consider other points of view and not being persuaded by them.

By the way, what is your point of view? You have limited your involvement on this thread to expressing a displeasure with the certainty of my position and sharing with us the results of your sniffing the air. Perhaps this contributes to your personal sense of sanctimony, but it contributes nothing to the discussion.

You've made it quite clear you're not interested in discussion. You're only interested in the world adopting your sense of right and wrong. I don't waste my energy on the likes of you.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

Without the religious aspect, what it comes down to is whether you think a pile of genetic code is more important than the well being and happiness of living, feeling, thinking humans.

Not at all.

You seem intent upon insinuating that there cannot be a sense of ethics without religion. I'm sure some of the aetheists I know would be happy to argue this point with you.

First of all, an embryo is no more than a pile of genetic code than it is a parasite. Secondly the choices we have been discussing are not so stark as you suggest. If all couples with an excess of embryos were forced to donate them to other infertile couples rather than throwing them away or donating them to research how would their well being and happiness be significantly impacted? If every couple knew this was the requirement of this fertility process, how many do you really think would opt out rather than be forced to donate the excess embryos to other couples?

Portal Star wrote:

I would also like to point out that caring for and planning for a family is much better for the well-being of the child (and family) then forcing yourself to have babies at every possibility, even when those babies might be unhealthy or cannot be properly cared for.

It would appear that you have now shifted the discussion to abortion since no one has suggested that the couples in question be forced to try and implant and nurture all of the embryos they have collected. Fair enough. I don't mind the shift, but you are assuming that the only alternative to improperly caring for an unwanted baby is abortion. As with the issue of the embryos, there is the very viable, and I would say noble, alternative of placing the child up for adoption by a couple who can properly care for it and will try their best to enrich its life as it enriches theirs.

Portal Star wrote:

Abuzz, you have neglected to tell us why you feel this issue is morally wrong. Could you be more specific?

Well, Star....

I think I have, but let me try to satisfy you.

I think life is precious and human life most precious. I happen to extend this regard to budding or potential human life. I also happen to think that reproduction of the species is a sacred imprerative and an evolutionary obligation. This being said, there are moral or ethical implications involved with discarding or destroying developed or undeveloped human life.

There are numerous imaginable circumstances where, in my opinion, the elimination of life or budding life is not immoral. They do not include convenience, a sense of ownership, the exercise of free choice etc.

No one need share my premise, nor my sense of the moral implications flowing from it. I do not believe that they should be in jail nor that they will be going to hell. I do think they are wrong though.

By the way - Abuzz is the land of my birth, and not a surname.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

You've made it quite clear you're not interested in discussion. You're only interested in the world adopting your sense of right and wrong. I don't waste my energy on the likes of you.

Still a one note Wilso I see.

By all means, don't waste your energy.

0 Replies

I have little patience with non owners of embryos when they seek to interfere with others' property. I concede that embryos are potential humans, but they are not humans and that is the gist.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I have little patience with non owners of embryos when they seek to interfere with others' property. I concede that embryos are potential humans, but they are not humans and that is the gist.

Then I assume you can also sympathize with people who have little patience with those who draw such a bright line between what is human and what is not.

0 Replies

I know where you are coming from, but, you are absolutely wrong. I don't say this with rancor, finn. Just stating my true outlook.

0 Replies

Abuzz - I think you are right - that adoption is great.

However, I think you are mistaken in your assumptions about evolution and adoption.

Many species kill the offspring of their mate and another mate (ex: seals, lions, some primates) in order to ensure that they can implant their own sperm (genetic material) and to ensure that their offspring get preferential treatment. This works from an evolutionary standpoint because the partner with the strongest genes who sticks around gets to pass on his/her genes. There are also many species (mostly non-social) who do not take care of young that is not their own.

Humans are a social species, and as such we have obligations to each other in a hierarchical mutualist society. We can and do adopt the children of others (and pass on to them our life-traits.) However, given a choice humans usually opt to pass on their own genes and raise their own children. This makes sense from a biological competitive standpoint.

The human sense of morality does not always coincide with what is Biologically best for nature and perpetuation of species.

We as humans are in an odd position in that we have already reached a comfortable capacity, and although we haven't hit the carrying capacity of the earth yet because of our ability to create resources, we are at a level where we are not struggling to make more humans. Not every genetic combination with the potential for human life is wanted or needed in this world. There are people out there looking to adopt, but they are not as expansive as you assume. I think we should work on giving living children good homes (for example the girls being killed and shipped out of China due to the overpopulation laws) if you are basing your argument on a moral standpoint. I give prioritiy to human life over human potential for life.

Unless you consider sperm and egg to be sacred and un-wastable, you should not consider the joining of sperm and egg to be sacred. Nothing is added when the two are combined (unless you believe in the g-dly insertion of soul.)

I do not believe in quantity of life, life is transient. I believe in quality of life - and family planning leads to better quality of life. I want more children to be wanted, planned for, desired, supported. We are fortunate enough to have technology assist us in our biological pursuits. We don't have to, like the women in Africa, starve ourselves to reject the fetus when we can't support a child. We can use our intelligence to make our lives and families better.

So, there is no reason a woman should be forced to carry the speck of genetic matter until it is a fetus and then a child, to drop everything and go through nine months of labor in order to produce something that some other person might possibly eventually want. There is not that much demand for babies in this world. If someone wants to sacrifice her own life to carry for another, that is wonderful. But it should never be mandatory.

I find it curious that you believe there is absolute morality. Have you been reading a lot of Plato or going to see George Bernard Shaw plays lately?

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I know where you are coming from, but, you are absolutely wrong. I don't say this with rancor, finn. Just stating my true outlook.

Which I absolutely respect edgar.

At least we are not befuddled in post modernist quagmires.

However... you are wrong.

0 Replies

Star wrote:

However, I think you are mistaken in your assumptions about evolution and adoption.

What do you contend these assumptions to be?

Star wrote:

Many species kill the offspring of their mate and another mate (ex: seals, lions, some primates) in order to ensure that they can implant their own sperm (genetic material) and to ensure that their offspring get preferential treatment. This works from an evolutionary standpoint because the partner with the strongest genes who sticks around gets to pass on his/her genes. There are also many species (mostly non-social) who do not take care of young that is not their own.

Once again, a biology lesson which seems to have little bearing on the issue at hand.

Star wrote:

Humans are a social species, and as such we have obligations to each other in a hierarchical mutualist society. We can and do adopt the children of others (and pass on to them our life-traits.) However, given a choice humans usually opt to pass on their own genes and raise their own children. This makes sense from a biological competitive standpoint.

And yet one may contend that humans have reached a point where they are at least the partners of evolution, if not (yet) the masters, and therefore able to apply an intellectual consideration to the surrvival of the species rather than the gene. Your Dawkins is showing.

Star wrote:

The human sense of morality does not always coincide with what is Biologically best for nature and perpetuation of species.

How so? This is a rather grand statement that requires more details. Altruism is not to the advantage of the species?

Star wrote:

We as humans are in an odd position in that we have already reached a comfortable capacity, and although we haven't hit the carrying capacity of the earth yet because of our ability to create resources, we are at a level where we are not struggling to make more humans. Not every genetic combination with the potential for human life is wanted or needed in this world. There are people out there looking to adopt, but they are not as expansive as you assume. I think we should work on giving living children good homes (for example the girls being killed and shipped out of China due to the overpopulation laws) if you are basing your argument on a moral standpoint. I give prioritiy to human life over human potential for life.

Sorry, but not much cogency here. First of all, upon what do you base your assertion that the people seeking to adopt are not as "expansive" (not sure what that means) as I suggest? I happen to be an adoptive (as well as biological) parent and am closely connected to adoption organizations. I know that there there are more couple who wish to adopt than there are available infants. I'm interested in learning of the foundation of your assertion. Secondly, you need to reread my postings.
I too give priority to the preservation of human life over human potential life. What I do not give priority to is the convenience of human life over the preservation of potential human life. I have repeatedly made this point and so can only assume you wish to ignore it and argue against what you think my position may be.

Star wrote:

Unless you consider sperm and egg to be sacred and un-wastable, you should not consider the joining of sperm and egg to be sacred. Nothing is added when the two are combined (unless you believe in the g-dly insertion of soul.)

Your logic denies synergy at any level. Whether or not I consider the egg and sperm to be sacred, it is entirely reasonable to consider the product of their union to be sacred.

Star wrote:

I do not believe in quantity of life, life is transient. I believe in quality of life - and family planning leads to better quality of life.

Good for you. Once again you are arguing against what you wish rather than what I have asserted.

Star wrote:

I want more children to be wanted, planned for, desired, supported. We are fortunate enough to have technology assist us in our biological pursuits. We don't have to, like the women in Africa, starve ourselves to reject the fetus when we can't support a child. We can use our intelligence to make our lives and families better.

So, there is no reason a woman should be forced to carry the speck of genetic matter until it is a fetus and then a child, to drop everything and go through nine months of labor in order to produce something that some other person might possibly eventually want. There is not that much demand for babies in this world. If someone wants to sacrifice her own life to carry for another, that is wonderful. But it should never be mandatory.

All I can say is that this is a pretty cynical view of the subject. It completely ignores the potential humanity of the speck, embryo, fetus, and it totally ignores any notion of acountibility.

There is a tremendous demand for babies in this country, but even if that were not the case, is that reason to destroy budding babies without compunction? You seem to be reducing the issue to one of supply and demand. Should there be a "shortage" of babies, would you then assert a moral imperative to protect the potentials?

You continue to try to frame the issue as one of the woman's life vs the unborn childs, or a hideous life of the child vs no child. This is America, not Africa. Every woman in America who wishes to place her child up for adoption will find more than one willing and qualified couple. The American woman does not need to choose between starving herself or her child.

Star wrote:

I find it curious that you believe there is absolute morality. Have you been reading a lot of Plato or going to see George Bernard Shaw plays lately?

I find it curious that you don't realize that you believe there is absolute morality as well.

0 Replies

Portal Star, you have done an excellent job of refuting Finn's arguments, and I hope you won't mind if I add a few comments:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

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.

The question of what to do with surplus embryos is not a women's rights issue, it is a parents' property rights issue. It would only become one if women were conscripted to gestate the surplus embryos in order to provide babies for childless couples, and there are much cheaper ways of increasing the supply of children for adoption. ($15,000 per in vitro try) If the Government stopped paying for unwed mothers to keep their babies, I suspect that there would once again be an overabundance.

But since you mentioned it, the disposal of embryos was a non-issue until anti-abortion groups realized that they had to oppose it in order to keep up the pretense that all embryos are sacred.

Quote:

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."

Is there any basis other than "personal opinion" to object to discarding unneeded embryos - or using them for research that could benefit real human beings? Since you do not care about biological facts or religion, on what do you base your opinions?

Quote:

You view embryos as nothing more than pieces of tissue and precious only in the sense of how they may serve the overall benefit of humanity, while I view them as potential human life and therefore precious in and of themselves. ...

I think life is precious and human life most precious. I happen to extend this regard to budding or potential human life. I also happen to think that reproduction of the species is a sacred imprerative and an evolutionary obligation. This being said, there are moral or ethical implications involved with discarding or destroying developed or undeveloped human life.

Do you believe that every sperm and egg is precious since each one has the potential to become a human being? If not, what magic occurs when one is inserted into the other to make them sacred?

The failure rate for in vitro procedures is high. Is it immoral to create embryos knowing that most will die, just as most naturally conceived ones do?

Do you think that chimpanzee embryos are precious? If not, what makes them any less worthy of life than human ones?

Do you think it is immoral to use a birth control method that keeps an embryo from implanting in the uterus? For that matter, what about people who remain celibate and never give their sperm/eggs a chance at life?

Quote:

First of all, an embryo is no more than a pile of genetic code than it is a parasite.

It starts out as nothing more than a pile of genetic code, and an embryo is indeed a parasite. It feeds off its mother and provides nothing in return (until it grows up, perhaps). It makes her sick and can kill her by growing too large or overtaxing her body.

The gravest problem facing the world today is overpopulation. We simply do not need the hundreds of thousands of babies that could be produced - at great expense - from surplus embryos, even if that many surrogate mothers could be found.

0 Replies

Frozen Embryos

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know