TOUGH STOUGH said: The above argument has always been my number one argument for decryig the foulness of disposing of life in it very beginning stages, and for establishing when human life begins. Well said. I couldn't agree with you more fervently!
Thank you.
cpforlife.org says, FALSE.
The Catholic Church condemns IVF absolutely.
http://priestsforlife.org/magisterium/donumvitae.htm
As I said in my post #53, Eggs are inseminated and embryos are cultured. The eggs are inseminated in a laboratory ("in vitro"). The eggs are incubated overnight examined the next day to see if any have been fertilized. Any fertilized eggs are allowed to develop for at least 2 additional days in the lab before being placed in the uterus. Some embryos may be frozen and stored for later use, if the couple prefers.source
This clearly indicates that it's optional whether or not to freeze any remaining, viable, embryos. IMO, this also implies that one may choose to implant all viable embryos if one so chooses. In other words, it should be law to implant all viable fertilized eggs at once. Thus, that removes that impediment to this procedure. As to the question as to whether or not the technician is "playing God" by deciding which fertilized eggs are viable for implantation, this is simply, imo, an over dramatization of the actual case. A simple microscopic examination of the eggs will determine if they are undergoing cellular division, and thus, will determine if they are alive or not. It's not a question left to the individual person, it's simple biology. Therefore, with all due respect to the Church, I believe they are wrong on this here. I don't see anything wrong with determining that some eggs are simply dead, and therefore, no point in implanting them into the uterus. Note, I would say that any non viable fertilized eggs should be destroyed, so as to prevent any possibility of "harvesting" them for research.
"Dead is dead", as another poster on this thread pointed out. Again, there is no gray area here; there's no "playing God". And indeed, as GovernmentShrinker pointed out, the entire process of IVF actually produces more life, as it optimizes the time when the uterus is most ready to accept implantation, and therefore, gives a couple the greatest chance to produce a baby (even more so than sexual intercourse). Additionally, it's shown that at least as many, if not more, fertilized eggs are naturally aborted, then die in this procedure. Therefore there is no reasonable argument that can be forwarded which would say, "This procedure kills more fertilized eggs then nature would".
I suppose one could argue (as the Church seems to be doing) that since the entire procedure is "unnatural", that it's heretical. While there may be some certain logic to that, if one were to adhere to that dogma, then one couldn't endorse the use of artificial limbs for amputees, one couldn't endorse the use of hearing aids for nearly deaf people, one couldn't endorse the use of propecia for balding men, one couldn't endorse any "medical procedure" that circumvents the "natural order of things" to give a patient the ability to do something that they wouldn't "naturally" have otherwise.
I would rather be consistent in my belief that amputees should be given a chance to have limbs again, that the deaf could hear again, and even that the bald could have hair again (I may have a certain personal stake in that last one, but I'm crossing my fingers that that will not be the case! hehe) therefore, I don't see anything wrong with IVF for the same reason, i.e, giving someone the ability to do something, even if they can't do it "naturally".
One additional note, in a post to me, GovernmentShrinker noted that sometimes many more fertilized eggs that are viable may be produced, than can be implanted. I believe 26 viable eggs was the example he gave. I maintain, without being an expert in the procedure, given the average number of viable/non viable fertilized eggs produced with the procedure, there must be some "optimal range" of eggs that can be extracted from the ovaries to give a reasonable amount of viable fertilized eggs for later implantation, that will still not be cost prohibitive for most couples. That is, there must be a number of eggs that can be extracted, which, after it's determined which have survived, will produce a number that can be all implanted at once. I mean, 26 fertilized eggs that were viable? I would question how many were extracted from the ovaries to begin with in that case! I suppose one could argue that that would still increase the cost prohibitive value of the procedure for some couples. I would simply say, I can't imagine reducing the amount of eggs to an optimal number for 100% implantation of viable fertilized eggs would increase it by THAT much (although I could see how it could increase it by SOME). It would still be a fair compromise though, in my opinion.
I'm guessing though, that what I've said here will not be acceptable to either cpforlife.org, or GovernmentShrinker, for different reasons though of course. ;) They (and you TOUGH STOUGH, if you want) can have any last words that they (you) desire. I'm satisfied that I've explained my position as clearly as possible. Any further disagreements will simply have to be academic at this point.
However, I would also say that a fertilized egg is a person, and you would not, am I correct?
I agree with the church's position on IVT. It is my understanding, that eggs are not fertilized one at a time, but rather that several are fertilized and the best is implanted. Some are discarded. However, even if eggs were fertilized one at a time the church would still have moral objections, because the egg is fertilized outside the womb in an unnatural environment.
I think it is obvious tinkering with life at it's beginning or ending stages, sets up potential for great abuse.
I see your point that an IVF clinic could choose to only extract or fertilize a few eggs from a woman who produced an unexpectedly large number. And most clinics whose policies I'm familiar with do offer patients the option of not fertilizing all the eggs that are retrieved. However, it's not an option that most patients are going to be interested in, when they're facing the huge cost of these procedures. They want to maximize their chances of having a baby.
If a woman produces say 20 eggs (and it makes no sense not to extract them all, since the quality/maturity of the various eggs can't be reliably determined until after they've been extracted and studied under a microscope), and chooses to have fertilization attempted on only 5, there's a very large chance she won't get a baby at all. And after she's thrown away 15 eggs that cost $10,000+ to get, and still has no baby, she's going to be wishing that she had had those eggs fertilized, and frozen however many extras were successfully fertilized, because then it would cost relatively little to go through the embryo transfer portion of the cycle again. Instead she's faced with starting over and trying to produce eggs again, but she may not have another $10,000, and by the time she saves up that much, she'll be older and have a smaller chance of success.
And many couples want to produce as many embryos as possible in one ovarian stimulation cycle, because they'd like to have more than one child. If they have extra embryos left over after having one, they expect to use them to try for another child, without incurring massive expense again.
Within the next few years, egg freezing is likely to become a reliable technology, and at that point, it will make sense for couples who have ethical issues with discarding embryos, to freeze extra eggs, and fertilize them later only if more embryos are needed. Right now, however, only a very small percentage of eggs survive freezing and thawing, and the rates are especially low in older women. It is an approach that is recommended only in case of young women who are undergoing cancer therapy which is likely to destroy their fertility, and who do not yet have a partner. There is a new company (Extend Fertility) that is pushing egg-freezing as a way to "buy time" to find a partner and have a baby, but the reputable doctors and professional associations in this field have denounced this practice as unethical given current technological limitations, since its unreliability means the company is selling false hope in most cases.
It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Unlike most people who hold your view on the status of fertilized eggs/early embryos, you are genuinely interested in facts. It's quite refreshing!