Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Abortion debate thread

1…2829313334…59

Comments

  • #902
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    This is a separate issue to the frozen embryo situation ...
    ... with a foetus we have what looks and behaves substantially like a newborn Human baby ... that most definitely isn't in suspended animation ... and a medical abortion does indeed involve it having a medically induced death.
    Yes. They points about back street abortion and zygotes in the freezer are separate. Things are going to get very confusing if we inter twin them.


  • #903
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    How could tell the difference between a dead zygote in the freezer and a zygote that was alive in the freezer?
    They're usually cryopreserved at the embryo (i.e. multicellular stage) ... and not the zygote (single cell stage).

    I think you would need to thaw out the embryo first ... and look to see if it recommences cell division ... or simply place it in the uterus ... and see if it implants.

    ... and your point is?


  • #904
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    They're usually cryopreserved at the embryo (i.e. multicellular stage) ... and not the zygote (single cell stage).

    I think you would need to thaw out the embryo first ... and look to see if it recommences cell division ... or simply place it in the uterus ... and see if it implants.

    ... and your point is?
    If you cannot differentiate between a dead frozen embryo and an alive frozen embryo when they are frozen you cannot say if the embryo is dead or alive when it is frozen.

    Q.e.d.


  • #905
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you cannot differentiate between a dead frozen embryo and an alive frozen embryo when they are frozen you cannot say if the embryo is dead or alive when it is frozen.

    Q.e.d.
    ... Not knowing is no moral or legal defense - when you take it upon yourself to put other peoples' lives at risk, by what you do.

    They are all alive when frozen ... but the freezing process can kill or injure some of them (even with the best cryoprotectants) ... yet another reason to not be producing or freezing them, in the first place.

    No matter how 'you cut this' it is deeply morally flawed.

    Certain forms of assisted Human Reproduction creates 'orphan embryos' that are 'surplus' to requirements ... and the production and harvesting of embryonic stem cells by producing and killing Human Embryos is also deeply morally flawed, especially when embryonic stem cells can be legitimately and ethically recovered from umbilical chord blood.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7864-cord-blood-yields-ethical-embryonic-stem-cells.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120117144332.htm


  • #906
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    By that regard JC, surely the process of IVF is as immoral to you as abortion? Embryo selection prior to implantation results in embryos being destroyed. Do you wish to ban IVF as well, or do you hold double standards about the death of embryos? A straight yes or no should clear that up for me.


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    publicious
    Site Banned Posts: 131 ✭✭publicious


    Obliq wrote: »
    By that regard JC, surely the process of IVF is as immoral to you as abortion? Embryo selection prior to implantation results in embryos being destroyed. Do you wish to ban IVF as well, or do you hold double standards about the death of embryos? A straight yes or no should clear that up for me.

    Surely you know that catholics are against IVF?


  • #908
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    By that regard JC, surely the process of IVF is as immoral to you as abortion? Embryo selection prior to implantation results in embryos being destroyed. Do you wish to ban IVF as well, or do you hold double standards about the death of embryos? A straight yes or no should clear that up for me.
    You are now entering highly complex and controversial legal and ethical territory that largely hasn't still been settled yet, all over the world.

    Here is a flavour of some of the ethical and legal issues involved.
    http://www.peh-med.com/content/4/1/8
    Quote:-
    "The development of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a treatment for human infertilty was among the most controversial medical achievements of the modern era. In Ireland, the fate and status of supranumary (non-transferred) embryos derived from IVF brings challenges both for clinical practice and public health policy because there is no judicial or legislative framework in place to address the medical, scientific, or ethical uncertainties. "

    Selecting Human embryos and deliberately killing the ones that aren't implanted is deeply morally wrong.
    Indeed, in Ireland this could also be legally problematical, due to the apparent absolute protection afforded 'the unborn' in the Constitution (where a mothers life isn't in danger) ... and an attempt was made in the 25th Amendment (which was defeated in 2002) to define abortion as the destruction of unborn life after implantation in the womb ... thereby potentially removing constitutional protection from unborn embryos that aren't implanted ... which could include those created in vitro ... such as for IVF.
    The fact that this Amendment was defeated means that Constitutional protection would appear to continue for all Human Unborn in Ireland including embryos produced in vitro ... but it could take a court case to clarify this point.


  • #909
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    publicious wrote: »
    Surely you know that catholics are against IVF?
    Roman Catholics ... and a lot more people besides, have serious ethical and moral questions about aspects of IVF.

    Saved Christians have moral issues with IVF procedures involving the production of 'surplus' embryos ... but the basic principle of producing an in vitro fertilised embryo using a couple's egg and sperm and implanting it, doesn't raise any particular moral issues ... as it remains in line with the basic principle of the Sixth Commandment for no deliberately killing.

    IVF however, is often the starting point for other morally and ethically questionable actions such as surgical sperm removal, the use of eggs or sperm from parties outside the marriage, including anonymous donation, the use of a dead person's frozen sperm, eggs or embryo, Human Cloning, the production of Human/Animal Chimeras ... and a whole host of issues too numerous to itemise.
    The development of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a treatment for human infertilty is indeed among the most controversial medical achievements of the modern era. Like all powerful technologies, it has the potential for good ... but also enormous harm.
    IVF and its sister technologies can breach the principle of the extraordinary use of technology to the point of removing Human Dignity ... and just like there can be a moral requirement to simply switch off life support machines and allow somebody to die with dignity ... there also can be a moral requirement to not go to such extraordinary lengths to produce a child, that serious moral imperatives about the dignity and lives of others are compromised in the process.


  • #910
    totus tuus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 375 ✭✭totus tuus


    Yes, IVF is condemned by the CC.

    http://old.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/98rlphaa.shtml


  • #911
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    J C wrote: »
    You are now entering highly complex and controversial legal and ethical territory that largely hasn't still been settled yet, all over the world.

    Here is a flavour of some of the ethical and legal issues involved.
    http://www.peh-med.com/content/4/1/8
    Quote:-
    "The development of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a treatment for human infertilty was among the most controversial medical achievements of the modern era. In Ireland, the fate and status of supranumary (non-transferred) embryos derived from IVF brings challenges both for clinical practice and public health policy because there is no judicial or legislative framework in place to address the medical, scientific, or ethical uncertainties. "

    Selecting Human embryos and deliberately killing the ones that aren't implanted is deeply morally wrong.
    Indeed, in Ireland this could also be legally problematical, due to the apparent absolute protection afforded 'the unborn' in the Constitution (where a mothers life isn't in danger) ... and an attempt was made in the 25th Amendment (which was defeated in 2002) to define abortion as the destruction of unborn life after implantation in the womb ... thereby potentially removing constitutional protection from unborn embryos that aren't implanted ... which could include those created in vitro ... such as for IVF.
    The fact that this Amendment was defeated means that Constitutional protection would appear to continue for all Human Unborn in Ireland including embryos produced in vitro ... but it could take a court case to clarify this point.
    Good points. The pro life should be telling us to stop ivf. At least you are consistent.


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    totus tuus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 375 ✭✭totus tuus


    I opted for adoption over IVF and I am so happy that I did, never will I regret it! :)


  • #913
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    publicious wrote: »
    Surely you know that catholics are against IVF?

    Nope. Didn't know that. It's not as heavily publicised as the catholic stance on abortion.


  • #914
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Obliq wrote: »

    Nope. Didn't know that. It's not as heavily publicised as the catholic stance on abortion.
    Of course not. It is the same with the pro life organisations. They know if they did that they d loose traction in the middle ground so instead engage in sophistry about suicide.


  • #915
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Of course not. It is the same with the pro life organisations. They know if they did that they d loose traction in the middle ground so instead engage in sophistry about suicide.

    Yes, I knew that really. I think it's incredibly disingenuous of the "pro-life" side to avoid this issue, and it's for exactly those reasons IMO. There are so many Catholics who are trying for a baby using IVF and managing to come to their own moral conclusions about it. If they were told that trying for their wanted baby isn't morally acceptable due to the deaths of many (unwanted) embroyos, I firmly believe that the church would have a hard time keeping them on the "pro-life" wagon. After all, it can be no more morally incorrect to kill one unwanted embryo through abortion as it is to kill one through "embryo selection" during IVF.

    How about the Catholic Church hierarchy coming out with this notion just as strongly as they disapprove of abortion? Don't be shy Bishops - tell it as you see it - and then see what happens with public opinion.......;)

    I can't seem to find any accurate numbers for children born through IVF in Ireland each year, but this article has some stats:
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/ivf-in-ireland-a-booming-industry-2967220.html
    "Up to 3,000 babies are born in Ireland each year as a result of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and other high-tech interventions."

    At a conservative guess, say 1,500 of these per year are from embryo implantation. For each successful birth, I wonder how many embryos died? I'll bet my bottom dollar that the numbers of dead embryos beat the 4,500 abortions that Irish women choose to have each year.

    The Catholic Church is seriously guilty of double standards in choosing only to publicly target abortions as being morally wrong.


  • #916
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    Yes, I knew that really. I think it's incredibly disingenuous of the "pro-life" side to avoid this issue, and it's for exactly those reasons IMO. There are so many Catholics who are trying for a baby using IVF and managing to come to their own moral conclusions about it. If they were told that trying for their wanted baby isn't morally acceptable due to the deaths of many (unwanted) embroyos, I firmly believe that the church would have a hard time keeping them on the "pro-life" wagon. After all, it can be no more morally incorrect to kill one unwanted embryo through abortion as it is to kill one through "embryo selection" during IVF.

    How about the Catholic Church hierarchy coming out with this notion just as strongly as they disapprove of abortion? Don't be shy Bishops - tell it as you see it - and then see what happens with public opinion.......;)

    I can't seem to find any accurate numbers for children born through IVF in Ireland each year, but this article has some stats:
    http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/parenting/ivf-in-ireland-a-booming-industry-2967220.html
    "Up to 3,000 babies are born in Ireland each year as a result of In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) and other high-tech interventions."

    At a conservative guess, say 1,500 of these per year are from embryo implantation. For each successful birth, I wonder how many embryos died? I'll bet my bottom dollar that the numbers of dead embryos beat the 4,500 abortions that Irish women choose to have each year.

    The Catholic Church is seriously guilty of double standards in choosing only to publicly target abortions as being morally wrong.
    I can't speak for the Roman Catholic Church ... but I can confirm that Pro-life people (of all religions and none) are very seriously concerned about the potential for unethical and immoral activity in the area of assisted human reproduction and scientific experimentation on Human embryos and the trade in aborted foetal body parts.
    The potential for gross evil ranges from doctors using their own sperm to inseminate women attending their clinics to experiments being carried out on live aborted foetuses and their tissue ... to the production of human-animal chimeras and Human Cloning ... and the potential for hundreds of other 'hair-raising' activities.
    The abortion issue, although quite horrific in itself, may indeed be the least of the worries of the pro-life movement, in the long term.

    ... and concerns over this activity aren't unique to the pro-life movement in Ireland ... here is what British politician Lord Alton told Parliament: "I argued ... against the creation of human- animal hybrids as a matter of principle. None of the scientists who appeared before us could give us any justification in terms of treatment. Ethically it can never be justifiable – it discredits us as a country. It is dabbling in the grotesque. At every stage the justification from scientists has been: if only you allow us to do this, we will find cures for every illness known to mankind. This is emotional blackmail."

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scientists-creating-human-animal-hybrid-embryos-2011-7#ixzz2GXW4HTbk

    The Ohio Senate passed Senate Bill 243, which prohibits "the creation, transportation, or receipt of a human-animal hybrid, the transfer of a nonhuman embryo into a human womb, and the transfer of a human embryo into a nonhuman womb."
    Anyone who violates the new law could spend five years in prison and face up to a quarter million dollars in fines. Other states, including Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Arizona have also banned research into chimeras.

    Here is what a blogger, who isn't a pro-life advocate ... but who couldn't stomach this stuff any more had to say:-
    "I left genetics for this very reason - people playing God. Why do we think we are special - animals are ethical. We are not. Can we not use our resources to clean up the planet before it cleans us up!? There is no word for how awful all this is and why indeed do we need all this testing to cure - there is no boundary any more and these cures will always be for the very wealthy and not for people who are ordinary."


  • #917
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    J C wrote: »
    I can't speak for the Roman Catholic Church ... but I can confirm that Pro-life people (of all religions and none) are very seriously concerned about the potential for unethical and immoral activity in the area of assisted human reproduction and scientific experimentation on Human embryos and the trade in aborted foetal body parts.

    It doesn't show concern JC. I can't confirm that, as I have seen NO protests about it by the "pro-life" movement, either on the streets or outside fertility clinics - I have seen NO billboards saying that IVF is never the answer - I have seen NO reports of priests wheeling people into mass who regret the embryos they let be killed for having IVF - I have seen NO bishops coming together to express their moral outrage about it - I have seen NO political lobbying by the "pro-life" community to ban IVF on this basis.

    My comment that this represents double standards still stands, as does my theory that the "pro-life" side would loose much support if it did come out just as strongly about the morality of killing embryos through IVF as it does about the morality of abortion.


  • #918
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... and it's not just Christians who are pro-life ... here is a secular site discussing similar issues to this thread ... and reaching many of the same conclusions as I have.
    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/08/ivf-and-motivations.html

    In a lot of ways, the issues surrounding Human Life are issues of our common Humanity ... and should be of the same concern to a Humanist as to a Christian.
    You could even argue that they should be of greater concern to an Atheist, who believes that this life is all there is ... so deliberately ending this life needlessly, should possibly be an even greater concern for them.


  • #919
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Can you justify the double-standards of "pro-life" outrage that I've been talking about JC? Considering that there are probably more embryos being destroyed through the IVF procedures than through abortion every year.


  • #920
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    From an ethical standpoint, many pro-life people would see a considerable difference between an embryo in a frozen state or in a test tube, and a fetus which could be several weeks or months old which is in a more advanced state of development. I certainly would, while there may be question marks as regards IVF, there is a world of different ways compared to terminating a pregnancy at 16 weeks - to me, anyway.

    As to why a bigger fuss isn't kicked up over IVF, I think there is a degree of cynical self-interest involved. Most of us know ow people who have trouble conceiving or may fear that it will be a problem for us. Infertility hits a lot closer to most homes than abortion does (or at least, many who undergo a termination remain quiet about it). It's a lot easier to be dogmatic about sins which we ourselves are unlikely to face - just witness the divorce rate among many on the religious right who are most up in arms over gay marriage! But then I'm the cynical type...


  • #921
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    From an ethical standpoint, many pro-life people would see a considerable difference between an embryo in a frozen state or in a test tube, and a fetus which could be several weeks or months old which is in a more advanced state of development. I certainly would, while there may be question marks as regards IVF, there is a world of different ways compared to terminating a pregnancy at 16 weeks - to me, anyway.

    As to why a bigger fuss isn't kicked up over IVF, I think there is a degree of cynical self-interest involved. Most of us know ow people who have trouble conceiving or may fear that it will be a problem for us. Infertility hits a lot closer to most homes than abortion does (or at least, many who undergo a termination remain quiet about it). It's a lot easier to be dogmatic about sins which we ourselves are unlikely to face - just witness the divorce rate among many on the religious right who are most up in arms over gay marriage! But then I'm the cynical type...

    Well Benny, from the argument consistently posted up here that life begins at conception and that it doesn't make any bit of difference whether the embryo is a week old or 9 weeks old, it's still a sin to destroy it, you appear to be saying that argument doesn't hold water (to you). I too see a world of difference between abortion at 9 weeks and at 16, but apparently, I am just as immoral to find either of them acceptable. As you know, the vast majority of abortions occur before 9 weeks. Irish women's abortions are statistically more likely to be later because of the (financial, etc.) difficulties of travel abroad.

    Are you actually saying that you believe life becomes more precious as it develops? Because that would seem to fly in the face of the general "pro-life" opinion.

    I am talking about embryo selection btw, when the embryos that might not have grown well enough are not kept (ie. destroyed) and the ones that are potentially strong enough are used/kept. Implanted ones obviously have a certain success rate, so the left over embryos are the ones that remain in suspended animation. The deselected ones are destroyed, to my knowledge.

    Indeed, in your second paragraph, you support my argument about double standards. I know a couple who have tried IVF - many of us do. It would be very hard for "pro-lifers" to condemn them for trying to conceive, even though embryos are killed in the process. It is NOT so hard to condemn women for aborting unwanted embryos through abortion - I think you are right - we ALL know someone who has had IVF/an abortion, but we don't know who had the abortion due to the stigma that is attached to that by the "pro-lifers". I find it appalling that only women in such distress are targeted by the campaign and not women undergoing IVF, and probably just because it is easier to condemn a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant than to condemn one who does - even though the outcome of dead embryos is the same.

    IMO it shows the massive flaw in the "pro-life" argument. IMO it is more about condemning women for taking a choice not to be pregnant, than concern for the life of the embryo. Why else the double standards in the aggressive and focused campaign against abortion and not against IVF?


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Obliq wrote: »
    Well Benny, from the argument consistently posted up here that life begins at conception and that it doesn't make any bit of difference whether the embryo is a week old or 9 weeks old, it's still a sin to destroy it, you appear to be saying that argument doesn't hold water (to you). I too see a world of difference between abortion at 9 weeks and at 16, but apparently, I am just as immoral to find either of them acceptable. As you know, the vast majority of abortions occur before 9 weeks. Irish women's abortions are statistically more likely to be later because of the (financial, etc.) difficulties of travel abroad.

    Are you actually saying that you believe life becomes more precious as it develops? Because that would seem to fly in the face of the general "pro-life" opinion.

    I would put it like this - that abortion becomes even less acceptable as pregnancy develops (and as the foetus develops). Just to clarify - I'd view all abortion as wrong unless it is to protect the life of the mother.

    I'd always considered that pregnancy began with implantation, whereas conception was part of the process leading to pregnancy, and that indeed many fertilised eggs don't result in pregnancy. So termination of a pregnancy and IVF are two different things. That's my view anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.
    Obliq wrote: »
    I am talking about embryo selection btw, when the embryos that might not have grown well enough are not kept (ie. destroyed) and the ones that are potentially strong enough are used/kept. Implanted ones obviously have a certain success rate, so the left over embryos are the ones that remain in suspended animation. The deselected ones are destroyed, to my knowledge.

    Indeed, in your second paragraph, you support my argument about double standards. I know a couple who have tried IVF - many of us do. It would be very hard for "pro-lifers" to condemn them for trying to conceive, even though embryos are killed in the process. It is NOT so hard to condemn women for aborting unwanted embryos through abortion - I think you are right - we ALL know someone who has had IVF/an abortion, but we don't know who had the abortion due to the stigma that is attached to that by the "pro-lifers". I find it appalling that only women in such distress are targeted by the campaign and not women undergoing IVF, and probably just because it is easier to condemn a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant than to condemn one who does - even though the outcome of dead embryos is the same.

    IMO it shows the massive flaw in the "pro-life" argument. IMO it is more about condemning women for taking a choice not to be pregnant, than concern for the life of the embryo. Why else the double standards in the aggressive and focused campaign against abortion and not against IVF?

    If someone views abortion and IVF as being the same thing, morally, then it would be a double standard. That's not to say that it is a flaw in the argument against abortion, but a lot of people involved in the pro-life campaign groups should look at the tactics that they use to get their message across. And they may need to re-evaluate their stance on IVF.


  • #923
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I would put it like this - that abortion becomes even less acceptable as pregnancy develops (and as the foetus develops). Just to clarify - I'd view all abortion as wrong unless it is to protect the life of the mother.

    I'd always considered that pregnancy began with implantation, whereas conception was part of the process leading to pregnancy, and that indeed many fertilised eggs don't result in pregnancy. So termination of a pregnancy and IVF are two different things. That's my view anyway, I can't speak for anyone else.

    Since your view differs from most pro-life supporters, I can agree with you that abortion and IVF are two different things. I also agree that abortion becomes less acceptable as pregnancy develops, but I disagree with it being wrong (at an early stage) unless to protect the life of the mother (I assume you mean a direct threat to the mother in the form of death, because I view a threat to the mother's life as including carrying out a pregnancy against her will).
    If someone views abortion and IVF as being the same thing, morally, then it would be a double standard. That's not to say that it is a flaw in the argument against abortion, but a lot of people involved in the pro-life campaign groups should look at the tactics that they use to get their message across. And they may need to re-evaluate their stance on IVF.

    I agree with your comment here, but would like to clarify it by adding some words: "If someone views the death of embryos during abortion and IVF as being the same thing, morally, then it would be a double standard". Yes, of course it is a double standard not to target IVF in the same way, if one believes that life begins at conception, and I agree with your comment that they should look at their tactics. The "pro-life" campaign tactics are incredibly triggering and upsetting - and the Catholic Church is discriminating by pointing the finger far more publicly at women who don't want to be pregnant and not at women who do and avail of IVF, when clearly both result in the death of embryos.


  • #924
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    It doesn't show concern JC. I can't confirm that, as I have seen NO protests about it by the "pro-life" movement, either on the streets or outside fertility clinics - I have seen NO billboards saying that IVF is never the answer - I have seen NO reports of priests wheeling people into mass who regret the embryos they let be killed for having IVF - I have seen NO bishops coming together to express their moral outrage about it - I have seen NO political lobbying by the "pro-life" community to ban IVF on this basis.

    My comment that this represents double standards still stands, as does my theory that the "pro-life" side would loose much support if it did come out just as strongly about the morality of killing embryos through IVF as it does about the morality of abortion.
    It could go the other way too ... if people were to realise that producing an IVF child could involve the deliberate killing of several other unborn children. It could also affect adult IVF children themselves, who might start suffering 'survivor guilt' complexes and other psychological problems because of the way in which they had been conceived.

    IVF and other scientific uses of Human Embryos are starting to come up on the pro-life 'radar'.
    As awareness increases ... people will become increasingly concerned ... and you may start getting what you seem to be wishing for.

    I must also point out that issues around the use and abuse of Human embryos are qualitatively (even if not morally) different to abortion ... which involves the killing of Human foetuses.
    The 'ball of cells' arguments may be applied to Human embryos (in realtion to IVF and abortifacient contraception, for example) ... but Human foetuses are substantially identical to newborn babies ... and thus killing them by medical abortion is much more emotive.

    However, I would also point out that any arguments about killing somebody very young (embryos) being better than killing somebody older (foetuses and born children) are on very weak moral and emotional 'ground' ... and I wouldn't be as confident as you seem to be that support for the pro-life movement would be negatively affected by campaigns against any abuses of human embryos that may be occurring.

    Equally, it could be easier (for many different reasons) to oppose a business enterprise or research facility using and abusing human embryos for profit ... than opposing a woman aborting due to her dire personal circumstances ... so I think that you should be careful what you wish for!!!


  • #925
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    J C wrote: »
    ... and I wouldn't be as confident as you seem to be that support for the pro-life movement would be negatively affected by campaigns against any abuses of human embryos that may be occurring.

    I am entirely confident in the belief that if the killing of embryos through IVF was targeted in the same overwhelmingly public manner as the killing of embryos through abortion, there would be a massive negative effect to the "pro-life" campaign.

    The double standards by the Catholic Church in particular (as they push the notion of life beginning at conception more than any others) are very, very clear in terms of the "ball of cells" argument. If you hold a belief that the embryonic "ball of cells" is a child (as you seem to, by saying " producing an IVF child could involve the deliberate killing of several other unborn children"), then you should be campaigning just as rigidly and rigorously about IVF as you do about abortion.


  • #926
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    I am entirely confident in the belief that if the killing of embryos through IVF was targeted in the same overwhelmingly public manner as the killing of embryos through abortion, there would be a massive negative effect to the "pro-life" campaign.
    I'm not so sure ... the argument that somebody with plenty of money can engage in the production of selected children while digarding embryos that don't 'suit' wouldn't be one that would gain much traction IMO.
    ... and I think that the deliberate abuse or killing of 'surplus' embryos created in IVF could be more 'frowned upon' than abortion ... especially, where the personal circumstances of the aborting mother are dire.
    Obliq wrote: »
    The double standards by the Catholic Church in particular (as they push the notion of life beginning at conception more than any others) are very, very clear in terms of the "ball of cells" argument. If you hold a belief that the embryonic "ball of cells" is a child (as you seem to, by saying " producing an IVF child could involve the deliberate killing of several other unborn children"), then you should be campaigning just as rigidly and rigorously about IVF as you do about abortion.
    I'm not campaigning about any of this stuff.
    I leave that to the various pro-life campaigners. I am giving my personal views on the morality of it all.

    ... and you are correct that killing (or experimenting on and then killing) 'surplus' embryos is morally similar to abortion.

    The difference between IVF and abortion is that the baby always dies in abortion ... while ethically performed IVF, where 'surplus' embryos aren't created or killed and the couples own gametes are used, is perfectly morally acceptable.

    At the end of the day ... I'm not my brother's keeper ... if people wish to behave immorally, there is little that I can do about it ... and they will generally 'reap what they sow' in this life ... but hopefully not in the next life, if they decide to be Saved.

    With love J C


  • #927
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Had to take my "thanks" off your comment JC, as you changed it considerably during editing :)


  • #928
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Obliq wrote: »
    Had to take my "thanks" off your comment JC, as you changed it considerably during editing :)
    That is OK Obliq ... what is more important is that you are Saved ... please think about it and go get Saved.

    Jesus loves you and wants to Save you.


  • #929
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    J C wrote: »
    That is OK Obliq ... what is more important is that you are Saved ... please think about it and go get Saved.

    Jesus loves you and wants to Save you.

    Ha! :D Thanks, that made me laugh out loud!


  • #930
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Obliq wrote: »
    Ha! :D Thanks, that made me laugh out loud!
    It usually gives me the urge to vomit. I expect he will say that urge to vomit in the devil trying to keep me from being saved, or some such crap.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    martinnew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 87 ✭✭martinnew


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It usually gives me the urge to vomit. I expect he will say that urge to vomit in the devil trying to keep me from being saved, or some such crap.

    MrP


    Why... seems we can't even have a Christian discussion in a Christian Thread for Christians!......


Advertisement