Fathers not relevant.

[Guy-jin]

There's nothing religious in discussing whether it is OK to selectively discard embryos because they may develope cerebral palsy. We're not talking about curing before conception - we're talking about discarding embryos based on potential for developing ailments. Do you really think you have to believe in God to think twice about that?

Ah, what if it's a condition that's guaranteed to happen? Say it's muscular dystrophy. A fatal disease. We know at least the most common gene that causes it. We could check to see if an embryo had it mutated prior to implantation. If one were to choose an embryo that had it, the boy would grow up only to die within a decade with a horrible condition.

That's a major ethical dilemma. My opinion is that it would not be right, given the knowledge that an embryo has an untreatable mutation in the muscular dystrophy gene, to implant it. I could certainly fathom a religiously-motivated dilemma from the other side, though: That it is not our place to decide who may live or die even if we're one hundred percent positive that person will have a fatal childhood disease.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I'm unclear as to whether you're in favor of or against IVF.

I wonder because the nature of IVF results in the discarding of fertilized embryos.

I'm against it, for that very reason - but the majority of the people in the country I live in are not and it is legal here.

I personally do not believe it is wrong to vote for the things you believe. However, I do think people have to bend to the will of the masses and abide by the constitutions their countries are founded on.

I also think that people often do not think issues through completely, and that politicians and religious leaders will take advantage of that to press an agenda. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that you haven't thought the issue completely, but that certainly many people haven't.

Case in point: stem cell research. In the United States, creating and even use of new human stem cell lines is banned. However, they would not be taken from late-stage abortions, but most likely from IVF embryos that would never be used and would eventually die by being frozen away for too long or incinerated anyway. Yet, politicians and religious leaders frame the issue as being "pro-stem cell is equivalent to pro-abortion".

The pro-life / anti-abortion camp do themselves no favours whatsoever with those kind of tactics. Likewise the guys who attempt to picket clinics and harm medical professionals sicken me. The women using those clinics have enough shit to be dealing with without assholes shouting murder in their faces.

On stem-cell research; for me it doesn't make a difference if the cells used come from a late-stage aborted foetus or an embryo that is likely to be discarded anyway - my belief systems gives both equal status in the 'life' stakes. Someone else may not feel that way and should be given the full info to make their own choice.

I'm not against stem-cell research in and of itself. Only if it necessitates the loss of human life (by my definition of human life).

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Ah, what if it's a condition that's guaranteed to happen? Say it's muscular dystrophy. A fatal disease. We know at least the most common gene that causes it. We could check to see if an embryo had it mutated prior to implantation. If one were to choose an embryo that had it, the boy would grow up only to die within a decade with a horrible condition.

That's a major ethical dilemma. My opinion is that it would not be right, given the knowledge that an embryo has an untreatable mutation in the muscular dystrophy gene, to implant it. I could certainly fathom a religiously-motivated dilemma from the other side, though: That it is not our place to decide who may live or die even if we're one hundred percent positive that person will have a fatal childhood disease.

It's not just that Guy - it's the fact that you are saying he has no right to live because he is (going to be) disabled / ill. Is a sick person less of a human being? You don't have to be religious to have a problem with that.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

There is an issue of quality of life. I think it would be extremely cruel to bring someone into this world only to live a few short years in terrible pain. Especially where they are aware of their plight, as in the case of muscular dystrophy.

To clarify my earlier post: religion has no place in science. Science has no place in religion. IMO science should be the single 'religion'. All other religions are just fairytales.

Further scientific progress can only be a good thing. Kaizen.

 

[Guy-jin]

It's not just that Guy - it's the fact that you are saying he has no right to live because he is (going to be) disabled / ill. Is a sick person less of a human being? You don't have to be religious to have a problem with that.

Agreed, one doesn't have to be religious for this to be a major ethical dilemma.

As for the example... Not just disabled/ill. Guaranteed to die at a very early age.

If this person is guaranteed to die one way or the other, I think it would be more humane to prevent his developing past being a few cells than allowing him to grow up with a degenerative disease and the knowledge that it will kill him well before he's really had a chance to experience life.

So I guess the question, for me, is more this: Is an embryo consisting of a small number of cells less of a human being than a grown boy? Given that it has not yet developed to the form of a human, or even differentiated beyond a mass of cells toward anything resembling a self-sufficient organism, I'd say yes.

Of course, for you, all IVF is not acceptable, so the example is a moot point. For me, however, I do not believe that an undeveloped colony of cells constitutes a human being, and I do not believe the moral implications of disposing of such cells is equivalent to killing a grown human being. As a result, I find implanting an embryo that I know has muscular dystrophy to be worse in moral terms than not implanting that embryo in the first place.

Another interesting case in this vein is the testing of embryos or small girls for known breast cancer gene mutations. If one has certain breast cancer gene mutations, the chances of getting breast cancer are very high, but not 100%. However, the chance of a baby or young girl getting breast cancer are none-existent. And by the time someone who's a baby now may get breast cancer in the future, we may have even more effective treatments for it, not to mention that we'll be on the lookout for this person as it is because of family history. To me, this is a good example of where I don't think rejecting an embryo for IVF is appropriate. I don't even think it's truly ethically sound to test an embryo for such a mutation.

 

[cocktaste]

Religious loons need to shove their fairy tales up their asses and stay the fuck out of everyone else's lives. Religion has no business in government. People should be allowed to live their own lives and make their own decisions.

 

[Drifterwood]

Ironically, ManB respects my right to reject religious dogma more than I respect her following that dogma or calling it a modern ethical position.

I personally don't believe that the abortion issue can be answered by either science or religion. I am uncomfortable with aborting a foetus that could live and 24 weeks seems very close to that time, though I am sure there is no hard and fast rule that says all develop at exactly the same pace.

The critical pre-survival issue regarding a potential person seems to be the relationship of the mother to the potential child. I have known women who said they knew they were pregnant the next morning and women who haven't made "contact" with the child until very much later than the 24 weeks we have. If ever, some of you may be thinking.

I don't think anyone can tell a woman/mother how they should feel about what is happening in her body until such time as the child can physically survive.

I appreciate that this isn't a scientific position, but it seems true by my own observations and of course it takes men out of the picture, which as a man, I find difficult.

 

[Drifterwood]

Regarding the other issues, I think it boils down to the religious concept of the sanctity of life. This does not simply mean that life is special, most of us think that, but more that it is granted and created by God and therefore it is not our place to meddle with God's will.

I don't hold this belief, so, man advancing his knowledge for the presumed good of mankind is a good thing even in the case of human cells. This opinion is shared by all our major nd respected charities working in the fields of healthcare.

The religious position is fundamental and more commonly held in the US it seems. Fundamental in the sense of being a tenet of some religious belief systems, though not a dogma for all christian sects which is interesting in itself. The question of God's will being opposed to man's will or potential. The apple taken by Eve. I can't accept that we have ability that is only there to test us and somehow we are to prove our love of God by rejecting our ability to do things. Some our abilities can be used for bad, bombs etc, and some of our abilities are good, medical science etc. That is the crux of the ethical debate rather than the religious debate.

 

[The Dragon]

Speaking as a woman who has miscarried 3 babies I am horrified at the thought of aborting infants.

 

[Axcess]

Regarding the other issues, I think it boils down to the religious concept of the sanctity of life. This does not simply mean that life is special, most of us think that, but more that it is granted and created by God and therefore it is not our place to meddle with God's will.

I don't hold this belief, so, man advancing his knowledge for the presumed good of mankind is a good thing even in the case of human cells. This opinion is shared by all our major nd respected charities working in the fields of healthcare.

The religious position is fundamental and more commonly held in the US it seems. Fundamental in the sense of being a tenet of some religious belief systems, though not a dogma for all christian sects which is interesting in itself. The question of God's will being opposed to man's will or potential. The apple taken by Eve. I can't accept that we have ability that is only there to test us and somehow we are to prove our love of God by rejecting our ability to do things. Some our abilities can be used for bad, bombs etc, and some of our abilities are good, medical science etc. That is the crux of the ethical debate rather than the religious debate.

Nobody is created by any god . We are born only from our parents . Our parents from their parents and so on .

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Ironically, ManB respects my right to reject religious dogma more than I respect her following that dogma or calling it a modern ethical position.

Well, thanks for recocognising I am not a 'loon' - but you also have misunderstood me. I do not call MY position a modern ethical position - I have been quite clear that MY personal position has a lot to do with the fact I believe that life starts at conception. However, I do know athesists and agnostics who hold views not a million miles from my own and they would describe their position as one of ethics that is unrelated to religious beliefs.

I personally don't believe that the abortion issue can be answered by either science or religion. I am uncomfortable with aborting a foetus that could live and 24 weeks seems very close to that time, though I am sure there is no hard and fast rule that says all develop at exactly the same pace.

The critical pre-survival issue regarding a potential person seems to be the relationship of the mother to the potential child. I have known women who said they knew they were pregnant the next morning and women who haven't made "contact" with the child until very much later than the 24 weeks we have. If ever, some of you may be thinking.

I don't think anyone can tell a woman/mother how they should feel about what is happening in her body until such time as the child can physically survive.

I appreciate that this isn't a scientific position, but it seems true by my own observations and of course it takes men out of the picture, which as a man, I find difficult.

I understand that many people hold the view that only the pregnant woman can decide - the problem is, for me, that it isn't just the body of the woman involved, there's another lifeform (to be less emotive) involved. It is entirely dependant on her and, til a certain stage, cannot survive without her but it is not part of her body. It is a separate lifeform.

Regarding the other issues, I think it boils down to the religious concept of the sanctity of life. This does not simply mean that life is special, most of us think that, but more that it is granted and created by God and therefore it is not our place to meddle with God's will.

I don't hold this belief, so, man advancing his knowledge for the presumed good of mankind is a good thing even in the case of human cells. This opinion is shared by all our major nd respected charities working in the fields of healthcare.

The religious position is fundamental and more commonly held in the US it seems. Fundamental in the sense of being a tenet of some religious belief systems, though not a dogma for all christian sects which is interesting in itself. The question of God's will being opposed to man's will or potential. The apple taken by Eve. I can't accept that we have ability that is only there to test us and somehow we are to prove our love of God by rejecting our ability to do things. Some our abilities can be used for bad, bombs etc, and some of our abilities are good, medical science etc. That is the crux of the ethical debate rather than the religious debate.

I know that's not addressed to me - but that's not the form my belief takes. The 'playing God' argument doesn't work for me bacause if you take it to its logical conclusion then all preserved / frozen foodstuffs are evil because they delay the natural process of growth and decomposition. Ergo - bollocks! My sole problem (and it is belief based, I'm not pretending it isn't) is that certain types of research require the loss of human life - that's what I can't sanction. If stem cell research can be done without taking matter from embryos that don't survive the process - brilliant. If genetic engineering can be done without creating embryos and then discarding the ones that lack the desired features - fantastic - I'll have a set of gills please!! (I know it doesn't work like that, but I would like gills...)

 

[Guy-jin]

If genetic engineering can be done without creating embryos and then discarding the ones that lack the desired features - fantastic - I'll have a set of gills please!! (I know it doesn't work like that, but I would like gills...)

The ethical dilemma I presented earlier is in response to that last point you made.

There are situations in our modern age that present us with a scenario in which in either case the human will lose his or her life. In that case, we must decide when and in what manner it will be lost. We do not have the luxury of deciding that it not be lost.

And, as medical professionals, there is an oath that they will try to prevent harm as much as is within their capabilities. If a premature death is a consequence in either case, we must decide which death will be the least harmful.

In the case of the muscular dystrophy IVF embryo, I must choose that it not be implanted, lest that embryo develop into a child that will degenerate until death at an early age. And this is a realistic scenario--a woman can carry a mutation in the muscular dystrophy gene without consequence but have a 50% chance of passing it on to her sons. In this modern age, we have an opportunity to stop that dice roll and ensure none of her children will have it. I believe this is not only an option, but our duty in the medical field--to prevent harm wherever we can.

And I'm sorry for beating a dead horse, if that's what it is, but I felt like expressing myself again.

And I'll take gills and wings, please.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

The ethical dilemma I presented earlier is in response to that last point you made.

There are situations in our modern age that present us with a scenario in which in either case the human will lose his or her life. In that case, we must decide when and in what manner it will be lost. We do not have the luxury of deciding that it not be lost.

And, as medical professionals, there is an oath that they will try to prevent harm as much as is within their capabilities. If a premature death is a consequence in either case, we must decide which death will be the least harmful.

In the case of the muscular dystrophy IVF embryo, I must choose that it not be implanted, lest that embryo develop into a child that will degenerate until death at an early age. And this is a realistic scenario--a woman can carry a mutation in the muscular dystrophy gene without consequence but have a 50% chance of passing it on to her sons. In this modern age, we have an opportunity to stop that dice roll and ensure none of her children will have it. I believe this is not only an option, but our duty in the medical field--to prevent harm wherever we can.

And I'm sorry for beating a dead horse, if that's what it is, but I felt like expressing myself again.

And I'll take gills and wings, please.

I understand completely what you are saying. But for me that is no different from giving a baby boy a lethal injection upon diagnosis of muscular dystrophy. Yes, he will have a difficult life and die in his early teens, or early twenties at latest* but he is alive. It's not the same moral problem for you in your scenario because, as I understand it, you don't believe that discarding the embryo is the same thing as euthenasia of a post-natal infant. But you present your argument as if it is. "If a premature death is a consequence in either case, we must decide which death will be the least harmful" - with that sentiment it sounds like you would be in favour of euthenasia for infants dignosed with muscular dystrpohy. Would you? (That's not intended aggressively, I'm genuinely curious.)

Yes - I would like the luxury of deciding that life is not to be lost. It is, at the moment, impossible in cases like the one we are discussing - in which case I take the view that life must be preserved, if we have the science to preserve it. It does all come back to an argument of belief of when exactly life starts. A 24 week gestation infant, born to parents who want it, has been known to survive. How is that child judged 'alive' and the child of a parent / parents who decide they do not, for whatever reasons, want the child judged abortable ('not alive')?


* almost certainly, read this from paragraph 9, if interested

 

[B_Blueprint]

Everythink on the world has got a job. Males too. Don't nose into it. God knows what to do!

 

[Drifterwood]

MY personal position has a lot to do with the fact I believe that life starts at conception.

It is a separate lifeform.

certain types of research require the loss of human life - that's what I can't sanction.

I am not in the business of changing other people's opinions, rather examining my own.

In my opinion there is a developmental difference between potential and actual. Potential becomes actual when the embryo becomes sensory and cognitive. That would be my ethical point of not sanctioning either aborting or testing human embryos. I wouldn't go out actively seeking that to be the law though.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I am not in the business of changing other people's opinions, rather examining my own.

In my opinion there is a developmental difference between potential and actual. Potential becomes actual when the embryo becomes sensory and cognitive. That would be my ethical point of not sanctioning either aborting or testing human embryos. I wouldn't go out actively seeking that to be the law though.

Then you see your ethics as less valid than someone else's? Why do you hold that ethical position then?

I've been 100% upfront about my 'life begins at conception' stance being my religious belief, and not based in science.

 

[Drifterwood]

Then you see your ethics as less valid than someone else's? Why do you hold that ethical position then?

I've been 100% upfront about my 'life begins at conception' stance being my religious belief, and not based in science.

My ethics are no more or less valid than anyone else's. Actaully they may be more valid than some and less than others. They are Aristotelean, as I understand the term, based on observation and logic. Both can be flawed. But they are a bottom up attempt rather than the top down implementation of a dogma or Platonic style ideal.

"life begins at conception" AKA the big bang theory :tongue:

 

[Viking_UK]

I'm a little wary about genetic engineering, and especially the ethics involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Yes, we can learn a lot through research into stem cells etc and genetic modification, and I agree with that up to a point. I've got no problem with therapeutic research, where the aim is to find the genetic causes of diseases and, if possible to eradicate them, but if you have to end one life to save another, is it worth it?

A fertilised egg is a potential life, but it only begins to fulfil that potential when it's implanted, which can be a bit hit and miss, so I have no problem with IVF from that point of view. It's just a slight extrapolation from what happens naturally anyway. I think if parents choose to have a child using IVF to become a donor for a sick child, that I do have a problem with. What right do they have to decide that that baby will give up its organs, bone marrow or whatever to save its sibling. Will that child ever be anything more than a donor to them?

With inherited diseases, things are a little more complicated, but again, who are we to decide whether a person is going to have a fulfilling life and be a contributing member of society? Ask Stephen Hawking how he feels about his life and whether or not he's made any contribution. The other thing to consider is that we are learning more and more about the causes of inherited diseases and are getting closer to finding cures for some. Who's to say that we won't find a cure for muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis during the person's lifespan? The logical extrapolation from the argument against allowing foetuses with genetic disorders to grow into children is to prevent carriers of genetic disorders breeding and eradicate the diseases that way. How ethical is that? It would be easier to do and more cost-effective than research into cures for the diseases, but I don't hear anyone advocating that as an option.

On the subject of abortion, I must say that I'm against it unless there's a very good medical reason, such as the prenancy endangering the mother's life. I know I'll put a lot of people's backs up by saying this, but if a healthy woman gets pregnant and doesn't want the child, there are plenty of couples (and singles) out there who would love to raise the child for her. I know it's not as simple and straightforward as having a baby and handing it over, and that the whole process of pregancy and childbirth can be very traumatic to a woman's body and emotions, but I think that child has a right to life. I fully support contraceptive use, up to and including drugs and devices which prevent implantation, but once that's happened, I think the foetus should have rights and legal status as a potential human being.

 

[Guy-jin]

I understand completely what you are saying. But for me that is no different from giving a baby boy a lethal injection upon diagnosis of muscular dystrophy. Yes, he will have a difficult life and die in his early teens, or early twenties at latest* but he is alive. It's not the same moral problem for you in your scenario because, as I understand it, you don't believe that discarding the embryo is the same thing as euthenasia of a post-natal infant. But you present your argument as if it is. "If a premature death is a consequence in either case, we must decide which death will be the least harmful" - with that sentiment it sounds like you would be in favour of euthenasia for infants dignosed with muscular dystrpohy. Would you? (That's not intended aggressively, I'm genuinely curious.)

No. I do not consider an infant to be equal to a mass of undifferentiated cells simply because the latter has the possibility of becoming the former. I would consider the death of a mass of undifferentiated cells to be reasonable, but the death of an infant would obviously not be, even in the case of something fatal like muscular dystrophy.

One of the problems I have with the argument at hand is that IVF in itself always creates excess embryos that will never be implanted and come to term. With that in mind, choosing to implant an embryo that has muscular dystrophy over one that doesn't is what I would consider unethical.

Yes - I would like the luxury of deciding that life is not to be lost. It is, at the moment, impossible in cases like the one we are discussing - in which case I take the view that life must be preserved, if we have the science to preserve it. It does all come back to an argument of belief of when exactly life starts. A 24 week gestation infant, born to parents who want it, has been known to survive. How is that child judged 'alive' and the child of a parent / parents who decide they do not, for whatever reasons, want the child judged abortable ('not alive')?

I am not actually in agreement with late term abortions. I know there is an ironic hypocrisy involved in being in favor of IVF but against abortion, and I've even commented on that before. However, when I mentioned that argument in the past, it was to characterize how ridiculous the "pro stem cell = pro abortion" position is, given that we don't get stem cells from late term embryos. My opinion in regards to a late term abortion is that it is only ethical if the mother is guaranteed to die in birth (and often those cases go along with the baby dying simultaneously). In those cases, it is better to save one life than lose two lives, in my opinion.

Anyway, that's not what this conversation is about, but that's where it led me. :biggrin1:

When does life start? It's always been. The sperm and ovum that joined together to create the embryo were alive. To someone like me, without a belief in the "soul" in the Christian sense, such a question is a bit silly. The issue of when "life" begins is not at hand here. But maybe I'm being too literal, and the real question is probably, "When does it stop being okay, in your opinion, to abort an embryo?" And my answer to that is: After it has began to take on vertebrate features such that it may be able to have cognition and sentience. I take an almost Buddhist approach toward it--Sentience is the thing that separates a mass of cells from a human being.

And when do we determine that happens? Well, it's hard to say. Therefore, only a very early term abortion, one where there is no doubt that this mass of cells has yet to attain sentience, could be justifiably aborted.

It's not the most logical stance in the world. But it's the best I have come up with for myself, I suppose.

 

[Guy-jin]

I'm a little wary about genetic engineering, and especially the ethics involved. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Yes, we can learn a lot through research into stem cells etc and genetic modification, and I agree with that up to a point. I've got no problem with therapeutic research, where the aim is to find the genetic causes of diseases and, if possible to eradicate them, but if you have to end one life to save another, is it worth it?

I think that goes back to the example I just threw out there: A pregnant woman who's guaranteed to die in childbirth and whose baby is also likely to die simultaneously. One for one must be decided by the person giving up the life, but when it's likely to be two deaths or one depending, I'd choose one.

A fertilised egg is a potential life, but it only begins to fulfil that potential when it's implanted, which can be a bit hit and miss, so I have no problem with IVF from that point of view. It's just a slight extrapolation from what happens naturally anyway. I think if parents choose to have a child using IVF to become a donor for a sick child, that I do have a problem with. What right do they have to decide that that baby will give up its organs, bone marrow or whatever to save its sibling. Will that child ever be anything more than a donor to them?

That is a real life scenario, and the second child is far more than a donor to them: He is a hero, to them and to his sister. In the case of bone marrow transplants, or even organ transplants--would that you had a sister who needed a bone marrow transplant, would you not wish to be able to help her? If it were me, I would. Therefore, I am not against this type of thing at all. To be born into being a hero would be something pretty special, to me.

With inherited diseases, things are a little more complicated, but again, who are we to decide whether a person is going to have a fulfilling life and be a contributing member of society? Ask Stephen Hawking how he feels about his life and whether or not he's made any contribution. The other thing to consider is that we are learning more and more about the causes of inherited diseases and are getting closer to finding cures for some. Who's to say that we won't find a cure for muscular dystrophy or cystic fibrosis during the person's lifespan? The logical extrapolation from the argument against allowing foetuses with genetic disorders to grow into children is to prevent carriers of genetic disorders breeding and eradicate the diseases that way. How ethical is that? It would be easier to do and more cost-effective than research into cures for the diseases, but I don't hear anyone advocating that as an option.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in this paragraph!

I agree with your first statement there. One of the problems with the muscular dystrophy example is that there's always the chance that child would have a major impact on the world around him. Maybe he would do something quite extraordinary, and of course, were he to be born and grow up, he would want to keep living. But the other side of that coin is that he won't keep living. He is definitely going to die prematurely of his condition. Meanwhile, another embryo that wouldn't suffer such a fate never came to fruition. Since that's the tradeoff, I still feel the choice has to be for an embryo that isn't carrying this extremely deleterious, fatal condition.

And of course you're right--perhaps we will cure some of these diseases in the not so distant future. Let's hope we do. But until then, we have an obligation to do what we can to prevent them here and now. That's my feeling, at least.

As for eradicating diseases by selecting embyros that don't have them... well, I'm afraid first of all that that approach will never truly eradicate a disease unless we get so anally attentive toward it that we choose embryos that don't even carry a single copy of a deleterious mutation. Given that such a thing would have to be done to every conceived embryo, the cost would be enormous and extremely difficult, not to mention ethically unsound (destroying embryos that simply carry a disease gene, even though they don't have the gene, is unethical in my book).