Can we confirm that In Vitro Fertilization is inhumane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter anhphan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They didn’t cause the death. They didn’t even intentionally create a child.
They rather did. If I put eggs, flour, cocoa, etc in a bowl and mix I am intentionally making a cake. Now it may not work out as I am a terrible baker. But the intent was there when I put the ingredients in and attempted to make said cake.

The couple who have unprotected sex with the intent of making a child have indeed done that intentionally.
40.png
Alex337:
In ivf they don’t specifically create life to end them, they fertilize to get viable ones
They know that not all of the embryos will certainly survive.
As does the couple with the high miscarriage rate.
40.png
Alex337:
So you think it’s unethical to abort a foetus that won’t make it?
I do. Because aborting it would be an act. I don’t believe in deliberately ending an innocent life, regardless of age. In that example I gave earlier would you shoot a man in his death bed. Or other examples: a boy with muscular dystrophy/chronic illness etcc. It’s not the perfect analogy because one would have to take into account the emotional toll, but I’m referring to the reasoning as to why it would be ethical or unethical.
Yeah… I’ll just have to disagree with you here. That unviable foetus can endanger the mother greatly. My own mother was going to have to decide between carrying such a child to term and endangering herself and I’d have supported her decision not to die in the attempt. She miscarried before that happened but no, the danger posed to mothers when carrying unviable foetuses to term is too large.
 
And that’s fine, but God intended human life be created through sex, not in a lab. IVF circumvents God’s plan for procreation. It’s placing our will above His.
 
And that’s fine, but God intended human life be created through sex, not in a lab. IVF circumvents God’s plan for procreation. It’s placing our will above His.
I think God intended both personally. I hope we can make IVF more effective so we can successfully fertilise a single egg, that would be the ideal.

While personally I prefer adoption as an option for folks who can’t have children I know that some people view the whole biological children thing as very important.
 
Not for the reasons you are stating though.
I didn’t state specific reasons. I provided a link to a Catholic Answers Video.
If a woman who knows she has a high chance of miscarrying plans a preganancy I agree with @Alex337 that the morality re the deaths is no different to IVF.
There’s no sin from a naturally occurring miscarriage. However, it’s definitely sinful to commission the unnatural creation, implantation, and storage of the embryos.

https://www.ncbcenter.org/files/2614/3094/3360/IVFPreachingPoints.pdf
 
In a lot of situations, a direct abortion or death isn’t the only two options though.

What about having a baby who would die shortly after birth + there’s no threat to the mother’s life? There’s more than one scenario we can look at, to be honest.
 
What about having a baby who would die shortly after birth + there’s no threat to the mother’s life?
People who live short earthly lives are no less persons than people who live to be 110. Soft eugenics (destroying embryos who have a condition that will result in short life) is eugenics
 
In a lot of situations, a direct abortion or death isn’t the only two options though.

What about having a baby who would die shortly after birth + there’s no threat to the mother’s life? There’s more than one scenario we can look at, to be honest.
Agreed, there are multiple scenarios. In terms of ones that would die shortly after birth many in that situation actually die during birth, being born isn’t easy after all. Or are born into pain before dying. I see no reason to extend agony.
 
Or are born into pain before dying. I see no reason to extend agony.
A 8 year old child with muscular dystrophy then? I’m genuinely curious to see where the line is drawn for you, tbh. It seems so far you’re disagreeing because you simply disagree and I’m interested to know. Do you believe abortions in general is not unethical? If you don’t find anything wrong with that in the first place, we are both wasting our time

I honestly don’t believe that we have a right to be the ones that end an innocent life (regardless of age) and while your views are emotionally appealing (it’s not like views like mine are soft and fuzzy, it’s really hard to stick to them especially as a woman) to me, I feel like it’s not consistent enough + show no signs of moral objectivity to me?
 
How’d we get from “abort because the fetus would die anyway” to aborting a child that would survive?
 
Chilling how easy it is to become a eugenicist, isn’t it?
 
Not a child that would survive, but would definitely die after birth. You said it’s fine to abort a child if she would die shortly after birth, so I’m asking when would be the acceptable time period. If the child would die a couple of days/months/years later? And if ending a life is moral because there is suffering, who gets to determine how much suffering is needed first? Is it limited only to fetus/babies or human beings in general? All of these questions are definitely linked. Anyway, you are still avoiding my question about whether you think abortions in general are ethical. Because if you say yes, your position would make a lot more sense?

We tend to see euthanasia, eugenics and abortions intertwined at times because ultimately one sparks conversations about the other.
 
Chilling how easy it is to become a eugenicist, isn’t it?
Sorry friend, but a foetus that was already going to die isn’t eugenicists. It’s avoiding giving birth to a corpse and risking ones own life to do so.
 
Depends on the person’s circumstances.

I think I already answered in another thread most likely that I am pro-choice, so I’m not skirting that issue. I was simply pointing out that you moved the goal posts a wee bit.

And I’m sorry, but aborting a foetus that wouldn’t survive isn’t eugenics no matter how you want to paint it. Eugenics is described as; “the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.”

A person choosing to abort a child that would die inside of them, or shortly after a pregnancy (which in itself risks their life), doesn’t fit that definition.
 
I was simply pointing out that you moved the goal posts a wee bit.
And I’ve already pointed out why. Your argument to abort a soon-to-be fetus was because you believe it’s okay to do so to prevent extending agony, but you didn’t bring up any argument that said the life of a fetus is not as valuable as a baby. In fact, you did say it was okay if the child is going to be born into pain. (ie we are not talking about a fetus who is going to die in the womb already, but rather after birth) Hence I moved the goalposts: eg would it be okay to ‘put down’ a baby (who’s born) if she was suffering and will die soon?
And I’m sorry, but aborting a foetus that wouldn’t survive isn’t eugenics no matter how you want to paint it.
I didn’t paint it as such, so you can calm down lol. What you’re describing (your argument) would be more linked to euthanasia, which most pro choice people support.
 
40.png
Alex337:
I was simply pointing out that you moved the goal posts a wee bit.
And I’ve already pointed out why. Your argument to abort a soon-to-be fetus was because you believe it’s okay to do so to prevent extending agony, but you didn’t bring up any argument that said the life of a fetus is not as valuable as a baby. In fact, you did say it was okay if the child is going to be born into pain. (ie we are not talking about a fetus who is going to die in the womb already, but rather after birth) Hence I moved the goalposts: eg would it be okay to ‘put down’ a baby (who’s born) if she was suffering and will die soon?
I believe I already answered this; it would depend on the parents. Personally I’m not sure, I’m not likely to have biological children so it’s not something I need to worry about. But if parents decided they couldn’t support such a child then sure.
40.png
Alex337:
And I’m sorry, but aborting a foetus that wouldn’t survive isn’t eugenics no matter how you want to paint it.
I didn’t paint it as such, so you can calm down lol. What you’re describing (your argument) would be more linked to euthanasia, which most pro choice people support.
Someone else did though, so don’t tell me to “calm down”.
 
So, how long does a life have to be in order to be of value? Speaking from conception, is a life valued at 3 weeks? 6? 40 weeks? 120 weeks? Where is the line?

Or, is it your opinion that deformed life is less valuable?

Thing is, I believe that every single human being is of an intrinsic value, that each life, from the life that is 1 minute old to the life that is 52,560,000 minutes and going is still precious, respected, valued.

I want to understand where the point is that you value life.
Eugenics is described as; “the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.”
That is part of the description, the beginning, however eugenics has far more tentacles:


"The eugenics movement began in the U.S. in the late 19th century. However, unlike in Britain, eugenicists in the U.S. focused on efforts to stop the transmission of negative or “undesirable” traits from generation to generation. In response to these ideas, some US leaders, private citizens, and corporations started funding eugenical studies. This lead to the 1911 establishment of The Eugenics Records Office (ERO) in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. The ERO spent time tracking family histories and concluded that people deemed to be unfit more often came from families that were poor, low in social standing, immigrant, and/or minority. Further, ERO researchers “demonstrated” that the undesirable traits in these families, such as pauperism, were due to genetics, and not lack of resources.

Committees were convened to offer solutions to the problem of the growing number of “undesirables” in the U.S. population. Stricter immigration rules were enacted, but the most ominous resolution was a plan to sterilize “unfit” individuals to prevent them from passing on their negative traits. "

Moving into modern technology, IVF embryos who have conditions like Down’s Syndrome, Dwarfism, other profound genetic conditions are always destroyed.

We have moved further down the eugenics road now with pre-natal screening. When a fetus tests positive for Down’s or Dwarfism (and other conditions) are aborted at a rate between 50 & 90%. This is a serious issue, some states are legislating against this form of eugenics.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2008/09/down-syndrome-and-abortion-rates/


 
Last edited:
No doctor can always guarantee when a child will die immediately after birth or soon after.

There was a little girl born recently to loving Christian parents. I followed her story on Facebook. The doctors determined prenataly that the baby had severe brain abnormalities and should be aborted.

They refused. The doctors were adamant that the baby would die either immediately or soon after birth. But, the baby did neither. She was born without most of her brain, just the brainstem, and with too much extra fluid in her skull. Yet she kept on living.

The doctors were astounded. Finally, they gave her a shunt to drain the extra fluid, and that little girl just thrived. Her entire life was a miracle. The doctors were constantly perplexed at how well she was and how much she continued to learn and do.

She lived for three years and learned to do impossible things for a child with very little brain tissue and a large, heavy head. She could roll over, reach for toys, scoot across the floor, laugh, giggle, play, throw a tantrum, recognize her family, etc.

She was the happiest, most beautiful little girl. When she finally passed away due to a shunt malfunction, hundreds of people mourned her. Her joy and smiles brought so much joy to so many people. I grieved for her, and I am confident she is healed and healthy and happy with God.

If her parents hadn’t trusted in God, the world would have been less rich. You can’t trust that life always works out the way doctors predict. You have to have faith in God because He can work miracles like this.

She isn’t the only child like this. There are hundreds and thousands of children who thrive even though their doctors said they should have been aborted. Eugenics in any way, shape, or form is wrong. All babies deserve a chance to live.
 
Last edited:
I see you want to strawman me by entirely altering what I said. You have fun with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top