Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 177

Thread: Abortion Rights MudPit

  1. #61
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Your lack of familiarity with a scenario does not render it fringe.

    I can tell you from personal experience, that this isn't a fringe scenario. IVF is now commonplace, and these conversations are central to the IVF experience. Understanding what happens - both physically and morally, with your blastocysts are difficult conversations to have - the options are varied, from destruction to donation, to permanent indecision that will eventually leave the blast motherless (it will outlive all of us on ice in the right circumstances - and yes, this has started happening, and will happen more and more)

    There are literal millions, possibly hundreds of millions of blastocysts on ice right now. The vast majority of which will never have the chance to implant. So no, not at all fringe. And having blasts on ice myself, I can tell you I am agnostic about these questions - it is a genuine moral conundrum that humanity hasn't faced before.
    The pivot to IVF without any acknowledgement of the general principles/observations outlined above is entirely unoriginal; it has been discussed in the D&D ad nauseam.

    The short answer is that a large egg yield being necessary to render the IVF process viable justifies the inevitable loss of life that drawing such a large yield entails, since life is being unavoidably sacrificed for life. Wanton and/or unnecessary destruction of zygotes or blastocysts (i.e. human persons) is morally reprehensible.

  2. #62

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    That's an extremely arbitrary cop out.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #63
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    That's an extremely arbitrary cop out.
    Gainsaying is not an argument.

  4. #64
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The pivot to IVF without any acknowledgement of the general principles/observations outlined above is entirely unoriginal; it has been discussed in the D&D ad nauseam.
    Put it away Cope. It isn't necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The short answer is that a large egg yield being necessary to render the IVF process viable justifies the inevitable loss of life that drawing such a large yield entails, since life is being unavoidably sacrificed for life. Wanton and/or unnecessary destruction of zygotes or blastocysts (i.e. human persons) is morally reprehensible.
    I think by this reading, I'm best to procrastinate my decision on what to do with my frozen blastocysts. In my personal case, I have 3 day 5 blastocysts on ice that it's unlikely I'll ever use. But this is why I'm genuinely interested in the discussion. I should probably pay the storage costs indefinitely and let someone else suffer the moral judgement after I'm gone. Is this a moral get out of jail free card?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  5. #65
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Put it away Cope. It isn't necessary.
    The key point regarding conception is still being avoided - at all costs it seems.

    I think by this reading, I'm best to procrastinate my decision on what to do with my frozen blastocysts. In my personal case, I have 3 day 5 blastocysts on ice that it's unlikely I'll ever use. But this is why I'm genuinely interested in the discussion. I should probably pay the storage costs indefinitely and let someone else suffer the moral judgement after I'm gone. Is this a moral get out of jail free card?
    If we're discussing the issue legally, zygotes or blastocysts have no right to life. Even if they did, there would be an obvious issue with showing mens rea in cases of abortion. It's difficult to find fault with people (esp. younger people) who've been institutionally conditioned to view a procedure (i.e abortion) as generally acceptable.
    Last edited by Cope; April 22, 2021 at 11:41 AM. Reason: Reworded

  6. #66

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Right to abortion - yes.

    There are risks involved in pregnancy and child birth borne exclusively by the host, so the host would be in the best position to determine it's continued viability, especially in an environment that provides little or no prenatal, postnatal, and child care and support.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    The short answer is that a large egg yield being necessary to render the IVF process viable justifies the inevitable loss of life that drawing such a large yield entails, since life is being unavoidably sacrificed for life. Wanton and/or unnecessary destruction of zygotes or blastocysts (i.e. human persons) is morally reprehensible.
    What? Where does the justification come from? IVF isn't a necessary procedure for humanity, we do it because we want to and can; so why would you accept it is ok to kill a larger group of people so that a smaller group of people can be born?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  8. #68
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    15,554

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    It is a necessary procedure for a lot of people.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #69

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    How?
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  10. #70
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    What? Where does the justification come from? IVF isn't a necessary procedure for humanity, we do it because we want to and can; so why would you accept it is ok to kill a larger group of people so that a smaller group of people can be born?
    This has been discussed before.

  11. #71
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    15,554

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    How?
    Not everyone can have children naturally, for a multitude of reasons I will not list, and in vitro fertilization is literally the only solution for those people (sometimes accompanied by surrogate mothers).
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  12. #72

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    This has been discussed before.
    So your justification on why it's ok to kill a group of nonconsenting people to allow for a much smaller group of people being born...is a biblical quote? That's why it's ok to kill nonconsenting people?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Not everyone can have children naturally, for a multitude of reasons I will not list, and in vitro fertilization is literally the only solution for those people (sometimes accompanied by surrogate mothers).
    Wait, so being able to birth a child is a right worth killing people over? Some people have fertility problems, sure, but where is the justification that wanting to birth a child means you can kill others to do so?
    Last edited by The spartan; April 23, 2021 at 07:24 PM.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  13. #73
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    Wait, so being able to birth a child is a right worth killing people over? Some people have fertility problems, sure, but where is the justification that wanting to birth a child means you can kill others to do so?
    Therein lies the grey area that both undermines Cope's certainty of opinion, but also counter intuitively backs it.

    This shotgun effect required in IVF - multiple eggs, multiple lost fertilised eggs, failed blastocysts etc, is actually an exaggerated version of the natural process. A most women will have fertilised eggs that are lost before implantation, or shortly after implantation repeatedly over their lives. More often than not without even knowing it.

    The only difference here is that the natural filtering process to get a viable embryo is scaled up. A fertilised egg is not a guarantee of implantation. And implantation is not a guarantee of an ongoing pregnancy. Attrition is natural and occurs more often than not. That's why I'd favour successful implantation as the moment a person becomes a person, rather than fertilisation. But even at the moment of natural implantation, a pregnancy is more likely to fail than succeed.

    The only real long term difference with IVF is that in a natural pregnancy there are unlikely to be viable blastocysts left over. But with IVF it is common.

    Which comes back to the question of what to do with those frozen blastocysts that were only ever backups in the first place - if one believes it is murder to dispose of them, then donation is the only morally correct thing to do. If as I do, you consider implantation to be the real start point of life, then a frozen blast is no more than lost potential.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  14. #74
    enoch's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    lala
    Posts
    4,040

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    As one who has made a career in political population demographics, the glaring paradox that the further for restricting abortion one gets, the more likely they are to give zero s about what happens to people, even small children, after they are born.

    How does a human see so shallowly into theirself to be blind to this fact, and worse, what of those poor souls who become wise to it, yet still shill for their stated, certain it is not their real.
    Remember Tac
    boogeyman, alt, imbling

  15. #75

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    Therein lies the grey area that both undermines Cope's certainty of opinion, but also counter intuitively backs it.

    This shotgun effect required in IVF - multiple eggs, multiple lost fertilised eggs, failed blastocysts etc, is actually an exaggerated version of the natural process. A most women will have fertilised eggs that are lost before implantation, or shortly after implantation repeatedly over their lives. More often than not without even knowing it.

    The only difference here is that the natural filtering process to get a viable embryo is scaled up. A fertilised egg is not a guarantee of implantation. And implantation is not a guarantee of an ongoing pregnancy. Attrition is natural and occurs more often than not. That's why I'd favour successful implantation as the moment a person becomes a person, rather than fertilisation. But even at the moment of natural implantation, a pregnancy is more likely to fail than succeed.

    The only real long term difference with IVF is that in a natural pregnancy there are unlikely to be viable blastocysts left over. But with IVF it is common.

    Which comes back to the question of what to do with those frozen blastocysts that were only ever backups in the first place - if one believes it is murder to dispose of them, then donation is the only morally correct thing to do. If as I do, you consider implantation to be the real start point of life, then a frozen blast is no more than lost potential.
    I would imagine the real difference is in the intentionality, no? Women have miscarriages all the time and I doubt anyone here would condemn a women for having that happen to her; but if she is inducing the miscarriage then people's opinion on what she is doing would split quick. Likewise, having a fertilized egg fail to implant is not condemnable but intentionally discarding fertilized eggs would be.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  16. #76
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,531

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    I would imagine the real difference is in the intentionality, no? Women have miscarriages all the time and I doubt anyone here would condemn a women for having that happen to her; but if she is inducing the miscarriage then people's opinion on what she is doing would split quick. Likewise, having a fertilized egg fail to implant is not condemnable but intentionally discarding fertilized eggs would be.
    With IVF, the unwanted blastocyst was never carried in the first place. It was taken from the body as egg and sperm. They were combined in a laboratory. Therein lies the paradox which leads to the moral conundrum. How can you condemn someone for aborting something that was never inside them to begin with?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  17. #77
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    So your justification on why it's ok to kill a group of nonconsenting people to allow for a much smaller group of people being born...is a biblical quote? That's why it's ok to kill nonconsenting people?
    There's an entire conversation where the reasoning is explained in full. See especially:

    The purpose of IVF is to create life not destroy it. Zygotes, blastocysts and embryos are not (for the most part) being arbitrarily discarded: they are necessarily lost as part of the procedure. No woman, let alone one with reproductive complications, could birth the 10-15 children which the egg yield produces. Attempting to take fewer eggs for fertilization - with a mind to birthing them all - would ultimately make the service itself untenable due to collapsing success rates. Keeping all unused embryos frozen until surrogate mothers could be found would, likewise, make the service itself untenable.

    It would be philosophically and spiritually incoherent to argue that all IVF life should be denied to prevent the loss of some IVF lives. My view is that the creation and continuation of human life (particularly innocent life) should be facilitated wherever possible. Therefore, the encouragement of nonexistence (which would be the net result of the closure of IVF clinics) cannot be consistent with Christian principles.
    and;

    Even if you could demonstrate that medical professionals were needlessly destroying embryos during the IVF process, I still wouldn't oppose IVF - I'd oppose the needless destruction of embryos. And if the loss of life during the process is inadvertent but ultimately necessary to facilitate new life (which it in fact is) then said loss cannot be said to be needless. The same ethical reasoning is applied vis-a-vis abortion in cases of medical complications which threaten the life of the mother: the loss of a child in such cases is neither needless or wanton. What you appear to believe is that I should rather have no IVF life exist than risk deaths by IVF. That's logically comparable to suggesting that I'd rather humanity didn't exist than risk people performing abortions.
    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    With IVF, the unwanted blastocyst was never carried in the first place. It was taken from the body as egg and sperm. They were combined in a laboratory. Therein lies the paradox which leads to the moral conundrum. How can you condemn someone for aborting something that was never inside them to begin with?
    Opposition to abortion has nothing to do with the embryo/fetus being "inside" a woman. What's being opposed is the unnecessary destruction of human beings.
    Last edited by Cope; April 24, 2021 at 04:44 AM.

  18. #78

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    The idea that destroying life is OK if its done in a process to create life continues to be an arbitrary criteria that is used as a cop out. There is no argument so people are left with creating such absurdities. The only reason the IVF process creates multiple fertilized eggs is to increase chances of pregnancy and the ability to come up with the best fertilized egg. It doesn't even fit that description of needing to destroy life to create one. Its no surprise to see such absurdities play in support of positions against abortion. In defining, life, human beings, and a person, those arguments are all over the place.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  19. #79

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    There's an entire conversation where the reasoning is explained in full.
    But you never really justify anything; you essentially just repeat the concept that it is ok to purposefully kill innocent, non-consenting people so that others (fewer) can be born. That comes off as odd to me as we don't usually accept that kind of concept in other parts of society; like, I couldn't just go around and kill a nonconsenting person in society if I had reason to believe it would help my wife get pregnant. IVF is not a medically necessary procedure for survival (of the individual or humanity) nor is it even a necessary prerequisite to raising a child, people get IVF because they want to. So no, it's not "logically comparable" to suggesting humanity shouldn't exist to eliminate the risk of abortion, IVF isn't even close to necessary for humanity's continued survival.

    Not to mention I feel like you are begging a question that undermines your central point: the zygotes being discarded are as human as the one being implanted and, presumably, as much of a person as you and me. There is no they just exist to facilitate a medical treatmentaspect to this, you view them as full, existing people, correct? So from your ethical standpoint, this would be like if a man and women had lots of children with the knowledge they couldn't (and wouldn't) provide for them all, picking the most promising child, and killing off the rest. Assuming there is no ethical difference between a zygote and born human child, of course.
    They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more.

  20. #80
    Cope's Avatar 777777777777777
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    5,916

    Default Re: Abortion Rights MudPit

    Quote Originally Posted by The spartan View Post
    But you never really justify anything; you essentially just repeat the concept that it is ok to purposefully kill innocent, non-consenting people so that others (fewer) can be born.

    That comes off as odd to me as we don't usually accept that kind of concept in other parts of society; like, I couldn't just go around and kill a nonconsenting person in society if I had reason to believe it would help my wife get pregnant. IVF is not a medically necessary procedure for survival (of the individual or humanity) nor is it even a necessary prerequisite to raising a child, people get IVF because they want to. So no, it's not "logically comparable" to suggesting humanity shouldn't exist to eliminate the risk of abortion, IVF isn't even close to necessary for humanity's continued survival.

    Not to mention I feel like you are begging a question that undermines your central point: the zygotes being discarded are as human as the one being implanted and, presumably, as much of a person as you and me. There is no they just exist to facilitate a medical treatmentaspect to this, you view them as full, existing people, correct? So from your ethical standpoint, this would be like if a man and women had lots of children with the knowledge they couldn't (and wouldn't) provide for them all, picking the most promising child, and killing off the rest. Assuming there is no ethical difference between a zygote and born human child, of course.
    If the choice is between no life (no IVF) and some life (IVF), the latter choice is self-evidently preferable. It is not analogous to a simple exchange of life for life, especially where one life exists entirely independent of the IVF process.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •