what are people's views on the use of embryos in IVF and stem cell research etc? Is it morally justified? Im doing research for some religious studies coursework so if possible could people state their religous beliefs.
Originally posted by emzy_232: what are people's views on the use of embryos in IVF and stem cell research etc? Is it morally justified? Im doing research for some religious studies coursework so if possible could people state their religous beliefs.
thanks
I find the idea repugnant as I believe that a new person is created at the moment of conception. Secondly there are alternatives for stem cell research which even the guy who first sucessfully developed cloning in sheep (remember poor old/young Dolly) now concedes which is why he has now decided to. It has to be said he hasn't done this for ethical reasons though.
BTW Catholic
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I find the idea repugnant as I believe that a new person is created at the moment of conception.
Embryos are not produced for the purpose of stem cell research. IVF generates more embryos than are required for treatment to give the best chance of successful treatment. Could you explain how it is more moral to just dispose of these 'people' than it is to allow them to save the life of another person.
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I find the idea repugnant as I believe that a new person is created at the moment of conception.
Embryos are not produced for the purpose of stem cell research. IVF generates more embryos than are required for treatment to give the best chance of successful treatment. Could you explain how it is more moral to just dispose of these 'people' than it is to allow them to save the life of another person.
I don't believe they should be disposed of nor do I believe they should be experimented upon.
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I don't believe they should be disposed of nor do I believe they should be experimented upon.
This isn't really one of the options. As I understand it, if IVF treatment did not generate excess embryos, the process would have such a low success rate that it would be not be viable or would require far too many surgical interventions. So, your options are either to oppose IVF completely and deprive the parents of the children that would result, or you have to accept that something has to happen to the surplus embryos. And these are the ones that are very unlikely to implant etc successfully.
Originally posted by emzy_232: what are people's views on the use of embryos in IVF and stem cell research etc? Is it morally justified? Im doing research for some religious studies coursework so if possible could people state their religous beliefs.
thanks
To answer the original question. I think that morally, the rights of born humans (children, adults etc) to have medical science develop life changing treatments far exceeds that of a pre-sentient collection of cells that would be disposed of anyway.
My biology teacher miscarried twins. She's says that if they could have been used for medical research she would have been happy, because maybe it would have helped save the lives of born humans, or prevent future miscarriages
One thing I would say though is that I wouldn't agree with producing embryos purely for the purpose of research. Using discarded embryos that are surplus to IVF requirements is a different thing IMO
I would find it hard to say (with Ballyboneman) that "a new life starts at conception" as there is so much natural wastage of embryos that fail to implant(probably 60%+). The genetic potential is there but it is also there in an egg if it meets a sperm.... Implantation is the next best landmark although miscarriage rates are high in the first couple of weeks (human beings are terrible at reproduction!). I guess "increasing humanity" over the course of gestation would be my moral position. I agree with IVF and the creation of additional embryos and it's difficult then to disagree with the use of spare embryos for stem cell research - as long as no-one tries to grow them into foetuses ex-utero.
Originally posted by greenbelt: I would find it hard to say (with Ballyboneman) that "a new life starts at conception" as there is so much natural wastage of embryos that fail to implant(probably 60%+). The genetic potential is there but it is also there in an egg if it meets a sperm....
I think that is stretching a little bit. I don't think you can safely use the argument that because lots of fertilised eggs don't survive they can be regarded as non-life. They were alive right up to the point when they weren't. Or less clumsily; they were alive when there was cell division occurring and stopped being alive when cell division stopped. I also think the 'genetic potential' argument is unsatisfactory as one could argue that there is more 'genetic potential' within a cheek cell, for instance, than in an unfertilised egg or sperm cell.
quote:
Implantation is the next best landmark although miscarriage rates are high in the first couple of weeks (human beings are terrible at reproduction!). I guess "increasing humanity" over the course of gestation would be my moral position.
The difficulty I have with that position is that it is, on the face of it, purely arbitrary. One person's morally OK becomes another's morally repugnant.
quote:
I agree with IVF and the creation of additional embryos and it's difficult then to disagree with the use of spare embryos for stem cell research - as long as no-one tries to grow them into foetuses ex-utero.
I agree with you about the benefits of IVF but disagree about the use of embryos for research but thankfully we may be moving away from that practice.
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by ballyboneman: The difficulty I have with that position is that it is, on the face of it, purely arbitrary. One person's morally OK becomes another's morally repugnant.
That's no different to your own position, i.e. yours is, on the face of it, purely arbitrary. And morally ok to some, repugnant to others.
That is the nature of morality, though.
Rgds
Luis (Who wonders if you'll now try to defend your position as not being arbitrary)
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I agree with you about the benefits of IVF but disagree about the use of embryos for research ...
You still haven't provided a satisfactory answer to my question. If you agree with the benefits then, you have to explain what should happen to the excess embryos.
quote:
...they were alive when there was cell division occurring and stopped being alive when cell division stopped.
If this is your definition of 'alive' then a tumor is 'alive'.
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I agree with you about the benefits of IVF but disagree about the use of embryos for research ...
You still haven't provided a satisfactory answer to my question. If you agree with the benefits then, you have to explain what should happen to the excess embryos....
Gestational surrogacy with the view to adoption perhaps for the thousands of couples who can't conceive and aren't able to avail of IVF treatment themselves for physical or other reasons.
quote:
...they were alive when there was cell division occurring and stopped being alive when cell division stopped.
If this is your definition of 'alive' then a tumor is 'alive'.[/QUOTE]
A pointless strawman
Cell devision is really quite important to the viability and development of an embryo. It won't survive without it. Trying to equate a tumor with a developing embryo is just a bit silly.
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by ballyboneman: I agree with you about the benefits of IVF but disagree about the use of embryos for research ...
You still haven't provided a satisfactory answer to my question. If you agree with the benefits then, you have to explain what should happen to the excess embryos....
Gestational surrogacy with the view to adoption perhaps for the thousands of couples who can't conceive and aren't able to avail of IVF treatment themselves for physical or other reasons.
[QUOTE]
Which is fine but good luck finding couples who are willing to have their embryos implanted into someone's womb and raised as a child by another couple. Especially now the laws regarding egg and sperm donation mean the donors can no longer be anonymous: the same would apply here so theoretically a couple who have 10 spare embryos from IVF could end up with 10 kids tracing them, their biological parents, 18 years down the line...
Originally posted by ballyboneman: Gestational surrogacy with the view to adoption perhaps for the thousands of couples who can't conceive and aren't able to avail of IVF treatment themselves for physical or other reasons.
These the embryos that were judged to be least likely to successfully implant or form a healthy child. In some cases the purpose of the IVF is to select embryos that are free of a known genetic defect. Do you think it is moral to implant an embryo that is known to carry a genetic defect that would, say, result in a severely handicapped child. If it were practically impossible to find 'homes' for all of the excess embryos, does IVF then become immoral (and repugnant)?
quote:
quote:
quote:
...they were alive when there was cell division occurring and stopped being alive when cell division stopped.
If this is your definition of 'alive' then a tumor is 'alive'.
A pointless strawman
Cell devision is really quite important to the viability and development of an embryo. It won't survive without it. Trying to equate a tumor with a developing embryo is just a bit silly.
It was an implicit question. Cell division is similarly really quite important to the development of a tumor. I was trying to point out that 'life' has to have rather more to it than cell division. A fertilised egg is no more alive than any other cell. It is not self sustaining, and cell division does not make it alive either.
Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
-------------------- If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
it's the work of the devil of course ask woolfy where is he anyway
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
If it was the wish of an omnipotent deity that sex was for the sole purpose of reproduction then it would easily be in his power to make that happen. In reality it is really quite difficult to conceive, and for some couples impossible. Hardly convincing evidence.
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
If it was the wish of an omnipotent deity that sex was for the sole purpose of reproduction then it would easily be in his power to make that happen. In reality it is really quite difficult to conceive, and for some couples impossible. Hardly convincing evidence.
One thing that's always got me about sex, if it's purely for reproduction, is the fact its pleasurable. Why is it necessary for it to be enjoyable if the sole purpose is procreation? Why does a woman have a clitoris the sole purpose of which is to produce feelings of pleasure?
It was an implicit question. Cell division is similarly really quite important to the development of a tumor. I was trying to point out that 'life' has to have rather more to it than cell division. A fertilised egg is no more alive than any other cell. It is not self sustaining, and cell division does not make it alive either.
I'm fully aware that life is contingent, relying on a host of different factors; am I supposed to list all those factors in a post?
Secondly we are talking about the development of a human being; the comparison with a tumor which is not a separate entity, is completely invalid.
Thirdly a newborn infant is not 'self sustaining' either, is it alive?
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
If it was the wish of an omnipotent deity that sex was for the sole purpose of reproduction then it would easily be in his power to make that happen. In reality it is really quite difficult to conceive, and for some couples impossible. Hardly convincing evidence.
One thing that's always got me about sex, if it's purely for reproduction, is the fact its pleasurable. Why is it necessary for it to be enjoyable if the sole purpose is procreation? Why does a woman have a clitoris the sole purpose of which is to produce feelings of pleasure?
If it wasn't pleasurable you probably wouldn't bother
Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much. Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Let's not forget the world's biggest abortionist - God. 250,000 miscarriages every year in the UK alone. Life may be precious, but not so precious that Big G can't randomly cull it with little or no warning.
it's the work of the devil of course ask woolfy where is he anyway
I'm just sitting here with my head in my hands, desparing at the inhumanity of you God - forsaken sinners.
