Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 On the adoption point, I should stress that I'm morally opposed to IVF as well, since that involves multiple abortions with an added eugenic flavour. Â Â Â Please explain, as I get the feeling you dont understand how IVF actually works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Halitosis Romantic Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 Why do people insist on explaining things to Kenny? He's a big boy, and you're not going to sway him. Â "Hmmm... you're right, I wasn't understanding IVF. Now that you've explained it to me, I have fundamentally changed my very belief system. Thank you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Scenario - a woman who is pregnant but does not yet realise it falls down a flight of stairs, and miscarriages. Should she be charged with manslaughter? By your definition, that life begins at conception, surely that would be the logical conclusion. Outside of the inflexible morality of religion, though, most people would agree that the question of when life is life, and a person begins to acrue legal rights, is one that needs to be more rigorously defined. Similar scenario - the woman is pregnant and knows it (and is happy about it), and someone else pushes her down the stairs, and she miscarries. Should they be charged with manslaughter? I think Kenny's bang on about how people never tend to think "it's just a clump of cells" for a welcomed pregnancy that ends in miscarriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 The answer is, of course, it depends on how far gone she is! Kenny is right, people ten to think emotively in whatever way lets them cope with the situation. It's up to the lawmakers not to do the same thing, either emotively towards or emotively away from abortion. Â Incidentally, it being an accident has no bearing on the charge of manslaughter. Just thought I'd correct that. Plenty of people don't mean to kill people, and still go down for manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 Why do people insist on explaining things to Kenny? He's a big boy, and you're not going to sway him. Â "Hmmm... you're right, I wasn't understanding IVF. Now that you've explained it to me, I have fundamentally changed my very belief system. Thank you." Â Â Why explain anything to anyone then? I dont want to try to 'sway' him or anybody else, but making a judgement based on incoreect information isnt a good thign to do. If he still feels the same afterwards then fine, whatever. Â On the other hand he may know what hes talking about and I just didnt understand what he meant, in which case its me that needs something explaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 neil - point taken. But then again, the argument is usually nothing but "HUMAN RIGHTS! HUMAN RIGHTS! OPPRESSING WOMEN! PATRIARCHY!" I never hear anyone think about the choices the child might make. If I referred to killing a person instead, would that be OK? (I mean from a debating, neutral-language point of view. I realise you don't agree with the basic assumption involved.) Â Kiffy - masturbation and abortion are different issues. Life begins at conception. The only other reasonable point to put it at would be birth. Otherwise you're talking about a sliding scale. The idea of the child being 0% human at conception, then maybe 3-4% at implantation, about 40% at 16 weeks then 75% at 24 weeks before hitting the high 90s as it approaches full-term is a thoroughly bizarre and unworkable concept. Â IVF involves the fertilisation of multiple extracted eggs and the implantation of one or more of the most viable resultant embryos. The rest are usually disposed of. To me, that's multiple abortions. The eugenic flavour comes from the selection of the "good" ones and disposing of the "bad" ones. Also, we're increasingly moving towards selection based on slightly more morally dubious criteria than simply which are most likely to lead to successful pregnancies. Â Pitcos - I think if the intention was to cause miscarriage then yes, definitely. Indeed, in some American states that already happens: kill a pregnant woman and you're charged with two murders. It's a complicated and difficult legal issue (and utterly hypocritical if abortion is legal), but I think the principle is sound. Â Edit: Sarcastic remark came across like I was arguing for the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators neil Posted January 13, 2012 Moderators Share Posted January 13, 2012 I never hear anyone think about the choices the child might make. It can't though. It's really no different than euthanasia (great band btw). Are your thoughts on that the same as abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Kiffy - masturbation and abortion are different issues. Life begins at conception. The only other reasonable point to put it at would be birth. Otherwise you're talking about a sliding scale. The idea of the child being 0% human at conception, then maybe 3-4% at implantation, about 40% at 16 weeks then 75% at 24 weeks before hitting the high 90s as it approaches full-term is a thoroughly bizarre and unworkable concept. Â No it isn't, bizarre and complicated as it is, it's an entirely workable concept, as proved by it working in this very country at this very moment. But the fact it's bizarre and complicated doesn't mean we have to reach for moral absoloutes to try and understand it. There's a very clear need for abortion today. And society would undoubtedly suffer if the option was removed. But there comes a point past which it's clearly no longer simply a bundle of cells. Now where that point is is very hard to pin down (and honestly, I don't know enough about the subject to put forward a suggestion). But in the same way that an abortion one week before the normal birth would clearly be a case of killing a new born baby, the morning after pill is clearly removing nothing more than a bundle of cells. (Or is to everone other than dedicated catholics/any other religion that has the same view). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 IVF involves the fertilisation of multiple extracted eggs and the implantation of one or more of the most viable resultant embryos. The rest are usually disposed of. To me, that's multiple abortions. The eugenic flavour comes from the selection of the "good" ones and disposing of the "bad" ones. Also, we're increasingly moving towards selection based on slightly more morally dubious criteria than simply which are most likely to lead to successful pregnancies. Â Â Right, you have a general grasp but your details are not accurate. Should any embryos be left over after a sucessful IVF then they are stored for future possible use, unless the people involved have said otherwise. Â And they dont pick and choose (right now anyway) on anything more than the likelyhood of survival of the embryo. You can call that eugenics if you choose, its not entirelly inaccurate, but I'd call it sensible medical practise. Its a very invasive procedure and it makes sense to minimize the possibility of having to repeat the process over and over. Â Â For the record me and my wife are currently going through this, and I take no offense at Kennys beliefs about it. Its not his fault hes a cunt and hes wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 No it isn't, bizarre and complicated as it is, it's an entirely workable concept, as proved by it working in this very country at this very moment. But the fact it's bizarre and complicated doesn't mean we have to reach for moral absoloutes to try and understand it. Â Stop making me regret voting for you in White Noise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 neil - Yes. Euthanasia is utterly wrong. Even voluntary euthanasia is a really dangerous area. Much like the fact that abortion as a way of dealing with poverty stops us actually addressing poverty in more meaningful way, I think voluntary euthanasia would stop us dealing with palliative care in a meaningful way. Involuntary euthanasia is murder. And we do that with disabled kids already. Â Kiffy - OK, it's a bizarre and unworkable concept for me. I don't see how you can have a sliding scale of humanity. Given that a child with a disability can be aborted right up to full-term, does that mean he or she is never fully human? That's a scary thought. Â RotM - Can I ask why your wife and you didn't consider adoption? I'm aware that embryos can be stored for potential future use, but unless you decide/need to go through another cycle, sooner or later those babies are getting binned. As for the eugenics bit, I have no doubt in my mind that it won't be long before screening for other factors becomes more possible and more common. It's already done with the whole "designer baby" thing that's used to find matches for existing kids with certain disabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Duke Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 Kenny - fair play. I apologise for jumping On you a bit if that's not what you were saying. It's a pet peeve of mine I the Christian community, so I like to deal with it. As for the qualitative difference, there isn't one for you and me, but for atheists there is as what God thinks doesn't matter to them as they don't think He exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiffy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 No it isn't, bizarre and complicated as it is, it's an entirely workable concept, as proved by it working in this very country at this very moment. But the fact it's bizarre and complicated doesn't mean we have to reach for moral absoloutes to try and understand it.  Stop making me regret voting for you in White Noise!  Don't worry, I'm sure I'll go back to being an annoying patronising cunt at some point soon x   Kiffy - OK, it's a bizarre and unworkable concept for me. I don't see how you can have a sliding scale of humanity. Given that a child with a disability can be aborted right up to full-term, does that mean he or she is never fully human? That's a scary thought.  Because essentially, from a few bundled together cells, right up to being born, it is a sliding scale of humanity, hard as that may be to process, that development is from just some cells, right up to a baby. That's how it works, it's alot easier to apply an absoloute to it than to make the hard decision of when it cross's the line. But that's how people come to be. I agree with your second point (but don't agree with it having any relevance to the first one). I didn't know you can abort a disabled baby right up till full term, and if that's true, that's wrong, if life begins at a set point, and society deems it to begin at that point, adding "Unless it has downs syndrome" is a horrendous idea. The euthanisia debate looks fun as well, but there's more than enough going on in this thread already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ReturnOfTheMack Posted January 13, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted January 13, 2012 RotM - Can I ask why your wife and you didn't consider adoption? . Â Â Sure bud. We certainly would consider adoption (though my wife would rather have 'our own' child, I'd would be happy either way). But my wife has cystic fibrosis, which is part of the fertility issue in the first place. Now with adoption they have to consider that aspect far more and it makes it VERY unlikely that we would be allowed to adopt. Though I dont doubt we will try that route should the IVF fail fully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 One of my friends who also has cystic fibrosis has gone through IVF, twice, for the same reasons, Mack, and they now have two beautiful healthy children. I cannot see IVF as anything but the most wonderful life-creation miracle that brings joy to many couples who otherwise couldn't have children (as a ridiculous cost mind you), and if you consider IVF to be immoral then I pity your lack of joy, in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.