Couples Cull Embryos to Halt Heritage of Cancer

NY Times ^ | 09.03.06 | AMY HARMON

[jas3]

So would you be OK with testing sperm and eggs prior to conception?

Would you also be OK with engineering sperm and eggs without defects?

jas3

[little jeremiah]

An adult is just a bunch of cells on a couch. A newborn baby is just a bunch of cells in a cradle.

How big a bunch of cells does an individual have to have in order to be worthy of life?

[jas3]

So would you be in favor of testing eggs and sperm before conception?

jas3

[jas3]

An adult is just a bunch of cells on a couch. A newborn baby is just a bunch of cells in a cradle. How big a bunch of cells does an individual have to have in order to be worthy of life?

Let's agree on 10 cells.

jas3

[MichiganConservative]

But what about it makes it logical? Why not after the child is born. Some people (not I) would argue that after birth "From then on, it's a steady progression through normal development, if in the proper environment."

What then is the fundamental difference between a baby 10 minutes before she travels through your vagina, when she is traveling through your vagina, and when she has emerged from your vagina? Basically environment. Is the baby an adult? No. The baby cannot care for itself at all. So it has to be in the proper environment to continue to progress.

The distinction between 13 and 26, generally, is a singular event. It happens once. It is a demarcation between 2 specialized cells secreted by sexually mature humans and a one-celled entity with a human's full complement of chromosomes. The cell membrane also undergoes a chemical reaction at this point to make it distinct from that of an unfertilized egg. This is a cingular event, and the rest is a natural progression from this point.

And no, this distinction is not arbitrary. There is a cingular "event" that has occurred. There is a before and an after. I know some people like to say "what about heart beat", "what about brainwaves". What about puberty? What about voting age? What about college graduation?

As to unfertilized eggs and parthenogenesis, I say so what? We are not bees. In my system, it is logical that an unfertilized egg is just that, and not a very young human.

My other answer, for people who disagree and/or are moral relativists, is that abortion should be legal up to the 163rd trimester because that's when I think you have a soul. If someone pisses me off and are past that, maybe I'll change it to the 180th trimester and practice my new post-birth abortion procedure out on them. /sarcasm

[Wonder Warthog]

"So would you be in favor of testing eggs and sperm before conception?"

Yup. Perfectly acceptable. The science to do so doesn't exist yet, though, as this would require a NON-DESTRUCTIVE test that would allow those eggs and sperm to later be united to initiate the conception process successfully, if you are going to accomplish the desired genetic pre-screening.

[madprof98]

Yeah...but the guys who wrote that Catechism thing have no real training in bioethics, and no source documents from which to draw on, i.e. there's nothing in the Bible about IVF or embryos.

Anyone who talks about "that Catechism thing" would be most unlikely to accept God's word if it flashed forth in a bolt of lightning . . . but would be very likely (sad to say) to take the word of the latest "bioethicist" the NYTimes conjured up to rationalize some grim new fad in the death-culture. It's not hard to see how Peter Singer became the best known (and probably most renowned) bioethicist in America. The self-described conservatives are quite willing to jettison centuries of tradition and sign on to Brave New World whenever some shyster comes along preaching to them, "And Christopher Reeve shall walk again!"

[Coleus]

So would you be OK with testing sperm and eggs prior to conception? >>>

No, anything out of the sacrament of marriage is against God's moral and natural law. Taking God out of the conjugal act in the sacrament of marriage is sinful.

[free_at_jsl.com]

I think you meant 23 and 46

[jas3]

The distinction between 13 and 26, generally, is a singular event. It happens once. It is a demarcation between 2 specialized cells secreted by sexually mature humans and a one-celled entity with a human's full complement of chromosomes. The cell membrane also undergoes a chemical reaction at this point to make it distinct from that of an unfertilized egg. This is a cingular event, and the rest is a natural progression from this point.

One could make a dozen similar arguments that the specialization of the first neural cell or the first cardiac cell is a singular event. It happens once. The division from one to two cells is a singular event; it happens once. There are hundreds of developmental stages all of which could be chosen at will to serve as the arbitrary cutoff at which any person could decide is his definition of the singular event. I don't think you are seriously considering voting age or puberty or college graduation. But why not pick the first heartbeat or the first brainwaves?

The reason I asked about parthenogenesis is that it is not hypothetical to suggest that scientists will soon create an embryo that is 8 cells (or more) without human sperm. Under your definition, it would not be morally wrong to destroy this embryo. But I am fairly certain that you would want to revise your definition if presented with a 3 week old fetus that was not fertilized with sperm, but which was due to be destroyed. I'm sure you would consider that to be murder. So it is NOT just fertilization that imbues moral value on an embryo.

And before you comment that this is a hypothetical, I would note that there is quite a bit of speculation that lesbians will soon be creating homozygous embryos that are not fertilized and come entirely from only one "parent".

So no fertilization = no moral consqeuence in your book? I'm sure can't be the whole picture. At what point does an unfertilized but still dividing egg deserve protection and why?

jas3

[jas3]

"So would you be in favor of testing eggs and sperm before conception?"

Yup. Perfectly acceptable. The science to do so doesn't exist yet, though, as this would require a NON-DESTRUCTIVE test that would allow those eggs and sperm to later be united to initiate the conception process successfully, if you are going to accomplish the desired genetic pre-screening.

I expect that to be possible quite soon. I also expect the full scale engineering of human genomes to be quite common within 30 years. At that point there should be no need to destroy human blastospheres for any reason.

jas3

[jas3]

I think you meant 23 and 46

Yes, of course that's what she meant.

jas3

[usafsk]

I appreciate your consistency on this issue. We may not agree on the basics, but I like someone whose oar is always in the water.

[jas3]

So would you be OK with testing sperm and eggs prior to conception?

No, anything out of the sacrament of marriage is against God's moral and natural law. Taking God out of the conjugal act in the sacrament of marriage is sinful.

Would you be opposed to other people testing their sperm and eggs? There seems to be a split among those who find destruction of human blastospheres to be immoral on this question.

While destruction of an embryo may equate to murder and therefore not be right for ANYONE...would you allow that if your Jewish neighbor wanted to test his sperm, that it is his business and not yours?

jas3

[MichiganConservative]

One could make a dozen similar arguments that the specialization of the first neural cell or the first cardiac cell is a singular event. It happens once.

What's the first one that could be called "the start"? I like to err on the side of preserving life.

And like I said before, your first day of college is a cingular event. I guess you're just a moral relativist.

But I am fairly certain that you would want to revise your definition if presented with a 3 week old fetus that was not fertilized with sperm, but which was due to be destroyed.

Go back a week or so and read what I posted on the Plan B thread. I dealt with a similar situation. I already answered that.

Why do you care what I think? I don't think you do. You seem to be a moral relativist just trying to play gotcha. I have a logically consistent position, whether you think so or not. You've read about 5 of my posts to you that were fairly specific to the general case, so how could you get my whole thinking about this.

So I really don't think you give a rat's ass what I think about lesbians, even though it's not a hypothetical. You read an answer to a question, then throw up more situations. Whatever. I'm tired of this.

[usafsk]

I asked you about self-awareness, it's certainly not my standard. I don't like this instant association with Singer's ideas that you've proposed. I simply see a very clear difference between an unimplanted embryo and a developing embryo. I'm not Catholic, don't accept the Church's teaching on birth control and IVF, and am tired of the poorly reasoned positions on this topic promoted herein.

As an example, quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church about IVF to me is pointless. It is based a believer's interpretation of God's will, not even scripture. Like much of the Catechism, and the detailed beliefs of all relegions, man is the messenger, God is the message.

Your Golden Rule line of argument is much better. I'll noodle on that one.

[usafsk]

I could lecture you on the use of the term "shylock", but I doubt you'd take it well. Singer is hardly the leading bioethicist in the US, simply one that left-wing media flock to. His influence is rather small.

[jas3]

Anyone who talks about "that Catechism thing" would be most unlikely to accept God's word if it flashed forth in a bolt of lightning . . . but would be very likely (sad to say) to take the word of the latest "bioethicist" the NYTimes conjured up to rationalize some grim new fad in the death-culture. It's not hard to see how Peter Singer became the best known (and probably most renowned) bioethicist in America. The self-described conservatives are quite willing to jettison centuries of tradition and sign on to Brave New World whenever some shyster comes along preaching to them, "And Christopher Reeve shall walk again!"

I have very little time in my life for fiction, inclusive of the New York Times. I stumble across the odd article here and again on Free Republic. And I do consider the business section to be not entirely useless, but would never actually purchase the paper or bother to read it online.

I am entirely unaquianted with Peter Singer's work other than what I have read in this thread. He appears to condone infanticide, which certainly puts him out on the lunatic fringe.

I was hoping to arrive at some moral clarity on this issue without involving the Catholic church. While Rome may speak for a substantial minority of the population, it is only a minority. And reference to "that Catechism thing" is not convincing to non-Catholics regardless of whether they would describe themselves as accepting God's word. I'm sure there are many Protestants, Jews, and Muslims who believe they also accept God's word who would differ from you. I was hoping to find common moral ground without reference to one specific flavor of religion.

All religions seem to have forbidden murder. Only some forbid abortion. Very few forbid birth control. But of all religions, I think the Catholic religion, which has disgraced itself throughout the centuries with respect to science and "truth", the least likely to offer a rational answer to bioethical questions.

jas3

[usafsk]

Now you've done it. Prepare for the Inquisition.

[madprof98]

I think the Catholic religion, which has disgraced itself throughout the centuries with respect to science and "truth", the least likely to offer a rational answer to bioethical questions.

Did you mention the pedophile priests? Be sure to mention them.