Posted on 12/12/2008 6:09:21 AM PST by NYer
>>If a person cannot reproduce naturally, perhaps there is a reason bigger than just their plumbing that they should NOT reproduce,<<
Truth be told!
I know of two women who went through IVF who had children with massive medical problems and both had problem pregancies.
Sometimes we are not meant to breed.
I’m sure the IVF kid down the street will be glad to hear that he shouldn’t exist.
“I know of two women who went through IVF who had children with massive medical problems and both had problem pregancies.
Sometimes we are not meant to breed.”
And the kid down the street is in perfect health (as far as I know) and is taking the most advanced high school classes possible. What does that prove?
>>I’m sure the IVF kid down the street will be glad to hear that he shouldn’t exist.<<
Bet that kid down the street would be really glad to hear how many of his brothers and sisters gave up their lives for his right to exist too.
Why SHOULD they?
It isn't up to me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. However, do you believe we understand the human genome so thoroughly that we can safely say certain gene expressions are worth preserving, when apparently our genetics disagree?
again, once life is created, no matter how it is created, life is precious. The question is not whether the invitro kids up the street are less valuable. It is going forward, is this something we should do, or not. I argue no, for the reasons I stated above.
This isn't exactly true. Amniotic fluid stem cells, placenta stem cells and cord blood stem cells are all life giving, so they are all moral. It's the embryos themselves that die for embryonic stem cells.
No, but it is an option if you have the money and the desire to have children.
Given your reasoning IVF will be become an government entitlement for any an all who demand it.
BS...you are taking this to extreme absurdity. Again, it is not a right but should be an acceptable form of creating life if one has difficulty getting pregnant and chooses to do so. I don't understand the church's stance on that as, IMHO, it is a pro-life position.
>>No, but it is an option if you have the money and the desire to have children. <<
How many little lives are made to have one or two survive?
That is the point.
“Bet that kid down the street would be really glad to hear how many of his brothers and sisters gave up their lives for his right to exist too.”
That’s some really weird thinking there. These hypothetical brothers and sisters wouldn’t even be possible without IVF.
My guess is, although I certainly don’t plan on asking him, that he’s absolutely delighted to be alive. And I know his parents are ecstatic to have this wonderful child. Sounds like you’d be equally ecstatic to take him away from them.
“It isn’t up to me to prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove your assertion.”
Nice try but wrong. Please explain why these genes should be extinct. Sounds a lot like eugenics to me.
The egg would have died anyway or if fertilized in the womb, probably would have resulted in a miscarriage...so what is your point again?
exactly. For one viable invitro baby on average, they fertilize 10, implant 6, selective reduction takes 2-4,you end up with one or 2 live birth. Looks like, on average, 6-8 brothers or sisters to me.......
“Given your reasoning IVF will be become an government entitlement for any an all who demand it.”
Boy did you jump the shark there.
At some point this IVF child will learn that several of his brothers and sisters in the petri dish were deliberately created and destroyed so that he might live. Some IVF procedures go so far as to produce in multiple children that are then stabbed to death in the womb. That has consequences. What lessons does the IVF child learn about his value to his parents if his parents were so willing to kill his siblings?
Also...You have created a strawman argument. No one on this board is saying that once life is created it should cease to exist.
What is your rationale? Because science can do something, we should?
Boy did you jump the shark there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whose jumping the shark?
If IVF is a right ( as you say) then someone has to pay for it.
>>These hypothetical brothers and sisters wouldn’t even be possible without IVF.<<
Hypothetical? Dude, do you know how IVF works?
Ever wonder why there are “left over” embryos? Or huge multiple pregnancies?
Exactly right, without IVF thoses babies would never exist. They were made so said “neighbor boy” could be born. Basically, they were made and slaughtered so he could live.
>>The egg would have died anyway or if fertilized in the womb, probably would have resulted in a miscarriage...so what is your point again?<<
There is no guarantee of that. None. If an egg is fertilized and cannot adhere to the uterine wall, it’s natural and Our Lord’s will. But many IVF cases are not just the uterine wall. Some are sperm problems, some are egg problems. No life would be created in these cases.
However making 20 in a dish, to have one live is intentional and playing God.
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.