I think the side of those against abortion rights was pretty weak to begin with. I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science. I think the legislation they are trying to pass in Georgia is ridiculous. What are they going to do to give an embryo the same rights as a born child? Will there be an investigation into potential child neglect every time a woman has a heavy period that may actually be an embryo being lost? Are they going to make it illegal for women of childbearing age to buy large amounts of vitamin C or any other natural supplement that can induce periods/ cause an embryo in the early stages to be miscarried?
I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science.
You can be against the destruction of human embryos without being religious.
I am open to the possibility of God, but I do not follow any particular religion. I am not a complete dunce as far as science goes as I do have a Bachelor of Science in Biology. With this in mind, I still do not support stem-cell research that requires the destruction of embryos, because I find it to be a sanctioned equivalent of murder.
You're implying it falls within the domain of bioethics then?
If the embryos cannot become a fetus, then they will die in any case. I assume then you're against the creation of such embryos in the first place? That perhaps you're against IVF as well?
If there was a way to only create the exact number of embryos that would be used that would be one thing, because I really don't have a problem with IVF. [To clarify, I dislike the idea of IVF as I find it unnecessary and an utter waste of resources, but I would not attempt to stop others from doing it just because I have negative feelings about it.]
For me, the problem isn't IVF, the problem is what do we do with all these extra embryos? And I don't think we need more situations like Octomom either.
For me, the problem isn't IVF, the problem is what do we do with all these extra embryos?
Isn't that a part of IVF? Creating them? Why else would they be created?
I suppose the next question here though is that now a scientist can create these embryos when they want, presumably restricting them so they don't become fetuses. You have no qualms about these then?
Yes, but I am saying that if they could theoretically make exactly the number that will be used, that'd be fine. It's the extras that are the issue, so for the time being I suppose I have issues with IVF then.
I suppose the next question here though is that now a scientist can create these embryos when they want, presumably restricting them so they don't become fetuses. You have no qualms about these then?
I think I need some clarification before I can answer that. Is there an article about what you are specifically talking about that I could read?
I guess I was trying to make sure I wasn't missing something when you said "can create these embryos when they want, presumably restricting them so they don't become fetuses." I don't see any distinction between an embryo and a fetus beyond the obvious developmental ones. Why would it make a difference that scientists can prevent the embryos from further developing? How is this significantly different from abortion preventing a fetus from continuing to develop, or how shooting a 2-year-old stops it from developing into a 20 year old? Is there something I missing?
You don't see any distinctions other than developmental? Hmm. That says something. You're familiar with neurogenesis, I take it?
I find it curious how so few scientists have had any issues with this. I suspect you are missing something, but I'm not you. I can't tell what it may be yet. It would appear your qualms are not necessarily sourced in science, but purely in ethics. This would be more reasonable given what you've written here.
I'm familiar with neurogenesis in that I studied it school as part of my curriculum for a short time, but I'm sure there is a lot I don't know about it.
I suppose you can say that. I guess I just don't see anything in science that clearly determines some line between some kind of "pre-person" vs. person, beyond the development of the unique developing DNA/cells at conception. Any other attempt at making some kind of line seems arbitrary as from that point on it is a matter of stages of development, not stages of When You Are Officially Person-y Enough.
So with you, it's not much a matter of brain development that make a person, a person. I think you would probably appreciate looking up "Mapping the Mind" by Rita Carter. It might not help so much with the ethics, but it would add to what you know with respect to neurogenesis.
Yeah, among other things, one of my problems with it being based on brain development is that there are plenty of people with all sorts of brain damage in the world that we see as equal persons. If personhood for a fetus is contingent on some sort of "good enough" level of brain development, then it stands to reason (as far as I can tell) that brain development is a barometer of personhood outside of the womb as well; therefore, the better your brain and the more developed it is, the more of a person you are.
Thanks for the book rec.! Always up for learning :)
Ok, there's a difference between brain damage-- even to the level of complete vegetation-- and an embryo, which barely has a fully formed neural tube, let alone an actual brain.
I don't think religious views should influence decisions the government makes regarding scientific issues, and I hope that the President's ruling will allow new advances to be made in medical science.
I think the legislation they are trying to pass in Georgia is ridiculous. What are they going to do to give an embryo the same rights as a born child? Will there be an investigation into potential child neglect every time a woman has a heavy period that may actually be an embryo being lost? Are they going to make it illegal for women of childbearing age to buy large amounts of vitamin C or any other natural supplement that can induce periods/ cause an embryo in the early stages to be miscarried?
Reply
Reply
You can be against the destruction of human embryos without being religious.
I am open to the possibility of God, but I do not follow any particular religion. I am not a complete dunce as far as science goes as I do have a Bachelor of Science in Biology. With this in mind, I still do not support stem-cell research that requires the destruction of embryos, because I find it to be a sanctioned equivalent of murder.
Reply
Reply
Reply
If the embryos cannot become a fetus, then they will die in any case. I assume then you're against the creation of such embryos in the first place?
That perhaps you're against IVF as well?
This would seem logical given your views.
Reply
For me, the problem isn't IVF, the problem is what do we do with all these extra embryos? And I don't think we need more situations like Octomom either.
Reply
Isn't that a part of IVF? Creating them? Why else would they be created?
I suppose the next question here though is that now a scientist can create these embryos when they want, presumably restricting them so they don't become fetuses. You have no qualms about these then?
Reply
I suppose the next question here though is that now a scientist can create these embryos when they want, presumably restricting them so they don't become fetuses. You have no qualms about these then?
I think I need some clarification before I can answer that. Is there an article about what you are specifically talking about that I could read?
Reply
Are you asking for something that details how the embryos are created?
Reply
Reply
I find it curious how so few scientists have had any issues with this. I suspect you are missing something, but I'm not you. I can't tell what it may be yet. It would appear your qualms are not necessarily sourced in science, but purely in ethics. This would be more reasonable given what you've written here.
Reply
I suppose you can say that. I guess I just don't see anything in science that clearly determines some line between some kind of "pre-person" vs. person, beyond the development of the unique developing DNA/cells at conception. Any other attempt at making some kind of line seems arbitrary as from that point on it is a matter of stages of development, not stages of When You Are Officially Person-y Enough.
Reply
Reply
Thanks for the book rec.! Always up for learning :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment