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

To: Wonder Warthog
"That is most certainly NOT correct, Warthog. Very few implanted IVF embryos ever result in a baby. I think the current number is less than 10%, which is why doctors tend to implant so many of them in the hopes that just one will result in a live birth. Once the fertilization process is initiated, there is still only the potential (not the inevitable) that the blastosphere will become a human, even if the parents do everything possible to try to bring that blastosphere to full term."

I should have correctly said "if not interfered with". A "natural" failure of the fetus is not the question, it is whether the ARTIFICIAL intervention by humans is immoral.

No, that is exactly the question. You argument is that a blastosphere is equivalent to a human. It is a *potential* human with a bit of luck. But it is most certainly not YET a human anymore than an unfertilized egg is a human.

"I wonder if this is where the misunderstanding arises. Does knowing that very few IVFs work and that in nature, less than half of fertilized eggs result in a live birth change your view that a blastosphere must inevitably become a human?

If it lives it'll be human. It won't be a dog, nor a horse, nor anything else. And no, it doesn't change my position in the slightest.

The same is true of an unfertilzed egg or a sperm. If they live they will be human. They won't be dogs, horses, nor anything else. Are unfertilized eggs and sperm worthy of the same protection as a 7 celled blastosphere? If so why? If not, why not?

jas3
264 posted on 09/04/2006 1:40:44 PM PDT by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies ]


To: jas3
"The same is true of an unfertilzed egg or a sperm. If they live they will be human. They won't be dogs, horses, nor anything else. Are unfertilized eggs and sperm worthy of the same protection as a 7 celled blastosphere? If so why? If not, why not?"

Not unless they "get together" and make that blastosphere. Unless that happens, they'll be just be "eggs and sperm".

By YOUR definition, it's perfectly OK to kill a just-born infant. Not fully mature, y'know. But then, the same can be said for any teen-ager.

The development of human life is a BIOCHEMICAL PROCESS, and that process starts with the event that initiates the cellular division. There is no other scientifically definable point.

277 posted on 09/04/2006 3:15:28 PM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | 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