Fertility clinics -- OK with god?

Fertility clinics can function without applying means that kill life in the process of trying to promote conception. There are perfectly moral fertility treatments. IVF is not one of them due to the known result of frozen human life left static for who knows how long (abuse, IMO), purposeful destruction of embryos, abortion that is "sanitized" by calling it "selective reduction", --not to mention the often unsuccessful conclusion and repeated roller-coaster of happiness & heartache that couples are put through by repeated failed treatment.

 

I did not say I know what's on God's mind I only showed by pointing some red flags that could become a problem later on that people who chose to take that rout would be wise to take into consideration. We live in a imperfect world that is our design and then we want to blame God for the path that we have chosen.

 

Treating infertility by herbal or medicinal means is one thing; using methods that deliberately destroy life in the name of trying to create it is another. The latter is deceptive and wicked, since it uses the good intentions of parental-hopefuls to sugar-coat plain old abortion. That's wrong, and not right with God at all. Maybe the parents aren't bad people. Maybe they don't see it that way- I do believe the Lord is more forgiving to those who sin in ignorance, or were taken advantage of -but it's wrong.

 

I didn't question your faith at any point. You believe in god. I believe that you believe. I'm asking why you think the way you do. Anyway, in our own society intent is not enough to completely save someone from punishment. A person trying to stop a murder still gets punished if they recklessly kill an innocent bystander by accident. The topic is whether god is OK with fertility clinics. Fertility clinics result in the unnecessary destruction of innocent life. You think god is OK with that? Does a fertility doctor at least have to repent his sins of causing unnecessary abortions before he dies in order to avoid eternal punishment?

Use whatever rationalization you want, the fact remains that I have never called anyone on this board a hypocrite. Your feeling that I'm looking for hypocrisy as some sort of weakness in others appears to be an invention of your prejudice towards atheists. It's not based on any of my behavior.

And I've been making an argument since my first post in this thread. It took you four posts to finally provide a meaningful response to it.

 

Fertility clinics are trying to make raw material into a new and viable life. A miscarriage is technically the same thing - shall we outlaw that? Or shall we require potential mothers to place the rejected fetus's in medical containers so that we can harvest their genetic material?

Context and intent matters, once again, you simply want a one sized fits all solution to a very complex and unscientific set of ETHICAL circumstances.

Once again, you are not my judge, you continue to point fingers, dodge, deny and accuse, but the lack of civility is every bit as ingrained in your silliness as anyone else's. Yet you are victim? Odd how that works.

And that is the problem with far too many atheists. When they are rebutted, their motives questioned, they lash out. When they do it to others? Its the height of civility and respectability.

Tell me, why do you have a problem being treated EXACTLY as you treat others. THat is you precious atheistic golden rule isn't it?

 

How is it abortion?

You take eggs and sperm, combine them to achieve the a viable embryo, and implant them in a uterus where, if they take hold properly, they grow into a viable human being.

If God did not want that, would he simply not allow the fetus to become viable? Is the resulting baby lacking a soul? IVF is not about destrcution, its about creation - and the result is a human being. A good thing. A wonderous thing. A true blessing.

 

Every human being has a soul--even those in the womb.

IVF directly leads to killing human life on a very large scale. Many "extra" embryos are simply destroyed. Do you consider that okay?

Many embryos are implanted and people are counseled to "selectively reduce" the number that have implanted in the womb to offer a greater chance of survival to those that remain. Do you consider that okay?


The ends do not justify an immoral means.

 

You can have an IVF without freezing and abandoning surplus zygotes.

It will decrease your chances, and if you want to have a second go you'll have to undergo the hormone treatment all over again, but a good clinic will only fertilize the number of egg-cells they implant (if the egg-cells develop after fertilization), if the patients ask them to.

 

So what is the difference between that and a miscarriage?

Intent does matter. If the embryos do not take in a womb, they ... do not become humans. I understand the concern here, but I disagree.

What's missed here is the blessing of a family over concern for ... eggs that will not otherwise even have the chance to become a human being?

I am of the opinion that every step that helps foster these pieces to become a human, a potential wonder, into existence is a good one. I acknoweldge that there are ethical questions that are raised and respect that there are those who have legitimate concerns about the ethical questions raised.

But the intent is life - not death. THe reality is creation - not abortion. The reality is a baby, not harvested cells. Life is a treasure.

 

Would this even be an issue if there were a fertility god involved?

 

Standard practice with in vitro is to implant three embryos at a time. The expectation is that one or two are going to fail to attach. And if more than one attaches, the plan is to abort one. These miscarriages and abortions could be avoided by implanting one at a time. They do three to save money and to avoid the need for further repetitions of an unpleasant procedure. It's the expenditure of human life, by your standards and the standards of others, for the sake of money and comfort. I think that a god who abhors abortions of convenience would similarly find these unnecessary miscarriages to be a problem.

Most natural miscarriages are unforeseeable and unavoidable. They aren't relevant to this discussion. You can't outlaw natural phenomena; that's absurd. And we aren't even talking about making anything illegal. It's about what those who believe in god think that their god's opinion of fertility clinics is.

What lack of civility? How am I acting like a victim? How have I lashed out? Why can't you have an honest debate with someone who thinks differently than you do? This entire section of your post is completely baseless as far as I am concerned. And I'm not the only poster here to notice that you bring your overall prejudices against an entire group to the table when you're addressing a single person.

 

In my opinion, striving for perfect knowledge could be one form of promoting the general welfare.

 

One is an act of nature that cannot be avoided; the other is an intentional act with the known consequence of millions of INTENTIONAL deaths.

Yes--it does. What is the INTENT when human embryos are created then destroyed? What is the INTENT when fetuses are culled from the womb of a mother with too many?

The intent is to kill life. It is irrelevant if the original intent was to create life--the effect is anti-life in MANY instances. The ends do NOT justify the means.

The embryos of human parents ARE human. Dehumanizing them to be "parts" or sub-human or potential humans is simply incorrect and justification.

You disagree with the scientific facts, then.

It's not just "eggs"--it's AFTER the gametes have joined and become a new and unique individual being.

Again--the ends do NOT justify the means.

They aren't "pieces" in IVF--the "F" in IVF means fertilization has taken place and the new human being is conceived.

The end (LIFE in some cases) does NOT justify the means (DEATH in MANY (millions of) cases)

No--that's not the reality. And, if you truly consider life a treasure, you should look more deeply into the facts rather than the feelings.

 

Why not provide for an environment that may better engender the conditions where the medical procedure of abortion may no longer be necessary?

 

They are not destroyed. If all works, they are implanted and turn into babies. How exactly is that destruction?

There is not chance for these eggs without IVF to ever be life. None. Now they have a chance. Intent does matter.

Is it not a command of God to go forth and replenish the Earth? There are certainly ethical considerations involved in this process, but things that bring forth life? That is tough to simply reject. Its tough to look a gieveing would be mother and tell her, sorry - you can't be a mother because I have an ethical concern about the eggs in your ovaries that will never otherwise be allowed to become children.

ANd what do we do with the remains of failed pregnancies? DO we harvest them for genetic materials? Or do we treat them with reverence? Respect? As humans?

Those zygots that fail? Should we treat them any differently?

 

Here is a Google search for you. You may want to get your head out of the sand:
http://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...cedfe9c0353de0a&ix=sea&ion=1&biw=1280&bih=595

Eggs are eggs--not human beings. Fertilized human eggs ARE human beings.

http://bible.cc/romans/3-8.htm
The end does not justify the means.

As you said, "Intentions matter."

No "zygotes" fail. By the time the newly formed human being at its first stage of the human life-cycle makes it through the Fallopian tube of his mother, he has grown from a single celled zygote to a multi-celled blastocyst.



.

 

Sometimes more.

Which they euphemistically call "selective reductions."

They would have to fertilize and then implant one at a time--otherwise they are making "extra" human lives that are likely to die, be frozen, or be purposefully destroyed because they are 'not needed."

It's morally repugnant, IMO.

Exactly.

Even though I think you don't agree with my position, I appreciate that you are characterizing this perspective accurately.

I think in this thread you have been fair. I also think Neutral may have an emotional investment in the discussion that impedes objectivity on the matter--at least that's how it appears to me.

 

Lets pretend that I am familiar with the process and have already addressed what happens when these things do NOT work.

But the reality is that sometimes they DO work.

Now tell me, the church condems promiscuity does it not? Yet children ARE born of this process are they not? Are the children thus the result of something unholy?

What do we do with children that result from an adulterous affair? Rape? Incest?

Yet, to facilitate the process, knowing that it will often fail, in the hopes that sometimes it will work? That a child will be born?

Well, clearly my head is in the sand because I think taking ethical risk to bring forth life is worth the risk?

You do not implant unfertilized eggs into a womb.

Intent does matter. You are saying that the means are abortion .... they are not. The means here is not black and white.

They do. Lets try teddy roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

Intent to create life, to strive forth to bring it is a risk that I will take. Indeed, innocent life is a precious thing, and there are none more innocent than children.

I have a great love for life, but then, I have also taken human life to defend the innocent. Eggs, unfertilized that will remain that way are .... nothing. No different than a rock for all intents and purposes. Yet, if you use science to help a few of those eggs along, to give them a chance to become a full and viable life, a chance to be .... that, to me is a risk worth taking.

I acknoweldge the ethical considerations, but in this case they are mitigative processes that can reduce the risks and collateral excesses.

Mothers and Fathers recieve these blessings, and none loves the children that result any less, in fact, even more if they struggle and pray for this blessing so much before finally being given the gift of life.

And wat do you think is placed into the womb of a would be mother? And they could fail ... but they could also turn into babes. The process is most decidedly not a destructive one.

 

Or it could just be that perhaps when someone jumps in with an old arguement and expresses his intent to test the consistancy of pro-lifers, and who has immediately, upon finally making a case, started talking about the sanctity of life - only on the other hand, he wants to harvest stem cells left and right.

But yeah, I think having someone jump in with a personal axe to grind should probably be confronted about it.

But I am glad that his pot shots are fair, and mine are emotional. Thanks for that.

 

Asking the difference between miscarriage and abortion is like asking the difference between death and murder.

 

Well, its a good thing that is not what I asked then.

I asked what the difference was between a miscarrage and a fertilized egg that is implanted into a womb but is ... miscarried?

Can you explain to me why sex resulting in a miscarriage is fine? But artifical insemination that results in a miscarriage is .... wrong? That is the reality of IFV - its pregnancy without the sex.

 

I notice that you keep avoiding dealing with the statement "the ends do NOT justify the means." Is this because you are aware that it is a true statement and do not wish to defend the successful IVF treatments (which likely still result in the death of embryo siblings) while acknowledging that fact ?

Sin is sin. The parents are still guilty of sin in both cases. Yes--the children are born of sin--who among us is not? None.

The children are without guilt in the matter, but the parents are not.

Same as above.

Why? why not adopt those already conceived and in need?

Of course not.

You are rationalizing. It is very plain.

What is your point? It seems rather a deflection from the issue to cite a famous person expounding high rhetoric.

At what cost? MILLIONS of lives destroyed--literally.

Seriously? Are you suggesting sucking all eggs out of the females and attempting to make life from them? Don't be silly.

That says nothing despite the nice vocabulary.

God can forgive any sin that the parents' commit. Nevertheless--it's still sin--even if the parents love that child more than their own life (as all parents should love their children).
Luke 14
[26] "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
[27] Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Infertility is a very heavy cross to bear. But God's yoke is light when one trusts in His abiding love.

Why do you ignore all those fertilized eggs--HUMAN BEINGS--who are NOT placed in the womb and are considered "extra" and worthless? You are rationalizing and rationalizing.

 

If he is right in this case, why argue? Consistency is important.

I'm sorry if you find this "personal," but in this discussion, you seem to be the one making it so.

Consider it. In this thread, he is being fair--I don't know what has occurred elsewhere. In this thread, you are reacting emotionally. It doesn't help your position.

 

IVF incurs much more than the potential for miscarriage. To deny that denies facts.

 

I just misunderstood the question.

If all that IVF entailed was maybe-it-will-take maybe-it-won't-take, then that's different because it doesn't involve the deliberate destruction of life. It's just taking a chance. It might be a bit of a grey area, like anything that involves taking chances with human life, but it's not the same as what I was talking about.

What's wrong is deliberately killing off "extra" embryos, or entering into a situation where you know you'll probably have to do something like that. You could argue that not even one would have a chance to survive if you didn't, but you wouldn't even have to make that choice in the first place if you didn't get yourself in that situation in the first place.