Forums | MacLife

Actually, it is quite clear. If you are a pro-lifer who contends that life begins at conception, then the Rathans must treat their embryos (along with the other half-million in cryogenic storage) as humans.

On the other hand granting embryos full personhood lends itself to all sorts of complications. The only way to guarantee the continuation of the "potential" human life--short of failure of the cryogenic unit--is to keep it in there. Given that about 1 in 5 pregnancies in the Western World ends in a miscarriage (and the rate is higher for IVF pregnancies), there is a high probability that if the Rathans were to donate all three of their embryos to childless couples that at least one of them won't "take." I'm fairly certain that no one would voluntarily use a mode of transportation with a 20% failure rate, so we certainly cannot involuntarily subject these "potential humans" to such a risk.

Yes, I'm being half-facetious, but given that many in-vitro fertilization (IVF) programs require the generation of many embryos because the rate of implantation has been low, it is a serious question to ask pro-lifers. It is rare that all of the embryos are used by a given couple (and usually then it is because the woman is incapable of carrying a pregnancy to term for reasons beyond the scope of IVF), so given that most of the embryos are thrown out a pro-lifer should be adamantly against IVF programs.

In my opinion, they should never be made in the first place.
I know that sounds heartless to some - but there are higher risks to the child, and to me, it seems selfish to me for a couple to intentionally put a child through those risks when adoption is just as viable of an option, and in fact is a better option.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-06 9:37 pm)

i'd like mine with sprinkles, please!

radarman wrote:

just leave it up to the 'parents'

Implantation?  Research?  Stem Cells?  Discarded?

Just leave it up to the 'parents' is the way to go.

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

IVF fails more often than it succeeds. Most couples who go through IVF have no more than a 50% chance of success. Many of them have only a 30 to 40% chance of success with each attempt. The chance of success never increases in each subsequent attempt. It remains the same and in some instances will decline over time.

Yes - and for that reason, they often implant multiple eggs - and if too many take, cull some of them. It's really sick.

God culls about 1 in 5 of all pregnancies.

On the other hand: that's insignificant compared to the Problem of Evil, so why worry about that?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

IVF fails more often than it succeeds. Most couples who go through IVF have no more than a 50% chance of success. Many of them have only a 30 to 40% chance of success with each attempt. The chance of success never increases in each subsequent attempt. It remains the same and in some instances will decline over time.

Yes - and for that reason, they often implant multiple eggs - and if too many take, cull some of them. It's really sick.

God culls about 1 in 5 of all pregnancies.

Do you believe in God now?
Or are you trolling?

You should of course know that isn't the typical Christian perspective on mis-carriage, so your statement is either a troll or you believe in God now.

On the other hand: that's insignificant compared to the Problem of Evil, so why worry about that?

What exactly is the "Problem of Evil" ??

In my black and white world, a miscarriage is not justification for abortion any more than breast cancer is justification for killing women.

Comprende?

Implantation of embryos often results in culling when too many eggs take.
That culling is an abortion by any definition.

When I pointed that out, the response was that 1 in 5 are naturally mis-carried (something I doubt, btw, unless he is counting fertilized embryos that never implant) anyway.

I'm just pointing out that because adults often "naturally" die before old age does not justify their intentional killing, something hopefully everyone here agrees upon.

I can not endorse a practice that is known to have a higher risk of birth defects - especially when adoption is a very viable alternative - and when the practice is known to result in the intentional discarding of human life.

There are better ways to get a child if you can not become pregnant through natural means.

Chickenhawk wrote:

I'm just pointing out that because adults often "naturally" die before old age does not justify their intentional killing, something hopefully everyone here agrees upon.

Those adults are also not dependent on another's body to survive.

Sometimes they are.
There are a lot of adults that could not survive without the assistance of others.

But anyway - that's not what we were talking about.
We were talking about mis-carriage as justification for abortion, which it clearly is not.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Those adults are also not dependent on another's body to survive.

Sometimes they are.
There are a lot of adults that could not survive without the assistance of others.

Read my words. I said body.

Now you did it: you'll be getting into an argument on semantics with resedit.

Small comfort for the fetus if it's mother gets kill during that "temporary" period.

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sometimes they are.
There are a lot of adults that could not survive without the assistance of others.

Read my words. I said body.

That dependency for a fetus is only temporary.

Is that relevant?

.tsooJ