Posted on 07/25/2004 10:03:03 PM PDT by Coleus
Of course there are. One of the reasons that they don't get implanted properly is because the woman is not barefoot and in the kitchen like she supposed to be, making my dinner.
beezdotcom answered your question.
the bottom line, human life begins at conception when the 2 haploid cells (egg and sperm) unite to form a "new" human life. A question I usually ask the pro aborts is this "does the union of egg and sperm create life or cause death?"
Dude, you have been banned!
so have you?
BTTT
.
I’ll pray for her to have a baby, God’s way. May IVF not be necessary this time.
I've read all the arguments about spontaneous abortions, fertilized eggs that don't implant, tubal pregnancies, but those did not involve conscious choice. That is what makes the difference to me. Others are free to think and do as they will, but I kind of mourn the lost ones, may sound silly.
I fear much worse lies ahead in the way of new cutting edge technologies which will involve more moral choices that cannot be foreseen now.
Let God be her judge. As my mother used to say, and she wasn't outwardly very religious, "there but by the grace of God go I." which I have invoked in my own life many times.
There must have been a few infertile couples when I was growing up, but it seems more widespread now. I've heard of couples who couldn't conceive, adopted a child, then conceived. My mother was 37 when she had me, her first (as far as I know) and my sister at 39.
I do believe prayers to conceive a child the natural way are sometimes answered. Also I think of Sarah in the OT and Elizabeth in the new.
Yep. This is a toughie. My Catholic best friend went through this, but then finally gave up the process. She felt compelled to do so because of her religion and strict upbringing. *SHRUG*
However, she donated the extra fertilized embryos to other couples that needed them. It was some consolation, but not much to either of us.
I’ve never been blessed with having birth children, but I have raised three boys to adulthood (plus one Husband, LOL!)
God puts you where you need to be where you’re needed most, IMHO.
I love my friend to pieces, but this is one issue we’ve never been able to rectify between us.
In practice, everybody sees the truth of this statement. We've read about the (thankfully) rare but maniacal woman who cuts open another woman's belly to take her baby: obviously her desire, to have a baby, is good, but her means (taking another's life) is immoral.
It's an extreme example, all right. But begetting and sacrificing numerous genetic siblings to obtain the one desired baby is comparable in this respect: you're willing to dispose of others to get the baby you want.
Whatever our good intentions, in practice IVF trashes human life, and I believe it should be prohibited by law.
Actually, no. Sperm aren't human beings at a very young age --- they're not embryos. But I think we all know that.
Let me demonstrate the difference.
People with fertility problems don't need to opt for Artificial Reproductive Technologies at all. IVF usually involves wasted embryos, AID (insemination by donor) involves third party genetics, hyper-ovulation involves the extremely risky business of conceiving high-order multiples. On the other hand, REAL therapies that actually HEAL the physical causes of marital infertility, like NaProTechnology (NPT) restore natural sexual procreation and thus do not incur those problems.
When you're looking at proposed therapies on a case-by-case basis, this is the question to ask: does this heal the physical causes of marital fertility and restore natural sexual procreation? OR does it give up on healing and instead substitute some non-marital, non-sexual process for the marital relation?
In many cases of infertility, the would-be mother and father are both technically fertile (they produce normal ova and sperm and could conceive via intercourse) but have not been able to get pregnant or to maintain a pregnancy.
A true therapy would have found a way to optimize natural fertility (often by addressing nutritional and hormonal preconditions, or by fine-tuning the pattern of sexual behavior) so as to preserve true marital procreation --- instead of substituting another man as the genetic father or intruding laboratory procedures into the relationship.
Actually treating the couple's marital fertility problem is preferable to cutting out the genetic contribution of one marriage partner, or taking lovemaking out of the equation.
Renee Mirkes, the director of the Center for NaPro Ethics, reports that "in the long run, NPT is 1.5 to 3.5 times more effective in achieving conception than conventional IVF treatment."
And it restores the fertility that the married partners jointly have, without the enormous expense of ART and without the emotional, social, and psychological costs.
Here's a second highly informative link on NaProTechnology for healing of natural fertility.
The natural demise of a human being (I’m speaking here of a living human embryo) is not morally equivalent to the deliberate killing of an equivalent human being. But surely you knew that.
Comparing IVF with Kevorkian is pretty lame. But if you want to go down this road you might as well lecture us about birth control and spilled seed while you are at it.
Such humility is refreshing and rare at this site. Thank you.
You have received the least intelligent collection of responses I have seen on a thread in years.
Every moronic false analogy was run through almost immediately: the one where masturbation is compared to the killing of a child; the one where infertility is compared to a life-threatening disease like cancer; the one where moral use of technology is compared to the rejection of all technology, etc. ad nauseam.
You have also encountered every variation of the argument that it is permissible to kill the unborn as long as you are killing them to make yourself feel better.
It seems that poseur conservatives are no different from leftists when it comes to logical analysis of an emotional issue.
You have revealed exactly how puerile many of the minds on this forum are - and this forum, sadly, boasts comparatively more mature minds than any other forum on the web that I am familiar with.
Either intentionally taking an innocent human life is right or it is wrong.
Opposition to the intentional taking of an innocent human life is simply the right position.
Fanaticism has nothing to do with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.