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

To: FourtySeven
I may have misundersood your original point. If you are saying that life begins when the egg is fertilized, I agree.

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.

169 posted on 10/24/2004 1:22:56 PM PDT by TOUGH STOUGH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: TOUGH STOUGH
If you are saying that life begins when the egg is fertilized, I agree. However, I would also say that a fertilized egg is a person, and you would not, am I correct?

I do say that human life begins at conception, yes. I do say that the fertilized egg is a person, yes.

The fertilized egg is given just as much a chance to survive in the petri dish as it is in the womb. Again, as GovernmentShrinker said (and he is right), more fertilized eggs survive from IVF than in nature. So it's even more of a "life producing environment", not less. And as I said before, dead is dead; it's not a value judgement, it's not a personal decision. The only fertilzed eggs thrown away are ones that are dead: the ones that anyone with vision can see that are not undergoing cellular division. It's a black or white issue. It's not killing the babies, it's letting nature take its course with them, just as nature would if they were in the womb. (because it's a medical fact that not all fertilized eggs survive, this happens in nature; the only difference is it's not happening in the womb, it's happening in a petri dish) That's hardly a significant difference, imo. If you, or anyone else, want to disagree, fine. I'll just never understand why.

As for the "unnatural enviornment" argument, I dealt with that in my previous post. Basically, the entire science of medicine is "unnatural", so if we're to throw away something as "heretical" simply because it's "unnatural", then you can't even take an aspirin for a headache. (i.e, Christian Scientists).

The basic reason I posted this to you was to answer your two questions. I merely re-iterated what I posted before also, in a more basic form. The last word is yours though.

180 posted on 10/25/2004 7:06:21 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | 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