Abortion, IVF and the nanny state
Let’s be very clear: in vitro fertilization (IVF) results in far more zygotes than will ever be implanted. Further, pre-implantation testing means that some zygotes will be rejected. In the end, this means that millions of fertilized eggs will be discarded. That was always baked in the IVF cake.
For reasons that escape me as a PhD geneticist, some people believe that the cluster of cells that we call “zygotes” are the moral equivalent of a fully developed human being. For those folks, destroying zygotes is murder. In the Republican states that have declared that life begins at conception, IVF is ipso facto illegal. Which means that the “pro-life” right is anti-life.
Look, most human conceptions do not progress to live birth, which means that God is the greatest abortionist of all time. If forced birth is “pro-life,” then God is “pro-choice.”
This isn’t about religion; this is about controlling women. This is an economic issue, not just a personal one. When the state criminalizes reproductive choice and family formation, it affects the economy. Just ask any Chinese person.
You are one world class monkey, aren’t you boy, a regular King Kong
@Ten,
Why are you calling me a monkey?
Programming note: The idea that the nanny state should stay out of the personal decisions of Americans is a deeply conservative idea. It is also a deeply liberal idea. The notion that pro-choice is “liberal” or that pro-IVF is “liberal” is nonsense. They are both liberal and conservative. It turns out that conservative and liberal ideas can and do converge. The people who tell you that liberals and conservatives are at war are right-wing radicals. They can and should be ignored.
Joel:
It is hard to sort through them to find the real people.
The reasoning of extreme pro-lifers is simple enough that even a PhD in genetics normally would not be enough to explain it escaping one’s cognition. But for Joel’s sake, I’ll provide a summary as best I understand it. From the moment of conception through to the moment of death, a human life exists with a transcendent moral value whose source is divine. The various stages of development from Many disagree with this, and one can agree with it but disagree that particular secular laws based on this reasoning are useful, but it is not hard to follow.
Oops, lost a bit. The various stages of development from start to end do not alter this moral value.
@Eric,
“a transcendent moral value whose source is divine.”
How do I measure this “moral value” found in zygotes? Where is it located? What is the scientific definition of “divine” and how can I measure it?
You don’t find it or measure it. It is a quality that transcends human understanding. But the zygote is not a unique human phase where this holds. The “protection of zygotes” laws don’t seem to me likely to be socially useful, but it isn’t hard to comprehend the thinking behind them.
In other words, it’s a bald, completely unsupported assertion based on no evidence whatsoever and using undefinable gobbledygook words, exactly similar to a toddler saying “There is a squinch in my boggly”. Not worthy of being considered, or even acknowledged, by anyone.
Eric tells the Christian doctrine.
We believe human life exists from conception to death.
“Divine” is seen by humans “with eyes to see”. That is faith, although law has precedents about embryoes.
Why would you, Eric, want to measure, it does not seem that you have “eyes that see”.
One does not have to see, but one errs in saying another’s’ “faith is unworthy”.
IOW, arguing faith is not restricted to rules of logic.
It may be informative to review C.S. Lewis’ conversion to Christianity.
@paddy,
I posted “For reasons that escape me as a PhD geneticist, some people believe that the cluster of cells that we call “zygotes” are the moral equivalent of a fully developed human being.” I don’t claim to be a Christian theologian. But as someone who was raised Christian, I know for a fact that being Christian doesn’t oblige one to believe that a human zygote is the same as a human adult. And as far as I know, Christ–for whom Christianity is named–was silent on the topic of abortion.
“but one errs in saying another’s’ “faith is unworthy”.”
LOL! I certainly know “Christians” who say another’s faith is unworthy. Nobody has posted that on this thread, however.
The Gospel includes a couple of statements about who is thrown into Gehenna.
One the rich man who wore purple and ignored Lazarus.
Another which taught “whatever you do to the least of my brothers that you do to me”. They who failed that were cast down.
I see a zygote as the least of my brothers.
Anothe view I share from a sermon I heard recently: the most popular song in hell is “I did it my way”.
The priest is pretty funny,
@paddy,
I see nothing in my bible indicating that Lazarus said anything about zygotes. As for zygotes being your brothers, I am not interested in your personal beliefs. But Jesus was silent on the topics of abortion and zygotes in my bible.
So, you’re saying they just made something up. What about unconceived babies? Don’t they have as much divine potential as a zygote? They should have at least 50%. I’m killing tens of thousands of unconceived babies every day. I can live with it.
Eric
I should not say this, but up to a point I agree with you. But I don’t say what point that is, because I don’t want to get into a stupid argument one way or the other.
But as far as I can tell, the core of Jesus’ message is “What is that to you ? Follow thou me!” He also says a lot about taking your enemy to court, or worrying about the mote in your brother’s eye. So, as far as I can see, abortion may or may not be murder, or it may or may not be a sin. But that is a matter between God and the person deciding to have an abortion. None of your or my business whatsoever. Besides, I hate to give the materialists an excuse to pat themselves on the back whenever they come out with one of their pearls of wisdom.
the rest of the story: so does that mean that if I give one kind of murder a pass, then I can’t object if someone murders me? well, no, not exactly, though I would not expect “society” to worry itself sick about the need to punish all murders. and I suppose I am willing to grant that society has a right to try to prevent murders, but I think I can make distinctions…
a harder question, maybe…is what do I think I have a right to do if someone abuses or murders his own child?
@Eric,
So “it is a quality that transcends human understanding” but “it isn’t hard to comprehend the thinking behind them.”
LOL! So it’s not hard to comprehend something that cannot be perceived independently by any observer? Seriously? Sounds like magical thinking to me.
What a great way to control women! Just tell them they’re carrying something that transcends human understanding (they’re human, so don’t understand their own bodies) and there’s a state interest in holding them hostage to this “thinking” that “transcends human understanding!”