IVF: the hidden slaughter

Okay pro-life groups are all against stem cells because it kills a human embryo and that's wrong (just go with me here). But all the embryos are collected from left over in vitro fertilisation treatments and would of been discard anyway, yet no one is trying to ban IVF. What's the deal here? why does it get a free pass?

Based on the stem cell debate, I think they want all of them to be unfrozen and turned into children someday, but I'm not sure.

It's much easier to fight something that isn't as personal as IVF. Can you imagine the outrage from infertile couples and children of IVF these pro-lifers would have to deal with if they tried to ban IVF?

These are the same people who believe you have a right to life only until you're born.

IVF doesn't always get a free pass—I know some pro-lifers who oppose it—but the underlying idea is that the pro-life movement is really more pro-family and would not like the idea of families not being able to have (their own) children.

"It's much easier to fight something that isn't as personal as IVF. Can you imagine the outrage from infertile couples and children of IVF these pro-lifers would have to deal with if they tried to ban IVF?" - Commando Dude

... if their activism revolves around the evasion of outrage, then it's downright cowardly. Especially if they have no problem standing in the way of research with potential to cure a lot of disease.

Depends where. here we've got a big debate about the IVF (somehow, until recently it evaded attention of politicians), and excommunications have already been threatened.

Ugh. Another tradition vs. progress debate - which is really what it is. By a certain definition, an embryo is a "person", but by a very slight extension, so are ova and spermatozoa, so masturbation should be mass murder and every woman who doesn't conceive during each fertility cycle is denying life to potential humans.

One must step back and realize that human life, even post-birth, is not sacred; its value is what we assign it and make of it. This could be a huge post but (fortunately?) I don't have the time to write it out.

It's much easier to fight something that isn't as personal as IVF. Can you imagine the outrage from infertile couples and children of IVF these pro-lifers would have to deal with if they tried to ban IVF?

I imagine it's comparable to the outrage they already face from people suffering from life threatening conditions that might be cured by stem cells. As Jewelled Dragon and lord Gacek point out, IVF doesn't necessarily get a free pass. I think the reason it's attacked less often has to do with the fact that the discarded embryos are a byproduct. The fact that you're actually using embryos for the creation of stem cells make the connotations of sacrifice more obvious. A lot of people probably accept IVF because they simply aren't aware of or haven't considered all the implications.

Well I actually HAVE heard pro-life individuals attack IVF. It's not common but I have seen it. I'm guessing they largely don't attack IVF itself because these are couples trying to get babies and they don't specifically throw away embryos. It's hard to wrap my head around their logic when it doesn't make sense to me.

"Well I actually HAVE heard pro-life individuals attack IVF. It's not common but I have seen it." - breadloaf

Right, but comparing the opposition to stem cell research to the opposition to IVF suggests there are pro-life individuals who attack the former and not the latter.

This thread is about the "logic" of such individuals.

There are also IVF methods that don't create extra embryos, IIRC.

There's also the element that pro-life churches and organizations are full of couples who want babies (selection bias, y'know), but are less likely to contain people who are accidentally pregnant. So the struggles of an infertile couple are very up close and personal to them, whereas the struggles of an accidental pregnancy are a little more foreign (and that's before we get into the "well it's your own fault" factor, which I'm going to go ahead and pretend isn't there).

@Fighteer:calling masturbation murder is akin to calling killing a newborn a very late term abortion, let not use reductio ad absurdism, were better than that here.

personally i believe the IVF industry just has too good a PR machine that most people simply aren't aware of the effects, risks and cost of 'human' life. few complain because few know

edited 21st Oct '10 3:12:55 PM by joeyjojo

I thought this was going to be about Infantry Fighting Vehicles. I am disappoint.

I'm more curious as to why people are still pursuing anti fetal stem cell research bills. I thought it was discovered that there's better ways to get them.

Infantry Fighting Vehicles are quite open about the fact they are there to kill people

edited 21st Oct '10 3:45:25 PM by joeyjojo

I think the reason people hate embryonic stem cell research is because it treats human life as a means to an end - essentially viewing human beings as just 'fuel' or 'spare parts'. That's a dangerous attitude to cultivate, and while IVF does create these left-over embryos, it's not doing it for the express purpose of using them as spare parts.

"I think the reason people hate embryonic stem cell research is because it treats human life as a means to an end - essentially viewing human beings as just 'fuel' or 'spare parts'. That's a dangerous attitude to cultivate, and while IVF does create these left-over embryos, it's not doing it for the express purpose of using them as spare parts." - Loni Jay

But these embryos weren't even sentient before being destroyed for research, whereas the people who need cures ARE.

@ Neo This is not a topic that we are ever going to get people to agree on. Check out the abortion thread for why. Let's just say that, sentient or not, some people (like me) believe that an embryo is a human being with a right to life, and killing one of them for its cells is just as morally wrong as murdering someone for their organs.

Frankly I think embryonic stem cell research should be on the way out anyway, because people are making inroads on treatment using adult stem cells, taken from the person's own body and therefore with far fewer problems.

"Frankly I think embryonic stem cell research should be on the way out anyway, because people are making inroads on treatment using adult stem cells, taken from the person's own body and therefore with far fewer problems." - Loni Jay

... where do you get your info on the subject? As far as I was aware, embryonic and adult stem cell research are valid to different parts of the research. If you're going to oppose research with this kind of potential to cure disease, you really ought to have a good reason.

I get my info from university courses, and from medical documentaries.

I have a good reason. I believe that a human being is a human being from conception onwards. Whether or not you agree with my personal morality does not affect how 'good' a reason it is.

Besides which, I just think from a logical point of view that adult stem cells will work better. They have your DNA anyway, so there's no chance your body will reject them. And they're already partially specialised, so you don't have to worry about how to get them to differentiate in the direction you want. And they don't make political enemies. What are the benefits of embryonic ones?

edited 21st Oct '10 10:10:20 PM by LoniJay

well even if adult stem cells work out they are still going to destroying embryos for IVF

Does anyone have figures for how many embryos are created and how many are implanted? I know that they often plant more embryos than the parents want babies, because of the possibilities for miscarriage. So how many do they create in the first place?

This thread is about the "logic" of such individuals.

Such use of Sneer Quotes certainly isn't going to increase the likelihood that someone who holds a pro-life mindset is going to bother to share their opinions with you.

Presuming, that is what those in this thread desire as an outcome? Of course, if this is a primate social game where you signal your status by virtue of having the "right" opinions by the standards of your peer group, I'll leave you to it.

Personally I tire of the pigeon-holing pro-lifers get. Like Christians, communists, environmentalists, and <insert opinionated group here> they are a large group represented in the public fora by a very loud and obnoxious minority, and so get stereotyped as regressive idiots.

I, for my part, am staunchly pro-life, but have no problem with IVF, stem cell research, or even extreme situation abortions (i.e. rape, incest, threat to the mother's life, the usual exceptions), and fail to see how considering an unborn child's life worthy of preservation is in any way regressive.

The notion that a sperm cell is hardly less "alive" than a recently conceived zygote is a fair argument to make, but personally I find drawing the line at the moment of birth to be a far more arbitrary distinction.

edited 22nd Oct '10 4:10:39 AM by TheBadinator

I disagree with the idea that a sperm or ova is just as 'alive' as a fertilised zygote. That sperm cell is never going to become a person, never in a million years. It's impossible. The moment when life really starts is fertilisation, at which point division and differentiation starts, and when it's capable of becoming a person.

Loni, I agree with you up to a point.

When insemination occurs, fertilization will in the wide majority of cases in modern society result in a human baby eventually developing and successfully being born, and I do feel that intervening at any point between then, and terminating the pregnancy is in a way destroying a person that in all likelihood would eventually exist.

I think someone was griping about "potential" in that other thread, but if potential isn't the thing protecting life, then you might as well defend murder by stating that we all die anyway. That's hardly all I'd have to say on the matter, but do I really need to clarify why intent and potential are important to consider? I hope not.

Anyhow, what of eggs that are fertilized outside of a womb? As you've noted, fertilization is unlikely to happen without help, but an egg can be fertilized without the intention of inserting it into an environment where it would develop. How would a person who commits in vitro fertilization and simply lets the resulting zygote die be tried? Should they by law be required to find some way to grow the thing into a baby that can subsequently be left to a foster care system?