|
United States41958 Posts
On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats.
I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
|
Interesting, I always thought that the argument for allowing abortions based on women's right to decide about her body was legal trick necessitated by peculiarity of US legal system not actual ethical position. Most of ethical dilemmas disappear if you instead base legality of abortions on the lack of "personhood"/neurological complexity of embryos up until certain age. In that case most of your questions have easy answers.
Of course except the questions of how responsibilities are spread between father and mother. In the case you described I think woman should be allowed to keep the embryos if she refunds the guy all costs he provided for IVF and signs legal agreement never to pursue any material goods based on his parentage.
|
On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally.
Well you just made every IVF person feel like they shouldn't exist...
On July 05 2013 06:13 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think it would be fantastic if people just minded their own fucking business.
User was temp banned for this post.
He didn't need to use the f word I guess (assuming that's why he was temp banned) but the guy has a good point imo.
I don't see how fertilized eggs are so special. They're not conscious, they're not really even alive right? Unless you believe that god sends down a little angel to plant a soul in every egg as soon as it's fertilized then I don't see what the problem with getting rid of them is. It's wrong to kill things because they're conscious right? Because they can feel pain and because people care about them and whatnot. Do any of these things apply to eggs just because they have the potential to be turned into human life? I don't personally think so. I'll read more from this thread. Maybe I'm missing the point or maybe I'm just wrong.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 05 2013 06:39 red_hq wrote:
Another interesting corollary to this argument is the eugenics side of things. Often as IVF is done in bulk, science can non destructively test these embryos for things like down syndrome or crippling genetic disorders and chose the most healthy one for implantation. It is conceivable that science will be able to test for things beyond genetic disorders and give the parents a list of available physical and possible even mental attributes to chose in their child and discard the rest.
This added complication adds more dimensions to the argument. Is it morally acceptable for parents to chose these physical attributes in child? As it stands no one decides your hair color or eye color but imagine if your parents did without your consent, is this acceptable? If you think IVF currently is okay, is it still when you are to destroy these embryos the reason that the child will not have blue eyes or something else that does not significantly affect the quality of life of the child? Even then, where do you drawn the line of significantly effect quality of life?
A great point. If you're allowed to produce extra embryos and destroy them at whim because they have no value before implantation then the only limit for selection is how well we understand the genome. Whether or not that produces an unethical situation doesn't retrospectively add value to the embryos but it might necessitate them having legal protection anyway. On the other hand, if you believe an unimplanted embryo is essentially no different to sperm there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't select the best one, why leave it to chance after all. If you have two and can only keep one it's no better to decide by coinflip than by merit, one still dies, so why not keep the better one.
|
Is it possible to even answer a question like this or is it doomed to be tossed around by morals and scientific beliefs? Both outcomes open even more ethical doors and it just further complicates things. Human ethics and science have always clashed I think, but ethics change over generations so maybe the current generation just isn't ready to decide on such a complicated issue as this.
|
On July 05 2013 06:39 red_hq wrote:
Another interesting corollary to this argument is the eugenics side of things. Often as IVF is done in bulk, science can non destructively test these embryos for things like down syndrome or crippling genetic disorders and chose the most healthy one for implantation. It is conceivable that science will be able to test for things beyond genetic disorders and give the parents a list of available physical and possible even mental attributes to chose in their child and discard the rest.
This added complication adds more dimensions to the argument. Is it morally acceptable for parents to chose these physical attributes in child? As it stands no one decides your hair color or eye color but imagine if your parents did without your consent, is this acceptable? If you think IVF currently is okay, is it still when you are to destroy these embryos the reason that the child will not have blue eyes or something else that does not significantly affect the quality of life of the child? Even then, where do you drawn the line of significantly effect quality of life?
In relation to the bolded question, as the kid I would be extremely glad my parents did it. After all, if they hadn't, then I wouldn't have been born. In the situation you put forth, they didn't choose my hair and eye color. They chose me over other kids for/because of my hair or eye color.
Of course, when the genes themselves become manipulable (as in, actually choosing the hair color), then we might be facing a GATTACA world.
|
On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person. Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted.
I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence.
I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 05 2013 06:55 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person. Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted. I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence. I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with.
Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
|
On July 05 2013 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats. I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true.
Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings.
The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
|
On July 05 2013 06:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats. I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true. Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings. The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Sure it has value. So do pennies.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 05 2013 06:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats. I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true. Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings. The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
|
On July 05 2013 06:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:55 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person. Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted. I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence. I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with. Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception.
Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent.
|
On July 05 2013 06:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:29 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead? Put forth a position! Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form. Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings.
You do realize that a very large majority of the embryos naturally conceived and implanted don't ever come to term right?
Every day girls become pregnant and lose the embryo at an early stage without ever knowing about it.
I don't have my gynecology books before me but i'm pretty sure around 95% of successful fecundation don't lead to a baby.
IVG is not significantly less successful than the normal process in creating life.
|
What's the point of this debate? It's not that I'm against it, it's just that if we're debating for the sake of debating, or you want other opinions, then cool.
But if you try to reach a consensus, or some kind of middle point, I think this is just a waste of time. People won't ever reach a consensus, because we have such a biased conception of human life (nobody would care if they only did this with animals), and even if we, somehow, sorted out some kind of logical and rationally consistent conclusion, there would still be people against it.
On July 05 2013 07:05 Diavlo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:37 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:29 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead? Put forth a position! Well, a big problem would be that some of the embryos created never get used. They are just sitting there in stasis. The people being hurt are the embryos themselves. Also, I think IVF devalues human life in the embryonic form. Also, a lot of these attempts were unsuccessful, meaning we sacrificed human beings for the cause of perfecting the use of human beings. You do realize that a very large majority of the embryos naturally conceived and implanted don't ever come to term right? Every day girls become pregnant and lose the embryo at an early stage without ever knowing about it. I don't have my gynecology books before me but i'm pretty sure around 95% of successful fecundation don't lead to a baby. IVG is not significantly less successful than the normal process in creating life.
But we're not responsible for it. It just happens because "nature wanted to be that way", but in the IVG case, a doctor purposely threw "humans lives" to the trash because he didn't need them anymore.
|
On July 05 2013 06:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats. I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true. Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings. The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community.
Well, after I see the soul I might take it into consideration in my ethical calculations ? Rationally there is no soul of that kind, so why would we take it into consideration.
|
United States41958 Posts
On July 05 2013 07:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:55 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person. Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted. I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence. I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with. Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception. Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent.
Yes but cloning is no different to twinning. God will know ahead of time that you'll be cloned and will pack an extra soul into you at your conception which will stay dormant until you get cloned.
|
embryo manipulation would not be viable because no one can guarantee that the embryo would actually get the woman pregnant. women get implanted, in average, with 4 embryos at a time just so that the chance for a pregnancy goes up by a few measly percentages. the success rate is about 33% for 35yr old women and drops significantly to about 6% for women over 40.
not to mention that it' s expensive as fuck already.
|
On July 05 2013 07:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 07:04 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 06:58 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:55 mcc wrote:On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? I think the uniqueness means that scientifically it's impossible to say anything but that it is a human life, but my beliefs come from the idea that life begins at conception (regardless of how conception is achieved) and that every human being has a soul and thus deserves equal rights and representation as every other person. Obviously we've created a huge problem with IVF, in my opinion. We have these people who we've put in stasis... it's kind of disturbing. Ideally, the further creation of embryos would be outlawed and a system to "adopt an embryo" would be enacted. I am really interested how you approach cloning, as there is no need for conception there and yet human being comes to existence. I think it is extremely interesting to watch ethical systems based on tradition squirm as science offers them more and more problems they cannot consistently deal with. Fuck cloning, identical twins created that problem long ago. The embryo splits into two embryos post conception and they become two different people. I believe they concluded God knows when it's going to happen ahead of time and packs extra souls into the embryo at the moment of conception. Well the case is somewhat different. In case of twins there was conception (as in egg and sperm were involved). In case of cloning (theoretically) any cell becomes potential human being. Currently egg is still required, but what if we gain ability to do it even without it. Problems for his argument now become basically impossible to make even superficially consistent. Yes but cloning is no different to twinning. God will know ahead of time that you'll be cloned and will pack an extra soul into you at your conception which will stay dormant until you get cloned.
 Fair point, but I think at that point his argument becomes pretty suspect to anyone beside hard-core believers.
|
On July 05 2013 07:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:59 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:44 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:39 Sermokala wrote:On July 05 2013 06:14 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. So for you an embryo in a test tube is a human life? Care to expand upon that? It's certainly unique human genetic material but it's inert while it's frozen and has no potential to ever become more than a few cells. In your opinion is it the uniqueness that gives it it's value as a human life or is it just that it's human cells or what? Most of the pro-life position comes from the "life begins at conception" argument. So even if its frozen its still past the stage of conception and is thus a human life that is being toyed with in these frozen vats. I understand that but that's a debate dead end. If someone draws an answer which is true only to them due to a belief which has no communicable value then that's great for them and as I said to sc2superfan101 you can build a logically coherent opinion on the entire subject upon that answer but it's not really great for the debate because you can't make an argument for ensoulment at conception being true. Thats logically dishonest and you know it. The concept of ensoulment isn't a logically debatable its a philosophical and spiritual concept. Science hasn't gotten to the point of ensoulment and until it does it has a much relevant to this discussion as what kept things close to the ground was when they were building buildings. The value of life at all stages should have a communicable value to everyone, fighting against the value of only ones self to ensure a better community. Saying "all embryos have value because ensoulment" is as valid as saying "no embryos have value because antiensoulment (a brand new belief where the devil goes around following conception taking souls away from embryos but then God puts them back in around week 3 of pregnancy). You can form an opinion on the entire subject because of your belief in ensoulment or antiensoulment and everything sc2superfan101 said logically and coherently followed from his starting belief but because his starting belief was a belief derived from incommunicable personal experience it's just not useful in a debate. If I were to insist that embryos had no value because they had no souls because of antiensoulment that'd be great for me but unconvincing to you because you wouldn't accept my antiensoulment foundation to my argument because you'd suspect I made it up 3 minutes ago. That's the problem with bringing something that cannot be shared to a debate.
saying "life begins at conception" isn't some specifically created time frame thats the problem you seem to be having. Its not about if they have souls at some point or another its that their life begins at conception.
Its the same logic pattern as where i-35 starts. Its not immediately known but if you follow it you'll find out that it starts in duluth and goes until it hits the Mexican border. Life has a specific start to it and without any proper argument for it starting at any point after conception it has to start at the beginning.
I would much rather see a pro-choice perspective on when live begins.
|
On July 05 2013 06:29 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 05 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On July 05 2013 06:09 sc2superfan101 wrote:
That's why I'm against IVF. We shouldn't be creating/wasting human lives like that. Just adopt if you want a kid and can't have one naturally. Why? Whywhywhywhywhy Substitute IVF for open heart surgery, caesarean section, and the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't natural. Natural doesn't mean good. It is not an argument. It is a descriptor. I didn't say it wasn't good because it wasn't natural, lol. I said it wasn't good because it was creating a human being and then just toying around with it for the benefit of other people. If natural isn't your argument, then why is this any different than regular conception? Where are they toying around? What is bad about it? Who is harmed and why? What disadvantages does this pose? You say that the people interested in this should adopt instead. Should the people who plan to conceive in whatever you define as a non 'toying around' manner be persuaded to adopt instead? Put forth a position!
Read what KwarK wrote man. That is this guy's point, he i against IVF because it can create moral conundrums with human life like this.
Great thread KwarK, made me think!
I am still 100% pro life, I am ok with IVF, I am pro adoption and I think society would get worse at first and then gradually better if we implemented that sort of thing- that everyone gives birth minus rape/ save the mother's life. See, right now a lot of kids think random repeat unprotected (and I don't feel this way about protected!) sex and promiscuity are just a big game, and that some further ritual is required to conceive.
What with kids everywhere growing up adopted, young mothers etc, it would be pretty bad yes, and pretty hard to ignore. Would last maybe a generation. That next generation? Huge fall in STD percentages, other rampant promiscuity caused issues. Would be easier to raise kids in that society I think too.
Then there is Divorce. Ultimate stupidity IMO, but I understand how it happens, and it doesn't make you a worse person. Do not get together if you aren't responsible enough to admit your own failures and give up some battles to your partner
This is what I think. I am not offended by people who disagree. I also practice dogma, this is a position I hold on a moral level. You will not convince me otherwise, so attack my idea. Not me.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
