Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Scotswife
The Church has long opposed in vitro for similar reasons.

Creating embryos in a petri-dish reduces human life to a commodity to be experimented with.

It separates the unitive from the procreative, and many embryos are killed in the process

Yes, IMO, that's the more important issue here!

8 posted on 08/27/2006 8:40:38 AM PDT by right-wingin_It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: right-wingin_It; Aussie Dasher; Jedi Master Pikachu; Scotswife; bobdsmith; Valin; Coleus; NYer
I think the main problem is that a totipotent cell is identical to an early embryo: in fact it IS an early embryo, developed by "budding," essentially the same way a twin develops.

The related problem is that you're still using the first embryo as an experimental subject, without any of the safeguards essential to its moral status as a nascent human being.

The third problem is that the entire process of ovum extraction, sperm collection, in vitro fertilization, and so forth, has already reduced human procreation to an laboratory procedure resulting in a product who/which is a commodity in commercial transaction.

The entire distinction between a human being, a lab animal, and a bit of biological property is in smithereens.

So we (Americans) are right back where we were at the time of the Dred Scott decision of 1857, with the law unable to distinguish between a human being and a piece of property. Except at a potentially worse degree of complexity, since the human genome can now be altered through the introduction of heterologous genes, and the embryo manipulated into forms of abnormal development, so that distinguishing between "human" and "not-human" becomes almost impossible.

When Aldous Huxley wrote "Brave New World," he assumed --- didn't he? --- that people would want to prevent this from happening. There must be somebody out there who is thinking strategically about how to stop this whole race to total depersonalization. I think it should be done. You'd have to start by banning IVF. Lord. I almost despair of the possibility.

12 posted on 08/27/2006 4:57:10 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world That has such people in't!" ---- The Tempest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: right-wingin_It
Have scientists figured out how to be certain that the cell they remove is not about to become the identical twin of the original embryo ... before removing the cell for testing? Until then, this is frakenscience for utilitarian purposes and exploitative at the least (making commodities out of human beings is going over the top, IMHO), murderous at the worst (if the cell would have been the twin, it is purposely killing a being for their body parts). Additionally, taking a cell from the morula-aged being before implantation may make the embryo unviable, but these scientists would merely toss that embryo out and select another being to extract from. There is no preciousness to lives so easily manipulated and exploited ... until one happens to succeed and get born, THEN the media hype goes wild!
27 posted on 08/28/2006 8:24:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson