Recycled (Almost) People

The Corinthian

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3034398.stm

BBC News Online looks at the issues behind the controversial plan to use eggs from aborted foetuses for IVF treatment.

What are the researchers doing?

The researchers, from Israel, are exploring the possibility that aborted human foetuses might be a possible source of donor eggs for IVF.

Donor eggs - needed where a woman cannot produce eggs of her own - are in very short supply, not least in the UK, where donors cannot be paid.

However, the human foetus ovary is rich in "primordial follicles" - millions of them, many of which will disappear shortly after birth.

These immature and undeveloped follicles, if they survive, will one day produce eggs.

The researchers want to see if these follicles can be harvested, and matured outside the body so that any resulting egg can be used in IVF.

What are the technical problems?

Taking a slice of ovary tissue from a second or third trimester foetus is technically easy.

However, a primordial follicle is a long way short of producing an egg.

Scientists have developed a number of promising chemicals which act as "growth factors" on follicles, nudging them towards maturity.

But they still do not have the right combination of chemicals to do this to primordial follicles.

The Israeli scientists have managed to keep the follicles alive for four weeks, and tests suggest that these follicles may be beginning to mature slightly.

They are still a long way short of a fully mature follicle with an egg - but it is further than anyone else has got.

Are there any risks associated with using these follicles?

There are a great many unknowns - the vast majority of the follicles in the foetal ovary simply disappear after birth, and no-one knows why.

It is possible they are faulty, and the body simply gets rid of them - so the question is, if these faulty follicles are matured and their eggs used in IVF, what will the end result be?

There are also concerns about whether the special chemicals, even if one day they produce a mature follicle, will have completely mimicked the environment of the body and produced an undamaged egg.

Some scientists fear that subtle genetic damage caused to the follicle and egg would cause problems.

Is this going to happen?

It seems highly unlikely that most countries would be prepared to even contemplate this. The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has already outlawed it.

Pro-life charities believe that the public would never accept a situation in which a foetus could be another child's mother.

However, the researchers believe that somebody, somewhere may one day try this as a fertility technique.

In addition, these are not foetuses aborted at just a handful of weeks - these are second or more likely third trimester foetuses aborted due to other abnormalities.

A supply of such embryos is scant to begin with, and many would be unusable simply because of the defects which led to their abortion.

What do other scientists think?

UK fertility expert Lord Robert Winston said using foetal ovarian tissue was not an answer to the donation problem, and there were other alternatives.

He said scientists were currently looking at using eggs from another source - such as adult ovarian tissue.

Lord Winston told the BBC that in a piece of adult ovarian tissue the size of a pinhead there were around 100 to 200 eggs.

"They could be obtained with a needle biopsy in three to four minutes, painlessly and with informed consent.

"It's very easy to get hold of these eggs. The problem is that once we've got them, we can't mature them.

"Scientists are going to have exactly the same problem with ovarian tissue."

Of course if it's not really people we're talking about, but a ball of cells, then there should be no problem with such harvesting. Of course, that is if it's not really people we're talking about...

Well, at least it's not soap they're suggesting.

davej

I just get the feeling that people are going to look back at all of this controversy in 50 years time and wonder what all the fuss is about. It will be a non-issue; the economics of consumerism will eventually override all other concerns.

davej

simu

It's not recycling - the follicles that have the capacity to become eggs have been produced by meiosis. In a way, this isn't very different from taking sperm from a dying man - the follicles have yet to mature into eggs, true, but the basic genetic material from the "mother"'s side is already present.

Sparks

I'm still trying to figure out what the basis for the indignation being expressed is. I mean, the tissue from an aborted fetus is dumped in the rubbish bin (well, the bio-hazardous waste recepticale) anyway - why not help someone have a child from what would otherwise be simply dumped?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by simu
In a way, this isn't very different from taking sperm from a dying man

Would you not agree that the circumstances are different? The dying man gives consent, the foetus is simply harvested bio-matter. One dies, the other is killed/terminated. One could equally make the same argument about the use of fat, gold teeth and skin of Jews in the death camps.

Of course, if you are going to be purely utilitarian and amoral, then all well and good - that’s a valid argument.

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm still trying to figure out what the basis for the indignation being expressed is. I mean, the tissue from an aborted fetus is dumped in the rubbish bin (well, the bio-hazardous waste recepticale) anyway - why not help someone have a child from what would otherwise be simply dumped?

Much the same argument...

Sparks

One could equally make the same argument about the use of fat, gold teeth and skin of Jews in the death camps.

That's not only close to Godwin's law, it's also incorrect.
Those killed in the camps were adult humans who were murdered. Harvesting components from the tissue of an aborted fetus isn't the same thing. An aborted fetus is not self-aware, it is not self-sufficent, and it does not have the legal status of a person.

As to the soylent green article, you're talking to the wrong person - I never understood the fuss surrounding the whole premise in "Alive" for instance.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
That's not only close to Godwin's law, it's also incorrect.

You’ve never shyed away from using the ‘N’ word before Sparkie...

Those killed in the camps were adult humans who were murdered. Harvesting components from the tissue of an aborted fetus isn't the same thing. An aborted fetus is not self-aware, it is not self-sufficent, and it does not have the legal status of a person.

Thus if one is not self-aware and self-sufficient, one should not have the legal status of a person. Makes you wonder why we bothered with holding the Special Olympics. We could have just rounded the contenders up and made a big salad...

As to the soylent green article, you're talking to the wrong person - I never understood the fuss surrounding the whole premise in "Alive" for instance.

Mmmm... Tastes like chicken... :rolleyes:

Sparks

You’ve never shyed away from using the ‘N’ word before Sparkie.

Actually, I have - I've debated whether or not Bush can be compared to Hitler on the grounds that their foreign policies were similar - but that's the "H" word...

Thus if one is not self-aware and self-sufficient, one should not have the legal status of a person. Makes you wonder why we bothered with holding the Special Olympics. We could have just rounded the contenders up and made a big salad...

If you're not self-aware and self-sufficent and have never been so then yes, you don't have the legal status of a person. Those in the S.O. are both self-aware and self-sufficent. Self-sufficent in this case not meaning the ability to pay rent and cook food, but the ability for your body to live without external support (ie, outside the womb).
The question of where self-awareness starts is a thorny one, but there's no evidence that yet says it happens inside the womb.

Tastes like chicken

Pork, actually. According to the reports anyway. My point was that those eaten in the "Alive" incident were dead anyway. By using their dead bodies as a food source, several lives were saved.
Similarly, here, by taking eggs from an aborted (and dead) fetus, we get to create a new life. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Which is another interesting point - how many women are going to be making the decision on this point?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
If you're not self-aware and self-sufficent and have never been so then yes, you don't have the legal status of a person.

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

Those in the S.O. are both self-aware and self-sufficent. Self-sufficent in this case not meaning the ability to pay rent and cook food, but the ability for your body to live without external support (ie, outside the womb).

So, people in comas should be terminated and recycled?

The question of where self-awareness starts is a thorny one, but there's no evidence that yet says it happens inside the womb.

Ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty in such cases, for a moment, babies are arguably self-aware outside of the womb either, for some time.

However, there is evidence that foetuses are aware of pain and other stimuli. Perhaps they’re just tropisms?

I can accept an amoral utilitarian argument for abortion, but I’ve yet to find a moral humanistic one.

Sparks

The “and have never been so” is a new addition to your list of conditions.

I wanted to forestall the "what about a person in a coma on life-support" argument. The point was that once legal standing as a person is granted, it can't be revoked under any legal system I've ever heard of.

So, people in comas should be terminated and recycled?

*sigh*
See what I meant?

Ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty in such cases, for a moment, babies are arguably self-aware outside of the womb either, for some time.

If you meant "arguably not self-aware" then, yes, I agree with you. Until I see documented evidence that someone has a real memory of inside the womb that is.

However, there is evidence that foetuses are aware of pain and other stimuli. Perhaps they’re just tropisms?

Since fish have the same behaviours, I don't think that you can use those reactions as proof. Self-awareness is a seperate thing from having pain reactions.

I can accept an amoral utilitarian argument for abortion, but I’ve yet to find a moral humanistic one.

Other, I take it, than ectopic pregnancy?
Well, I refer you to James Watson's arguments on the matter then.

simu

Would you not agree that the circumstances are different? The dying man gives consent, the foetus is simply harvested bio-matter. One dies, the other is killed/terminated. One could equally make the same argument about the use of fat, gold teeth and skin of Jews in the death camps.

The issue of consent is irrelevant. I could also have made an analogy with taking sperm from a dead man but I've never heard of such a thing being done and I'm not sure if it's possible to do so. It's basically a question of finding material needed to produce a new human - you need two gametes - one from a male, one from a female. Once the material used is of good enough quality to produce a healthy baby (it would be unethical to create kids this way if you knew it was likely they would be less healthy than kids produced in the traditional manner), I don't see why the source of the material is such a problem. Aditionally, I'm amazed at how people make such a fuss about the "morality" of related technologies such as IVF treatment, freezing embryos etc that allow people who are desperate to have a child to do so but seem to care little that there are millions of children in the world suffering from starvation/AIDS/child abuse etc

You can't compare a foetus (bunch of cells) to Jews (human beings). Using dead bodies to produce goods is certainly unappealing but IMO while the torturing of Jews and other Nazi victims while alive was abhorrent, once a person is dead you can't violate them as they do not exist anymore. A cadaver is just material which will eventually be absorbed into the earth and put to other uses anyway.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I wanted to forestall the "what about a person in a coma on life-support" argument. The point was that once legal standing as a person is granted, it can't be revoked under any legal system I've ever heard of.

Sorry, and your point is? I’m sure it’s legal. I’m asking about the humanistic or moral viewpoint.

If you meant "arguably not self-aware" then, yes, I agree with you. Until I see documented evidence that someone has a real memory of inside the womb that is.

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing that one gives humans out the window then...

Since fish have the same behaviours, I don't think that you can use those reactions as proof. Self-awareness is a seperate thing from having pain reactions.

Last time I checked place does not share my DNA...

Other, I take it, than ectopic pregnancy?
Well, I refer you to James Watson's arguments on the matter then.

Fair enough, but frankly how many of these foetuses are likely to be that?

Originally posted by simu
You can't compare a foetus (bunch of cells) to Jews (human beings).

Hmmm... Tell me what is human then..? You’ve worked out what makes us that, so you should enlighten us...

Sparks

Sorry, and your point is? I’m sure it’s legal. I’m asking about the humanistic or moral viewpoint.

And my ethical viewpoint should be quite obvious - a person in a coma and needing life support may still recover. An aborted fetus cannot. Neither can someone who is brain dead. Therefore they should be treated as resources and harvested for whatever can be most useful. That's why I carry an organ donor card with all the boxes ticked and why I've made sure all those that know me know that I carry it and that I want to be harvested for usable organs in the event of my death.
(ie. This isn't an academic point to me, it's a very real one)

That whole innocent until proven guilty thing that one gives humans out the window then...

You're going to have to express that one better, I don't understand what you mean.

Last time I checked place does not share my DNA...

Assuming you mean plaice, you need to re-check. The amount of DNA you share with a plaice is really rather high.

Fair enough, but frankly how many of these foetuses are likely to be that?

Quite a small proportion, which is why I said "I refer you to the James Watson's arguments"...

Hmmm... Tell me what is human then..? You’ve worked out what makes us that, so you should enlighten us...

No, the question isn't "What is Human?" - that answer is any organism that is a member of the species "Homo Sapiens", and can be determined in the lab with DNA tests.
The question is "When does a foetus become a person" - and after sixty thousand years of our species existing, noone has yet come up with an answer that has any secular proof available. Best guess is some 6 to 9 months after birth - and that's a contraversial answer.
So the best legal definition at the moment is that a foetus has the legal status of person when it is capable of survival outside the womb, with or without medical support.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
The question is "When does a foetus become a person" - and after sixty thousand years of our species existing, noone has yet come up with an answer that has any secular proof available. Best guess is some 6 to 9 months after birth - and that's a contraversial answer.
So the best legal definition at the moment is that a foetus has the legal status of person when it is capable of survival outside the womb, with or without medical support.

Scientific or legal definitions of humanity have been wrong on a number of times before, though. Negroes were not ‘strictly’ human at one stage, and neither were quite a few other groups (not wanting to invoke Godwin's law, here) at various stages throughout history.

Pure logic would dictate that one must have rational proof before something is true. Unfortunately, when this proof involves the definition of humanity of a group in society, a more humane approach would argue that if unsure one should probably give the suspect human the benefit of the doubt - the whole innocent until proven guilty thing, that I alluded to earlier.

Thus the evidence we have is that we have a suspect human, to whom we may or may not ascribe rights, but only based upon a controversial (your word) ruling. When seen in the light of all the other times we (not-so-suspect humans) have defined humanity erroneously, one does have to step back and ask; “are we doing the right thing?”

Again, if viewed from a completely amoral utilitarian viewpoint, your arguments are valid. Actually, they’re unnecessary - whether the foetus is human or not is immaterial. But they would not be moral or humanistic. That’s all.

Falkorre

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Thus if one is not self-aware and self-sufficient, one should not have the legal status of a person. Makes you wonder why we bothered with holding the Special Olympics. We could have just rounded the contenders up and made a big salad...

Mmmm... Tastes like chicken... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
If you're not self-aware and self-sufficent and have never been so then yes, you don't have the legal status of a person. Those in the S.O. are both self-aware and self-sufficent. Self-sufficent in this case not meaning the ability to pay rent and cook food, but the ability for your body to live without external support.

I just dont believe HOW these attitudes can even exist in the year 2003!!!!!!
For gods sake,.... i can ASSURE you both, the athletes in the S.O. are not just sentient, independent individuals, capable of supporting themselves ant others independently, and yes, most of them both pay rent AND cook food, daily, and some even have their own houses! *gasp*
They work damned hard to get where they have gotten and for you to say what ur saying is an insult to they years of hard training they have put in!
A lot of these athletes live completely independent lives, why cant u see that?

I am a wheelchair user, born with spina bifida and hydrocephalus, epilepsy and asthma, i now also have MS,... am *I* a vegtable, i dont think so!! I have masters degrees in adult psych and behavioural sci. diplomas in healthcare, animal husbandry and horticulture, and more life experience than people half my age.
I also have an extrememly high IQ for anyone my age, so high in fact that i was put forward a few years in school, which is why i have achieved what i have by the age of 25!

tell me im a vegtable, pleeease, im just *waiting* for a valid chance.... have been for a long time.....

B

amp

Ok, we appear to be drifting off-topic. Back to foetus talk please.

simu

When does a human become a human?
I have no absolute answer to that question as such an answer does not exist.
IMO, the most pragmatic way to solve this is to assign a point in the foetus's development after which it recieves human rights.
This would be based on scientific issues such as brain development, development of the nervous system but, ultimately, it would be an arbitrary value.


This is perhaps not a satisfactory answer for many people as the idea of living in an indifferent universe where only humans themselves can decide on such issues can be frightening.
Then again, many things in nature exist as conituaa but the human brain likes to break these into discrete chunks as this makes them easier to process.


Aditionlly, attempting to find morals that hold true for all time and all possible circumstances is a luxury for those who cut themselves away from what is actually happening in the world as we speak. Circumstances change, it is not possible to act using a categorical imperative a la Kant - people tend to find themselves in muddled, complex situations where there is no glaringly obvious right and wrong and must act in whatever manner they see best at the time, even if they later realise that they have been mistaken.

mechanima

Ok let's take this back to foetii shall we?

Leaving aside the whole abortion debate, even if you are considered human from the moment of conception, once you are aborted you are considered DEAD.

A dead person cannot own property, and a body is property.

Under existing law, as soon as you are dead, however long you have been legally human, however you died, your body ceases to be your own property and becomes the property and responsibility of your next of kin, unless you have willed your body to another party.

The aborted foetus therefore is either determined human and the property of his parents, OR determined none human and still a body part and property of a living human being ie his mother.

THerefore, given the consent of the mother, or both parents the foetus, once aborted, can legally be used for any purpose. as long as that purpose does not present a biological hazard.

Morally, once life is extinguished, surely it is better that the remains are not wasted if such is possible?

Personally I would prefer to see research into the transplantation of unwanted foetii into the wombs of women unable to conceive...

Except, when you start to research these things, a real moral question arises...

What to do with the failures and partial successes? And what form will they take?

I am assuming that all the remarks in VERY poor taste about Special Olympians are the by-product of envy at what they have achieved.

My cousin had Down's Syndrome. She worked from the day she left school, in a mainstream job in a bakery, married and gave birth to a daughter after 5 miscarriages (due to an unrelated prolapsed womb)...

G

JustHalf

If my family die, am I legally permitted to eat them?

Please humour me here, I'm trying to make a point, but need a springboard.

amp

Ok, Dawntreader has created a thread where, if people want, they can talk about the issues disabled people face.

As fair as I can see, no one in this thread has said anything nasty about the Special Olympics or disabled people (not an opinion, an analysis of this thread). If you're going to complain about another poster then either quote the passage in question in a Pm to myself or another mod or use the Report feature.

So no more talk about the S.O or disabled people in this thread unless it's directly relevant to the original topic which is "when does a foetus become a human?".

No more warnings. Next off-topic breach gets it's poster a ban.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by simu
Circumstances change, it is not possible to act using a categorical imperative a la Kant - people tend to find themselves in muddled, complex situations where there is no glaringly obvious right and wrong and must act in whatever manner they see best at the time, even if they later realise that they have been mistaken.

We’re not discussing a spur of the moment value judgment, but a well thought out moral position. Either the foetus is human or it’s not. Either we can tell that it is or we can’t. And if we can’t then we are actively deciding that either it should receive the benefit of the doubt or not.

And so, if not, we are making a very specific decision to adopt a utilitarian approach. Crime could, for example, be dealt with far more effectively if we reversed the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” - some innocent’s would suffer, but one often has to sacrifice some of the healthy flesh as one cuts out the gangrenous. Your “pragmatic” approach is exactly that.

Now, I’m not going to say that either approach is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but I shall say that it would be amoral and inhumane to adopt the issue in such a premeditated utilitarian fashion.

Originally posted by mechanima
Morally, once life is extinguished, surely it is better that the remains are not wasted if such is possible?

That’s an ethical issue. If a lifesaving medicine was discovered as a result of a series of premeditated and lethal experiments on humans, is it ethical to use it? Would that not give credence to the means by which the medicine was developed? Does the end justify the means?

I am assuming that all the remarks in VERY poor taste about Special Olympians are the by-product of envy at what they have achieved.

Actually it was a comparison designed to create an emotive response so that people might look at the irony of treating a disadvantaged group with such cold-blooded brutality. Apparently the comparison only half worked.

amp

Seems Corinthian was writing the above while I was writing mine. Plus it also explains the use of Special Olympics.

Ok, from now on my previous post comes into effect...

mechanima

***
If my family die, am I legally permitted to eat them?
***

I think you'll find that is against health regulations. Wouldn't be legal (or a good idea) to eat a sheep that died in a field either...

But the crux of the matter is that you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to leave your OWN body for culinary purposes, EVEN if you are slaughtered in compliance with health and safety regulations governing meat.

Which means a dead foetus does not have any legal right to consent or refuse the matter of his own disposal anyway. Whether or not, prior to his demise, he were mentally and legally capable of so doing.

G

mechanima

Either the foetus is human or it’s not.

Legally and morally irrelevant once the foetus is aborted, ie DEAD. There is no legal ambiguity whatsoever on the ability of a dead foetus to give or withhold consent. Once it is dead it does not have that right, whether it was determined to be human or not prior to it's demise. Further, if the law determines the foetus has no right to give or withhold consent to it's demise it certainly cannot argue a right to give or withhold consent to it's further, post mortem, disposal.

The only legal ambiguity is in whether the dead foetus is human and the property of both parents or non-human and the sole property of the mother.

In this country the foetus is deemed human from the moment of conception, other countries are less definitive. However in this country an aborted foetus would be the victim of a felony in which the mother was compliant and it is unlikely she would be considered next of kin for the purpose of inheritance. Therefore the foetus would probably become the sole property of the father.


If a lifesaving medicine was discovered as a result of a series of premeditated and lethal experiments on humans, is it ethical to use it?

In my opinion it would be a considerable insult to the victims to treat their suffering and death with the contempt of wasting it.


Would that not give credence to the means by which the medicine was developed?

Why on earth would it?

Does the end justify the means.

What on earth has that got to do with anything when the "means" are a fait accompli? Surely that is an argument that only has worth BEFORE the fact? When the "means" can still be prevented?

In the case of aborted foetus that is not possible, for reasons unrelated to the projected use of the remains.

G

Typedef

Originally posted by simu
When does a human become a human?

Quite simply.

If you think a human is based on genetics (ie) the moment of conception is simply an embryonic stage of human development and life then 'harvesting' eggs is the plundering of a murdered individual.

If on the other hand you think that a foetus, can only be considered human, when said foetus could permissably survive outside the womb, then "harvesting" eggs before such an vetero extraciation time is, perhaps palletable.

Myself, I don't suffer from the delusion that outside survivability is the issue. The issue is that 'termination' has taken place, so the argument over the morality or other wise is defunct, all that remains is the argument that proports that potential abuse (getting pregnant to kill the foetus and sell it's stem-cells) to the higest bidder is, wrong.

Perhaps this argument would hold weight with the public and perhaps not. I'm sure whoever has the most money in the pro-Life pro-Choice (and/or pro-Harvest pro-NonHarvest) will win the media Kangaroo court on the topic and prevail.

Sparks

Then again, many things in nature exist as conituaa but the human brain likes to break these into discrete chunks as this makes them easier to process.

I think that it's the other way around - there are no continua but the human senses are a very, very long way from being able to discerne quantum effects, so we see continua.

If my family die, am I legally permitted to eat them?

Not in Ireland, unless you were in a situation where not to do so would mean your certain death. However, I can't think of any train of events that would leave you in such a situation in this country.
In some cultures, it's considered to be normal, or even respectful to eat your parents.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mechanima
Would that not give credence to the means by which the medicine was developed?

Why on earth would it?

Does the end justify the means.

What on earth has that got to do with anything when the "means" are a fait accompli? Surely that is an argument that only has worth BEFORE the fact? When the "means" can still be prevented?

In the case of aborted foetus that is not possible, for reasons unrelated to the projected use of the remains.

Certainly, in modern western culture, the ends cannot justify the means on a moral level. We are expressly taught that good cannot be achieved through evil acts and deeds. Now, while other cultures are generally more amenable to the principle of the end justifying the means, such as in the case of retribution or revenge, they also tend to shy away from accepting this on a more general level.

On a logical level, however, the argument for opposing the principle of the end justifying the means is straightforward, in so far as to support it, tacitly or otherwise, would encourage the proliferation of the means and legitimise their use.

In the example I gave previously if a lifesaving medicine was discovered as a result of a series of premeditated and lethal experiments on humans, to accept it would be to accept the means by which it was developed. And if one medicine could be developed that way, so could others.

Another interesting example can be found in the recent film “The Quiet American”; whereby the US actively supports terrorist atrocities designed to swing public opinion against the Vietnamese communists (I’m not going to comment on the historical accuracy of the film, it’s the example that is of importance). In a pivotal scene the US agent tells us “in the long run, I’m going to save lives”.

Now while you may argue that the foetuses are already dead, independent of the medical process produced, the same principle applies, as the end (helping infertile couples have children) cannot take place without the means (abortion). The former attempts to legitimise the latter, further adding to the dehumanisation of the process and acceptability of treating humans as commodities.

And if one accepts that the principle of abortion is morally wrong (as opposed to pragmatically right), then to profit from the fruits of such an act is also morally wrong, as it legitimises the principle act.

JustHalf

Another point to mention is that if we harvest material from aborted foetuses (which in turn helps to create / save lives) we will be less likely to ban abortion. An emotional (if retarded) argument will be made along the lines "how can you tell these poor infertile people that they can no longer have children by this means?". And people will listen because they feel sorry for the poor infertile couple.

This is of course irrelevant in Ireland (as abortion is far from widespread) but it is relevant in the countries which do practice abortion.

People rarely make great sacrifices for the greater good.

simu

None of these questions on genetic engineering, reproductive technologies ets are irrelevant to Ireland given our strong links with and dependencies on other countries. Thousands of Irish women have abortions in Britain every year so on a practical level, abortion is only banned for those who cannot afford to spend a weekend in London to get it done.

Nevyn

a weekend what makes you think it takes a weekend oh well.


There maybe a need for this type of research later but not on the grounds stated, ie to try havesrt protoova fron a fetus,
why simply becuase they have not yet set up a Egg donator system as in the usa.

over there is its possible if you are willing have a good gentic background to have 4 to 7 ova harvested to be used by infertile couples . There are many young ladies that have funded thier college education doing this , and they still have plenty of Ova left where they came from.

The matter will get more complex as tese children grow up and get told that " welll Mammy carried you in her womb ( or a surrogate did ) but gentically your not hers . But as long as theses kids have been inform that thier parent choose to have them and love them just like an adopted child.

There has been issues in the usa where a gentic doner who later could not have children tried to sue for custody of her gentic child.

but ireland has huge issues still with surrogates to carry a child to term never mind doner Ova.

simu

Well, you tell your family and friends you're going sightseeing and shopping for a weekend:(

I was alluding to the reluctance of Irish people to discuss these issues openly and the tendency to assume that all these ethical questions about reproduction don't really concern us.

mechanima

Now while you may argue that the foetuses are already dead, independent of the medical process produced, the same principle applies, as the end (helping infertile couples have children) cannot take place without the means (abortion). The former attempts to legitimise the latter, further adding to the dehumanisation of the process and acceptability of treating humans as commodities.

That argument could also be identically applied to organ transplants. Which cannot take place without the means (death without virus, toxin, infection or pathological deterioration) either...doesn't seem to tempt anyone to mass slaughter, outside of urban legend anyway...

And if one accepts that the principle of abortion is morally wrong

I never said I did...

then to profit from the fruits of such an act is also morally wrong, as it legitimises the principle act.

It would hardly legitimise the act of murder to use the heart for transplant, though, of course, it WOULD mess up the autopsy something brutal, and, in practice, cannot be done.

G

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mechanima
That argument could also be identically applied to organ transplants. Which cannot take place without the means (death without virus, toxin, infection or pathological deterioration) either...doesn't seem to tempt anyone to mass slaughter, outside of urban legend anyway...

However, would you not agree that the circumstances of death are radically different? With organ transplant they are incidental (accident, illness or murder), in abortion/foetal termination they are by design.

Is the practice of compulsory organ harvesting of executed prisoners in China moral? I would say that it may be practical or even expedient, but hardly moral.

I never said I did...

And I never said you, I or anyone else did. It wasn’t directed at you and I embolded the ‘if’ especially to express that I was not making any such assumption.

It would hardly legitimise the act of murder to use the heart for transplant, though, of course, it WOULD mess up the autopsy something brutal, and, in practice, cannot be done.

Following from my point on the circumstances of death above, the benefits gained from harvesting foetal organs would indeed lend legitimacy towards the practice of abortion. As JustHalf postulated, the argument of "how can you tell these poor infertile people that they can no longer have children by this means?" would start being used before long.

Sparks

TC,

Is the practice of compulsory organ harvesting of executed prisoners in China moral? I would say that it may be practical or even expedient, but hardly moral.

Oh, there's a moral tangle for you. What if the prisoner is a correctly convicted of multiple murders? Can saving several lives be justified in this manner?

Now me, I happen to think that the death penalty in and of itself is what we should be objecting to - the method seems rather irrelevant, as does what happens to the body afterwards.

JustHalf,

Another point to mention is that if we harvest material from aborted foetuses (which in turn helps to create / save lives) we will be less likely to ban abortion.

That implies that we would want to ban abortion - which is not only an idea that I have a very strong conviction against, but which is also a totally seperate debate.

Victor

Originally posted by Sparks
That implies that we would want to ban abortion - which is not only an idea that I have a very strong conviction against, but which is also a totally seperate debate.

Fair enough, (partly) separate debate, however this makes it easier to say "lets kill this foetus, so other people can have babies", which I would consider wrong.

Sparks

Fair enough, (partly) separate debate, however this makes it easier to say "lets kill this foetus, so other people can have babies", which I would consider wrong.

Frankly, I don't think that the pro-choice side of that fully seperate debate needs any more reasons than they have right now to make their case.

mechanima

With organ transplant they are incidental (accident, illness or murder), in abortion/foetal termination they are by design.

Rather like murder...which you just listed as "incidental" yourself, so where's the big difference...am I missing something here?

Nobody is suggesting that embryos are created SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of abortion and cell harvesting are they?

Abortions are almost invaribly performed on the mother's health and/or socio-economic grounds and would thus be incidental to cell harvesting.

(Incidentally, there are few, if any illnessess that leave organs practically suitable for transplant).

Is the practice of compulsory organ harvesting of executed prisoners in China moral?

Absolutely!

By Native American standards it would be almost morally mandatory

I would say that it may be practical or even expedient, but hardly moral.

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning...I am sure the average Chinese felon, with even a shred of decency, given that (just or unjust) his execution was inevitable, would prefer to take the opportunity to give life to others, I would...

In this enlightened age, surely the only moral questions hang over the act of killing itself, rather than the disposal of the remains?

How would you feel about harvested cells from a miscarried foetus?

G

mechanima

---

Fair enough, (partly) separate debate, however this makes it easier to say "lets kill this foetus, so other people can have babies", which I would consider wrong.

---

Frankly, I don't think that the pro-choice side of that fully seperate debate needs any more reasons than they have right now to make their case.

Of course, in real terms, for the pro-choice lobby use of that particular argument would constitute "How to lose a referendum 101" in any western country...

G

Victor

Originally posted by mechanima
It would hardly legitimise the act of murder to use the heart for transplant, though, of course, it WOULD mess up the autopsy something brutal, and, in practice, cannot be done.

It is highly unlikely that a transplant would result from a murder, but more importantly due to the relationship between victim / donor, doctor and recipient being quite different between abortion and murder (certainly in the legal sense, if not morally), then murder is not, to quote "such an act".

Originally posted by The Corinthian
And if one accepts that the principle of abortion is morally wrong (as opposed to pragmatically right), then to profit from the fruits of such an act is also morally wrong, as it legitimises the principle act.

There are instances where it is moral, indeed morally imperative, to benefit from another's wrongdoing. For example, corpses are used to create "body farms" to teach coroners, forensic scientists and similar disciplines. While such bodies would more likely be caused by natural or non-criminal incidents, such deaths may not necessarily be completely free from wrongdoing (road traffic fatalities, accident victims, etc.). There must be a huge separation between the wrongdoing and any subsequent actions and motives for the subsequent actions to be right. In the harvesting of ova / proto-ova, I don’t think that separation exists.

mechanima

There must be a huge separation between the wrongdoing and any subsequent actions and motives for the subsequent actions to be right. In the harvesting of ova / proto-ova, I don’t think that separation exists.

Why don't you think it exists?

Where do you see the difference with "body farms" etc?

These are not rhetorical questions, I should like to understand your point.

G

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Oh, there's a moral tangle for you. What if the prisoner is a correctly convicted of multiple murders? Can saving several lives be justified in this manner?

That is the point of this debate.

Now me, I happen to think that the death penalty in and of itself is what we should be objecting to - the method seems rather irrelevant, as does what happens to the body afterwards.

Ah, but would the good that would come from the organ harvesting of executed prisoners not promote capital punishment? Give people another good reason to support the death penalty. Debates are often won on the basis of weighing up the pros and cons, after all.

Sparks

TC,

That is the point of this debate.

If you mean specifically what I said, then no, that's not the topic of this thread. If you meant that that's what you were referring to, I wasn't disagreeing, I was merely commenting.

Ah, but would the good that would come from the organ harvesting of executed prisoners not promote capital punishment? Give people another good reason to support the death penalty. Debates are often won on the basis of weighing up the pros and cons, after all.

Which is one of the main reasons that the death penalty has to be considered without considering anything else, like the method of execution used or what happens to the body afterwards. The route you're pointing at was pretty well covered by Larry Niven's fictional predictions on the subject. Basicly, it's a bad idea - if you associate a reward for society with a successful death penalty conviction and execution, then, given time, you wind up applying the death penalty to pretty much every crime (down to traffic offences in Niven's take on things).

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Which is one of the main reasons that the death penalty has to be considered without considering anything else, like the method of execution used or what happens to the body afterwards. The route you're pointing at was pretty well covered by Larry Niven's fictional predictions on the subject. Basicly, it's a bad idea - if you associate a reward for society with a successful death penalty conviction and execution, then, given time, you wind up applying the death penalty to pretty much every crime (down to traffic offences in Niven's take on things).

Now while you may think that abortion is justified, consider (just theoretically) that you may be wrong. Would a similar argument to the one Niven postulated for not also apply for the death penalty? And while you might feel that the death penalty has to be considered without considering anything else, would the hoi polloi concur with you?

Sparks

Would a similar argument to the one Niven postulated for not also apply for the death penalty?

No, it wouldn't. Niven postulated that our entire judicial system would be comprimised in an effort to execute sufficent people to have a steady supply of organs. In other words, ordinary people whose legal status as people was not in any question would be executed and our concept of rehabilitation of offenders would be effectively discarded. He postulated that this would happen because the supply of organs is small and limited, and the demand is very high, relatively speaking.

Frankly, I can't see that Niven's argument can be applied here. The number of abortions that happened this week (approximately 28,000) is about sufficent to supply the needs of IVF treatment for the next year (approximately 30,000. (Figures for the US). No supply/demand problem, therefore no motive to push for more abortions.

And while you might feel that the death penalty has to be considered without considering anything else, would the hoi polloi concur with you?

It wouldn't matter - apart from the argument that the number of people who believe something is true has nothing to do with the truth of what they believe in, there's the fact that I have a social duty to form my own opinion irregardless of the opinions of the rest of society.

mechanima

As a matter of fact the application of the death penalty steadily decreased since the 18th century. At which time the resulting corpses ceased to be hung upon gibbets as a deterrent and were, instead, gifted to medical establishments for the more useful purpose of dissection...

Eventually, in more enlightened times, even being executed in private.

Of course there is an ancient tradition regarding the "utility" of the executed from the prized "hand of glory" to the extraordinary curative powers a man's touch was thought to possess by vitue being dead and hung upon a gibbet...

In spite of it all, execution steadily decreased from being an all purpose sanction (the Romans could not even conceive of imprisonment as punishment, they thought it unbearably cruel) to being the barbaric province of the USA and China that it is today.

Interesting to note that several people on death row have protested lethal injection as it prevents their organs from being used in transplantation.

The Chinese also bill the deceased's family for the bullet used to kill him.

G

Victor

Originally posted by Victor
There must be a huge separation between the wrongdoing and any subsequent actions and motives for the subsequent actions to be right. In the harvesting of ova / proto-ova, I don’t think that separation exists.

Originally posted by mechanima
Why don't you think it exists? Where do you see the difference with "body farms" etc?

Originally posted by mechanima
Rather like murder...which you just listed as "incidental" yourself, so where's the big difference...am I missing something here?

There is typically much greater separation between the murderer and the transplant recipient.

A transplant recipient does not go around “hoping” someone will die traumatically (as is typically the case with transplant donors – few die in their sleep) to give them a kidney and save them 20 hours dialysis a week. Yes, they will be grateful for receipt of such a kidney (despite it’s no doubt tragic origins), but they won’t go out proactively shooting people (well those with kidney donor cards and the right blood group).

The objective of a body farm is to train coroners, pathologists and forensic scientists, so as to detect / solve other murders and other types of premature death and hence prevent these deaths in future. The objective is purely to save other lives. I don’t really see pathologists hoping to see another criminal who has had the back of his head blown off, just so he can get the overtime and afford his yacht club fees.

In the case of the abortion / harvesting, so as to provide these ova / proto-ova to recipients, they will be actively seeking out aborted foetuses, which in itself could create a (commercial) demand for aborted foetuses and hence commercial abortions. No doubt there could be demand for designer babies (as the recent case in the UK) where to create a child of certain characteristics there is a repeated chain of IVF and abortions, until they get it “right”. While this will sometimes be done to create donors (like the recent case in the UK – for bone marrow for his brother), sometimes it would be done to get the “best” possible baby. Godwin’s Law aside, no doubt Josef Mengele would have been interested in the work to create the Übermann.

To put is crudely, the doctor in the abortion / harvesting scenario would be getting two fees (one for doing the abortion and one for supplying the ova / proto-ova) for his work and this will, at some level, hinder his objectiveness.

Originally posted by mechanima
Nobody is suggesting that embryos are created SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of abortion and cell harvesting are they?

Well they are suggesting having children of a mother that was never born – who will be the legal parent? Children with grandparents, but no parents. Children with no parents to have a medical history from. People (I am deliberately slow to use the word women) already have children to give away (for economic reasons – but they will claims “expenses only” were paid) some people will do anything for money (or make others do them), so why not have an abortion to harvest eggs? Where does one draw the line? Now and in five, ten or fifty years?

Originally posted by mechanima
Abortions are almost invaribly performed on the mother's health

Generally this is not considered abortion. In clinical terminology abortion is when then objective is to kill the foetus, nothing else. The number of cases where the foetus is removed to save a mother is minimal.

Originally posted by mechanima
and/or socio-economic grounds and would thus be incidental to cell harvesting.

Then something needs to be done about the reasons behind the socio-economic reasons – society’s condemnation of single mothers, the tarnishing of reputations for being pregnant outside wedlock (whether the woman is single or had an extra-marital affair), the economic dependence of women on men and many mens’ failure to play their part in raising children. For mens’ use of women as prostitutes. And then there is the convenience / fashion reasons (“having a baby now would ruin my figure”).

Originally posted by mechanima
(Incidentally, there are few, if any illnessess that leave organs practically suitable for transplant).

Will say heart disease (whatever about infections, diabetes and cancers) prevent a kidney from being transplanted? http://www.cso.ie/principalstats/pristat7.html

Is the practice of compulsory organ harvesting of executed prisoners in China moral?

Originally posted by mechanima
Absolutely!

Especially when the judge can get a cut of the transplant fee. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mechanima
How would you feel about harvested cells from a miscarried foetus?[/B]

You would have to ask why there was a miscarriage. If it was following a trauma to the mother (say, car accident), then some but not all of the reasons are avoided (you still have to deal with a parentless baby).

However, if the miscarriage was natural (as in the case of female foetuses with haemophilia), then there are new arguments against harvesting as the ova / proto-ova would likely have the same genetic defects that caused the miscarriage in the first place.

Biffa Bacon

The anyone could consider such an outrage acceptable is indicative of the moral sewer into which we have sunk.

Abortion is immoral and should be outlawed.
IVF is immoral and should be outlawed.

Harvesting eggs from aborted foetuses? Sick beyond words.

Sparks

Biffa, you just ran right over where my personal line is drawn.

The anyone could consider such an outrage acceptable is indicative of the moral sewer into which we have sunk.

The debate was: is this acceptable or not. Claiming that "it just is" is not a contribution to the debate.

Abortion is immoral and should be outlawed.
IVF is immoral and should be outlawed.

If you're a woman Biffa, you have the right to decide that you will never have IVF or an abortion. If you're male, you've got no right whatsoever to make either of those decisions.
And whatever your sex, you have no right whatsoever to decide on the morality of what another human does to or with their own bodies.
So kindly shove it.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Sparks
And whatever your sex, you have no right whatsoever to decide on the morality of what another human does to or with their own bodies.

I'm afraid I do, if their actions impact adversely on anyone else.

mechanima

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sparks
And whatever your sex, you have no right whatsoever to decide on the morality of what another human does to or with their own bodies.

---

I'm afraid I do, if their actions impact adversely on anyone else.

And we get to the crux of your argument here, your stated assumption of a "right" to determine the choices of others, in a situation where you are also the sole /determinant of "adversity to others".

However, abusive control not the topic here either, so I will say no more, except that if you wish to discuss the ethics of abortion you are at liberty to start another thread.

G

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The anyone could consider such an outrage acceptable is indicative of the moral sewer into which we have sunk.

Abortion is immoral and should be outlawed.
IVF is immoral and should be outlawed.

Harvesting eggs from aborted foetuses? Sick beyond words.

There goes the neighbourhood :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Sparks
If you're male, you've got no right whatsoever to make either of those decisions.
And whatever your sex, you have no right whatsoever to decide on the morality of what another human does to or with their own bodies.
So kindly shove it.

Well excuse me for being a penis-wielding oppressor...

At the core of the debate on abortion is the definition of humanity. Clearly you do not view the foetus as human, however in your ideologically driven para-religious zeal to promote the Right To Choose TM, you neglect to consider that this view may be erroneous. Science has ‘proven’ that various groups were not strictly human on numerous occasions, throughout history. Yet somehow, has science has gotten it right this time round?

And if science is off the mark again, then you are in effect condoning the right of one human to significantly affect the body of another. And the other party affected is as likely to be male as it is to be female.

Yet, even if you were right about the status of the foetus, you are in one fell swoop denying half of the population their own reproductive rights? Not only that but absolving them of any responsibility for their part in the reproductive process; “not my problem, it’s her choice”.

You may be ashamed of being a man, but I’m not. So I frankly find your opinion offensive.