In-vitro new front in embryo war Right-to life battle lines may be shifting to fertilized frozen embryos, which have helped millions of women conceive By Judy Peres Tribune staff reporter Published July 6, 2005 An Illinois judge declares that an early embryo is a human being, allowing a couple to sue a clinic for destroying a fertilized egg. A U.S. senator suggests that couples seeking fertility treatment should not be allowed to produce more embryos than they wish to implant simultaneously. Anti-abortion activists picket a fertility clinic in Virginia, proclaiming, "IVF kills babies." These and other developments have some reproductive health experts wondering if opposition to embryonic stem cell research may broaden to include in-vitro fertilization, a mainstream medical procedure used by millions of people. Abortion opponents contacted by the Tribune said they were not aware of any lobbying to ban or restrict in-vitro fertilization--IVF--but they'd happily support such legislation. "IVF requires killing," said Bill Beckman, executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee. "They choose which [embryos] to implant, and they create spares that will die." The cells used in embryonic stem cell research come from IVF embryos, which critics believe deserve the same ethical treatment as living children. The debate has raised awareness that this procedure typically creates more embryos than are used to make babies. Many experts believe IVF is far too commonplace to be drastically restricted. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine estimates that one of every 100 children born in the U.S. is conceived this way. Beckman agreed that trying to limit IVF would be difficult, adding that abortion and euthanasia are higher priorities. "There are too many battles to fight, and IVF is not at the top of the priority list," he said. "It doesn't have the same priority for us as stem cell research," said Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family. "There are only so many man-hours to go around." Yet recent events are provoking anxiety in the field of assisted reproduction. In Kentucky, draft legislation would force IVF practitioners to fertilize only one egg at a time. The usual practice is to fertilize multiple eggs and preserve some in case the woman doesn't get pregnant on the first try. If the Kentucky bill passed, it "would dramatically lower pregnancy rates," said Dr. Richard Scott, director of Reproductive Medicine Associates on the East Coast. "Tens of thousands of people a year will go without a family." President Bush and other politicians, meanwhile, are promoting "embryo adoption" as an alternative to destroying leftover embryos. A spokesman for Americans United for Life said his group is researching model legislation for states that want to regulate reproductive technologies. Already, Louisiana bans the intentional destruction of a viable fertilized egg. At the individual level, IVF raises complicated moral issues. Many patients who describe themselves as pro-life have no compunction about creating new life through the procedure, experts agreed. On the other hand, some people who describe themselves as pro-choice find they can't bear to destroy or donate their leftover embryos. In IVF, a woman is given hormones so her ovaries will produce a large number of eggs at once. The eggs are removed and fertilized in a lab. After the fertilized eggs start dividing, one or more embryos are transferred to the woman's uterus in hopes that one will implant and develop into a fetus. Remaining healthy embryos are usually saved for future pregnancy attempts. Frozen embryos have been accumulating since the late 1970s, creating a stockpile estimated at more than 400,000. Those embryos are a potential source of stem cells, which researchers believe might be able to generate replacement tissue that could help people with cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Whether doing that is morally acceptable hinges on the question of when life begins--the same question at the root of the abortion debate. To those who believe a human life is created the moment egg meets sperm, abortion is murder. So is destroying a frozen embryo. But Beckman estimates fewer than 10 percent of Americans hold that view. Many who oppose abortion are in favor of IVF and embryonic stem cell research. And some who oppose stem cell research, such as Bush, support IVF. The entire article can be found here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ory?coll=chi-newslocal-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true I have brought this up in other context, but now the "dirty little secret" is picking up momentum. The problem is that there are lots and lots (millions) of famly values type conservative christian Bush-lovin folks out there whose boys had a little trouble swimming up stream. Is it ok to be against abortion and stem cell research, to the point of standing in judgment of others, and still submit to IVF where embryos are created but never intended to be gestated (I have no idea if that is a word?) Does it get a little too close to home for some to the point of getting that little "it seemed like a good team to be on until they turned on me." I'm just curious because I always found most people (including my self to some degree) to be hypocritical on their "life" stances. That is why I have great respect for persons on both sides of the issue if they are consistent throughout their beliefs. Ex., Pope JP II was against abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, war, euthanasia etc. Most of us allow our political preferences to creep in to "justify" one thing while being against something that seems equivalent. So there it is. Anyone care to defend IVF while standing firm against abortion and stem cell?
The "culture of life," at least that currently practiced by the right-wing religious fakes, is really a "culture of lies."
yeah, those "culture of life" types sure love their texas-sized number of executions (catholics exluded... kinda). as for this... I think they're finally getting too nutty to be taken seriously.
This statement is currently leading the field for the most accurate and honest assessment of personal choices and ethics seen on BS this year. My hat is off to you.
I don't know how ANYONE can square that circle. IVF destroys more embryos to help far fewer people per embryo than stem cell research - which can be conducted completely on the waste embryos of IVF, and potentially help millions of people. I just don't get it.
Methinks you phrased the question wrong and deliberately parced it as a means of entrapment; what part of "Thou Shall Not Kill" do you have difficulty understanding?
But we won't. It's easier and more fun to knock down idiots than actually respond to issues. However, since he represents a certain part of society, he does bring a point of view to the table that has a voice and votes.
This is a bit beside the point but, to be totally accurate, that commandment is more accurately translated as "Thou shalt not commit murder." More exacting studies of extant documents and cultures and language of the day present a more specific prohibition. Not that this justifies wars or capital punishment, or whatever. It is simply the more accurate translation. War mongers, on all sides of the political spectrum, have never found a legitimately sound basis for their personal ambition in the Bible. NEVER!!
Hans Tiefel, an religion/ethics professor who I am familiar with, submits a fundamental difference of option between, as he lays it out, secular humanism and christianity: SH believes fundamentally in reason; CH believe fundamentally in the soul. (Despite the dichotomy, I'm sure there are many other variations on this) If I understand his point of view, Christians [should] defend all human life (as anti-abortionists do, but war mongers/death penalty advocates don't). SH holds, not so much a lesser view of those unable to reason (Terri Schiavo, etc), but a greater view, a focus if you will , on those that can. As a Christian, Tiefel is forced to come down on the side of life no matter what, (although his Warfarfe and Ethics course was instructive) since life in his view, is all possesed of a soul--pulse=soul. SH, despite the secularity, often incorporate the idea of soul as well, but have much more gray area to play with, since it sees essentially, brain activity=soul. So, soul goes with body, or soul goes with mind? I choose to believe the latter. I am thus anti-death penalty (for other reasons are well), anti-war (although this is nuanced, as I am not a pacifist), and pro-choice. There may be hypocracy inherant in my views, but more than likely it is simply a lack of explanatory ability on my part.
Easy, if you ban the destruction of any fertilized ebryo's, how is that incompatible with being against abortion or increasing the number of new stem cells used in research? Of course the issue of limiting the number of embyo's created is more problematic, but it doen't necessarily cause a philosophical problem.
I am a little confused. Are you saying that it is morally acceptable to create human embryos by the hundreds of thousands, and then leave them frozen forever, provided that they aren't destroyed? If that is the case, it seems like a morally expediant justification that really has no practical effect separate from destroying them.
I believe that Italy legislates in this manner. What tends to occur is that the women gets a bunch of implantees and a lot of them die anyway because there are so many, sometimes necessitating more invitro fertilization. I have to find a link....
I'm not saying it is morally acceptable, I'm just pointing out that it would be consistent for someone who opposes abortion and stem cell research, because of the "culture of life" issue. I would agree that the practical and the philisophical are often at odds, and why this is more difficult for people who want to take into account the practical vs those who hold on to their moral convictions in spite of the practical implications. I agree this is an intersting topic, but I don't think it is the "gotcha" issue that you will be able to use against the hard core pro-lifers.
I find it interesting as well because it really challenges virtually everyone's beliefs and inspires deep thought into the meaning of life (cue "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, if a sperm gets wasted, God gets quite irate . . . ). I actually am not looking for a "gotcha" issue, I was pointing out that the issue is starting to reach a head where you potentially have people who were on the same side of many "pro-life" issues will suddenly be at odds. Hell, its quite possible that many on the "pro-life" side may be the product of IVF at the expense of other embryos. Makes you think.
Of course you can, but at the same time you should at least examine those positions for inconsistencies and think about them. In fact, I am against the death penalty and for stem cell research. In addition, I have always taken the legal position of the late Adm. Stockdale regarding abortion -- "it's a womans body and she makes the decisions. period." -- but at the same time, I have real moral issues with abortion -- probably from being Catholic . That is why I said in the original post that many, if not all, of us apply certain political justifications to life issues to validate how we WANT to feel about certain things.