IVF couples could be able to choose the ‘smartest’ embryo

Please. I was presenting the logical implication of a position that says human life begins at conception but is perfectly okay to kill unnecessary fertilized eggs outside a woman's body.

It sure as hell does fit into this conversation. Seems the sanctity of human life is variable with "pro lifers".

I was opining on the hypocrisy of pro lifers who believe that life begins at conception. I see that its a bit too abstract for you to comprehend in terms of extra uterine fertilization and associated manipulation to select for desirable "traits"., while throwing out those that don't measure up to some arbitrary criteria.

 

Wow you are neck deep into this abortion thing. Please take your abortion garbage to the abortion section (yes, there is an entire section for this kind of ranting). This thread is in the science section because it's about science, not your ideological ramblings.

 

And now, the Russians...

Act now on CRISPR babies
Another researcher has announced controversial plans to gene edit babies. The scientific community must intervene.

 

If there is not an enforceable world law against gene editing embryos and babies, and considering profitable business ventures, it's just a matter of time before anyone can get this work done in the nations which allow it...

 

So how many years would infanticide have to go on without much fuss to become ethically benign?

 

So...your arguing that the embryo screening that currently goes on is akin to infanticide?

 

I'm not arguing anything at all. I merely wonder aloud why, if your premise is correct, time and tolerance cannot do for the latter what you evidently believe it has done for the former.

 

What, exactly do you think my premise is?

 

My mistake. That sentence should have read:

I merely wonder aloud why, if your logic is correct, time and tolerance cannot do for the latter what you evidently believe it has done for the former.​

 

One point I think you are trying hard to ignore:

Each IVF process includes killing MANY fertilized eggs and is totally OK with the right wing.

Abortion includes killing ONE egg. And, the right wing wants LOTS OF LAWS to prevent it regardless of the concerns and welfare of the woman.

There is NO logic available to resolve this hypocrisy.

 

There IS an actual practical and (I believe) ethical direction here.

Analysis CAN identify and replace genes that cause specific serious diseases.

In some instances these genes are in the germ line and thus the result would end transmission of the problematic gene through procreation.

 

What do I care? I support first trimester abortions, so the constant interjections of the abortion argument into a totally different subject is ridiculous. So...show me where the hypocrisy is? Is it something I said in this thread or something in the links I posted, because I don't see it. All I see is the abortion mania of the left taking over topics that have nothing to do about it.

 

I would think that would be ethical to eliminate a genetic disease, although apparently that's controversial in the West. i'm not sure why since we treat those diseases, so I'm not sure eliminating them is a controversy.

 

I wasn't attacking you.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those in the several states that are writing laws denying women access to abortion under any and all circumstances.

 

The primary issue with the Chinese guy who did gene modification on a human embryo was that he went rogue. This kind of decision needs go through a process similar to what happens for other kinds of medical advances. Plus, his motives were far from pure. Then, it was discovered that this guy lied his ass off about what he did.

When we do gene modification for real, we should require serious testing, examine for issues of ethics, and start with diseases which are lethal.

 

Yes, you were pointing it out in a thread that has NOTHING to do with abortion. There is an entire section of the forum dedicated to that nonsense but it's so in your head you can't stop yourself. It seems crazy to me.

 

"We" won't get to decide any of that. "We" can decide for the United States, but the rest of the world will continue to do whatever it wants. That's why it was a Chinese scientist, and not a Harvard one, doing that.

 

False. I've IS abortion of all the unwanted fertilized eggs.

And, writing laws against one while ignoring the other (plus the partisan nonsense about abortion) is hypocrisy that can not be ignored.

 

Yes, China can act unethically. But, you have no argument here. I would point out that China is part of WHO and is not happy about this "doctor".

I think you must be unaware of world cooperation on healthcare issues, including standards and ethics. Somehow, you seem to think China is a backwater and that international agencies don't work.

 

I'm sorry but I just find that perspective childish and even worse, totally inaccurate. So "writing laws" about abortion have nothing to do with this topic. It's sad that an issue that's interesting and thought provoking, like using IVF embryo selection, get's bogged down in hysterical partisan nonsense that's off topic.

 

China is by no means a backwater, but it isn't Western and doesn't share Western taboos that you seem to think are universal.

 

Abortion and IVF procedures always kill fertilized eggs (with the possible exception of cryopreservation, which is an equally bad story). Yet there are laws against one and NOT laws against the other.

Any claim that killing embryos in one case must result in criminal proceedings while killing embryos in the other case is totally OK requires serious explanation.

If you want to make that partisan, you should probably explain that, too.

 

In this case they DO share western ideas and have joined with the the rest of the world in forming a better set of rules regarding ethical practice.

If you want to point at China, you should pick some other case.

 

No reason this isn't going to eventually be applied to fetuses in the womb. The woman will just choose to start off with more than one, and then 'selectively reduce' the ones with inferior genetics.

 

True. Ethically speaking, there isn't any difference between an IVF selection process where the loser embryos get flushed and the removal of loser embryos at a later date.