1

I'm not clear on whether or not this group wants to ban IVF. Anyone know?

2

DS,

I'm not clear on whether or not this group wants to ban IVF. Anyone know?

IVF doesn't need to be banned, just regulated. It's possible to carry out IVF without destroying embroyos (i.e., by using egg freezing techniques and fertilizing only the ones that will be implanted).

3

Joe if destruction of embyros is murder of children, then your position amounts to "Murdering children is OK as long as it's regulated".

On the other hand if destroying embryos is not murder then banning ESCR is not an argument based on right to life concerns.

OT but BTW have you seen the list of stellar endrosements Bush is racking up overseas?

Iran endorses Bush: TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions. Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20041019/ap_on_el_pr/iran_us_elections

AL Qaeda endorses Bush statement from al-Qaeda following the Madrid bombings...said the organization hoped George Bush would win reelection, 'because he acts with force rather than wisdom or shrewdness, and it is his religious fanaticism that will rouse our (Islamic) nation, as has been shown. Being targeted by an enemy is what will wake us from our slumber.'- Quoted on the Arabic news Web site www.elaph.com: 'Bayaan lil qa'ida yuhhammal tawqi' kataib abu hafss al massri,' March 17, 2004."

Vladmir Putin endorses Bush-Putin, speaking Central Asian Cooperation Organization summit in Tajikistan Monday, made his most overt comments of support so far for the re-election of Bush for a second term.-source: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/10/18/putin.iraq/

4

IVF doesn't need to be banned, just regulated. It's possible to carry out IVF without destroying embroyos (i.e., by using egg freezing techniques and fertilizing only the ones that will be implanted).

And the discussion of IVF "regulation" in their anti-research diatribe was where Joe? Think of the thousands of 5 celled "humans" that are being "killed" every year while you and your anti-stem cell research band ramble on about a few hundred lines of embryos that are taken before they are trashed and used to save millions of people's lives. Seriously if you are so horrified at this why are you not directing the majority of your energy at the major source of "killing" of embryonic life--IVF?

5

Another good quote from the ad:
It [The Developing Human, a biology text] notes that “human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell — a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” This is not metaphysics or theology: it is elementary human biology.

This is why I don't understand those who claim the blastocyte is not a human being. It clearly is, whether it looks like us or not. The question then is, what do we do with this human being?

DS writes: Joe if destruction of embyros is murder of children, then your position amounts to "Murdering children is OK as long as it's regulated". That's not an accurate representation of what Joe said -- he said IVF can be done without murdering children. I don't know if he's right, but I'm interested in hearing more.

6

DS: Joe if destruction of embyros is murder of children, then your position amounts to "Murdering children is OK as long as it's regulated".

That would be true if IVF required, by definition, the destruction of embryos. Fortunately, that’s not the case. Currently, the procedure usually entails fertilizing numerous eggs and then freezing them until they are needed for implantation. Often more embryos are created than are needed, so they will eventually be destroyed.

A more ethical procedure would be to free the eggs until the time of implantation and then fertilize only the ones that will be needed.

OT but BTW have you seen the list of stellar endrosements Bush is racking up overseas?

Yeah, and the Iranians would rather elect the man who put a democracy on their border rather than the man who would give them nuclear fuel. Um, hm. Oh, did you notice that Arafat prefers Kerry? Probably not because it really doesn’t matter.

And can we please try to keep this thread on topic for a change?

Moderate: And the discussion of IVF "regulation" in their anti-research diatribe was where Joe?

It wasn’t. Neither was “regulation” of abortion. But if you read the ad it is against embryo-destruction in all forms.

Seriously if you are so horrified at this why are you not directing the majority of your energy at the major source of "killing" of embryonic life--IVF?

You’re absolutely right. The IVF issue has flown beneath the radar for too many years. I think the focus on ESC will end up changing that industry as well.

7

Sorry I got off on the OT thing Joe.

That would be true if IVF required, by definition, the destruction of embryos. Fortunately, that’s not the case. Currently, the procedure usually entails fertilizing numerous eggs and then freezing them until they are needed for implantation. Often more embryos are created than are needed, so they will eventually be destroyed.

A more ethical procedure would be to free the eggs until the time of implantation and then fertilize only the ones that will be needed.

Yes I agree that would remove the current dilemma for RtL's. Nevertheless most commercial IVF Clinics do end up discarding embryos and a lot of them. I realize you personally have been pretty objective in reporting on this issue so I'm not addressing your specifically but rather the RtL opposition to IVF and ESC's.

In that vein, if one allows existing UVF Labs to operate, then according to the RtL arguemtns I've the commercial sector is murdering childredn, parents using IVF procedures are murdering childred, and the government including the Executive Office isn't even raising the possibility of outlawing the murder of children/embryos as a result of IVF. It's politically dangerous to openly oppose it of course. But then openly opposing the holocaust was politically danegrous in Nazi Germany also.
Anyway, is it murder, or isn't it, in the opinion of the RtL movement?

8

Anyway, is it murder, or isn't it, in the opinion of the RtL movement?

While I would avoid using the emotionally-charged term “murder”, I think the embryo-destruction that occurs because of IVF is a serious issue. To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t all that aware that so many embryos were being destroyed until the stem-cell issue came to light. Now that it has I think you’ll see the RtL movement mobilizing to make changes in that area.

It's politically dangerous to openly oppose it of course.

Because IVF can be done without destroying embryos, I don't think it will be as problematic as some other issues. It certainly can't be more "politically dangerous" than opposing abortion. That issue sets the umbrella that cover many other less emotionally charged issues.

9

Interesting post.

I would be curious to know how many students this movement represents. The law of averages suggests that there must be SOME conservative, pro-life students at Ivy League colleges. It is even possible that there are faculty members who are. I would like to know, though, if we're talking about 5, or 500.

10

I think it's going to be pretty tough political sell to oppose IVF in the face of an endless stream of living breathing photogenic IVF children. Especially to prevent blastocytes which aren't nearly as photogenic as children or even recognizably human fetuses from existing. Yes, you can fertilize and implant one embryo at a time and that option is given to couples seeking IVF therapy. The problem arises in relation to cost and time. Not all fertilized eggs develop normally, not all fertilized eggs live past a few divisions, not all implanted embryos take. So if you go one at a shot you're going to drive the costs through the roof while lowerign the success rate drastically. There is the possibility that someday science could improve the odds, but to do so would almost certainly entail research into embryonic IVF development using live human embryos which raises the same issues all over again.

11

While I would avoid using the emotionally-charged term “murder”

Why is that Joe? If you believe it is the intentional killing of a "human" that is not committed in an act of self defense, an act of war or as a sentence for a committed crime, what other definition is there?

12

Great post Joe!

I think it's great that college kids are coming out in support of causes other than those that are clearly "self-interested." The endless drivel opposing the draft, "no blood for oil," and other pet causes has been quite tiresome. It's encouraging to see this group come out to support something that is clearly outside the lines of boundries of "accepted" liberal causes on campus.

13

"It's possible to carry out IVF without destroying embroyos (i.e., by using egg freezing techniques and fertilizing only the ones that will be implanted)."

Excuse me, Joe? Are you claiming that every thawed egg into which sperm is injected (i.e., every "human being" if we use your lexicon) survives the implantation procedure?

Using your lexicon, then IVF essentially involves creating human beings and throwing at them the uterus to see if they stick. If they don't stick, oh well, we killed that one. And that one too. Darn. Oops, that human being got messed up when it got injected. Crap. Darn. Oops, killed another. Ah, there you go! Congratulations, you're pregnant!

14

From the original post

"Regardless of how many people claim that an embryo is merely a “clump of cells,” the facts of science prove that it is a human being."

The "facts of science" don't prove that the embryo is a "human being." They "facts" prove that the embyro is a human embyro.

Human beings are capable of thinking and feeling. Fertilized eggs don't have that capability and people who say so sound like complete idiots.

"If attacks were made on the mentally handicapped, African Americans, or Jews, we would expect our government to pass laws protecting them."

Equating handicapped, black and Jewish citizens to blastocysts is offensive on so many levels that only a religious fanatic could pull it off without a second thought.

15

>We would not expect our political leaders to
>say that they were personally opposed to
>killing the mentally ill, but thought others –
>for the good of science – should have a choice
>to do so.

Really gives a new angle to the Thomas Dolby song "She Blinded Me with Science", doesn't it?

>The "facts of science" don't prove that the
>embryo is a "human being." They "facts" prove
>that the embyro is a human embyro.

A human embryo still has 46 chromosomes in a human genome coding that does not match either parent's genome. Biologically and genetically, that defines a human that is a separate individual. At least it would as DNA evidence in court...

16

"Equating handicapped, black and Jewish citizens to blastocysts is offensive on so many levels that only a religious fanatic could pull it off without a second thought."

Ironically, a certain percentage of these humans in the blastocyte stage of development are handicapped, black, and/or Jewish since these are mostly genetic traits (taking "Jewish" as an ethnic designation rather than the cultural/religious).

17

Gedi, playing God, introduces a new species ...

"Ironically, a certain percentage of these humans in the blastocyte stage of development are handicapped, black, and/or Jewish since these are mostly genetic traits (taking "Jewish" as an ethnic designation rather than the cultural/religious)."

Yes, folks. There you have it. The "ironic strawman" is born. Something new here on the evangelical outpost. You pretend not to notice a word (e.g., "citizen") from someone's comment and then note the "irony" in the non-existent comment.

18

Folks you're literally talking about a policy you would like to see enforced which would prevent blastocytes from ever existing and thus prevent thousands upon thousands of children from ever existing. It would be hysterical if you weren't serious. That you are serious makes you deserving of pity.

19

Larry wrote, "Gedi, playing God, introduces a new species ...

"Ironically, a certain percentage of these humans in the blastocyte stage of development are handicapped, black, and/or Jewish since these are mostly genetic traits (taking "Jewish" as an ethnic designation rather than the cultural/religious)."

Yes, folks. There you have it. The "ironic strawman" is born. Something new here on the evangelical outpost. You pretend not to notice a word (e.g., "citizen") from someone's comment and then note the "irony" in the non-existent comment."

My apologies. I didn't realize you were arguing that the right to life was dependent upon citizenship. In that case, would a citizen be justified in taking his/her handgun and wiping out several city blocks worth of illegal immigrants? Would one expect this citizen not to face manslaughter charges?

I think perhaps this isn't what you meant either, Larry.

20

However politics is the art of compromise and I can think of one hypothetical compromise. Bearing in mind I don't know the feasibility of the following. I mentioned that many blastocytes don't develop normally, they're slow, or they stop dividing, or something goes wrong and they're not even in the running for implantation candidates. This happens fairly often I believe.
These blastocytes will not develop into nomral people no matter what we do and inf act it's highly, highly, likely they would miscarry if we even tried to implant them. I suppose in some cases they might successfully implant, but they might well grow into some kind of monster if implanted in a uterus and they still do have a full complement of human DNA...and it's conceiveable that they might even develop into a viable normal fetus...How about we use those, and only those, to produce new Emrbyonic Stem Cell Lines with the Fed Funds? Would you be ok with Federal Funds under those circumstances?

21

DS - How about we use those, and only those, to produce new Emrbyonic Stem Cell Lines with the Fed Funds? Would you be ok with Federal Funds under those circumstances?

No.

22

Why not?

23

DS - becuase, all life comes from God, and is created by Him, with his intent as to how it should "turn out" (for lack of a better word). It's not for us to decide which life we should keep, and which we should destroy. It's not for us to decide what He intended it to be. Does that make sense?

24

I guess you're don't understand Emm. In this case we're not talking about potential human life.

The students in the article Joe provided for us stated "A human embryo is not a potential human being. Rather, it is a human being with potential."

So stipulating we an embryo which exhibits developmental problems and is not a potential person, what would be problem? It's going to get flushed anyway. It's not going to be implanted, and if it was implanted it would die.

25

Emmaus: "Does that make sense?"

Not really. If we have the power to do something as non-gods-(create or destroy) then who are we to make a determination whether God intended it or not. It is presumptious of us to think that we know gods intent on regarding this subject matter.

26

Why don't all the people who support embryonic stem cell research start a fund drive? Instead of making the government spend money on something that is so controversial and opposed by so many then all the people for it can fund it.

I have a feeling it is like many other liberal causes...they only want them if someone else pays.

Something like hydrogen cars is something the government can fund. It is non controversial.

27

ESCR isn't a liberal vs republican issue Scott. It's a Faith vs Reality based issue. Many moderate Republicans support ESCR. Ca's Governor has it in the ballot and he spoke at the RNC.

28

It isn't a Faith vs. Reality issue either. There are many troubling ethical issues raised by the technology, and much of it is being pushed forward faster than is wise. In today's issue of Nature there are two news articles dealing addressing aspects of this.

Biologists seek consensus on guidelines for stem-cell research 885
Scientists debate ethics of experiments that mix mice and men.
doi:10.1038/431885a

Infertility specialists counsel caution over frozen eggs 886
Reproduction techniques not ready for prime time.
doi:10.1038/431886a

If you read them (subscrription required) you will note that we already have the capacity to create human-animal chimaeras, and some see no reason not to proceed. Also, reproductive technology techniques are being pushed into service despite our lack of knowledge of the consequences.

The editorial in this issue also asks whether public opinion should decide about what research is acceptable, and concludes - yes.

Due disclosure: Scientist and Christian, working in an Institute that does research on reproducttive technologies.

29

Is IVF research and/or procedures federally
funded? At this point, isn't that the issue
with embryonic stem cell research, whether to
destroy human embryos with federal funds?

30

DS: It's a Faith vs Reality based issue

Can you clarify what you mean by this statement, DS? Because, on my first reading of it, the way I read what you're saying is, on it's face, quite offensive. So, I just want to be sure what you mean before responding.

31

Emm, To oppose ESCR on the grounds that it's a prolife issue is a faith based position. It makes no rational sense and has no rational underpinnings. It not only equates a clump of cells with a living breathing human being, it doesn't save any lives or prevent any abortions. It's an emotional response based on faith carefully nurtured by opponents of abortion despite there being no connection.

The Reality Based Community, of which I'm a proud part, ascertains facts and plausibility to determine a viewpoint while employing compromise to address the sensitivities of the faith based position. The Reality Based position rightly places the welfare of living human beings and the joys of parenthood above the objections of the smaller minority who wishes to enforce their own narrow religious viewpoint on the rest of the electrorate.

32

DS - While I may disagree with your position, I respect your opinion. I would tend to disagree that pro-lifers are a "small minority" or that they object only based on religious grounds. I think that there is a substantially larger ethical issue also in play here. What I write here is my opinion, and not my desire to enforce my beliefs on all Americans. My prayer would be that folks would see this for what it is, and make the morally correct choice. However, I'm not about forcing my beliefs on anyone.

33

Ah, yes, the "narrow minded religious viewpoint" that "they" are trying to force down all our throats. Just like the Taliban, Traitors, Thought-criminals, and all the rest of the Vast Right Wing Goldsteinist/Republican Conspiracy.

Ever notice that the "narrow minded viewpoint" is ALWAYS the other guy's?

34

DS -- as I recall, Emmaus defines faith as "overwhelming evidence" so you are not likely to get very far with your attempts to distinguish "faith" and "reason."

You've been warned!

35

Ken I don't equate the religious right in America with the Taliban. Please don't put words in my mouth. I'd take the religious right over the Taliban anyday. That's a no brainer.

36

TY for your input Emm. I did a poor job of explainign the conflicting interface between the reality based community and the faith based community. I'll try to do better. There is no conflict betweeb the two in gross religious doctrine. While there is no evidence for deities, there is no evidence either. So believing in a deity is not in conflict with reality.
How ever believing in Young Earth Creationism is in conflict with reality as best we can tell. Believing that Iraq has/had significant stockpiles of WMD's or operational links to Al Qaeda/911 is in conflict with the facts as we know them. And every time the President or Joe Carter seriously claims otherwise they look more and more unhinged. (For what it's worth I don't believe they're unhinged. I think Bush realizes the truth but he has to say something to slow down the hemmoraging of his support on Iraq/WMD/AQ and that Joe's simply providing material for discussion)

" Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.

These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October."

Source: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.htmlbetween

The difference between reality and fantasy should be apparent from that in the context of this election and free of the issue of God. It's not about no God vs a God for there is no conclusive evidence ion that. It's about believing in soemthing in which the facts are 180 degress in your face in opposition which have nothing to do with yuor faith in God at all.

One group believes strongly that facts count, that reaosnable inferences should trump fantasy or guessing. The other group holds that fantasy and wishful thinking are more important than facts. Wishful thinking and fantasy certianly have their place, faith and belief in god certainly have their place. But blind faith and wishful in the face of facts in matters of politics or business is no way to run a bar-b-que rib joint, let alone a country.

37

"The other group holds that fantasy and wishful thinking are more important than facts. "

Yes, DS, but hypocrites that they are, they hold that fantasy and wishful thinking are more important than facts ONLY when it comes to (1) advocating actions that their preachers have told them are consistent with what their god says.

As for the other 99% of their day to day lives, they are just as "materialist" and "reality-based" as you and I. How do I know? Because they'd be dead if they weren't.

38

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/21/diet.sperm.ap/index.html

NEWS FLASH.

Here you go folks. You can use the hot new article to argue that people who intentially eat too much while trying to get pregnant should be capitally punished.

Yes, that's right. Fat women have been shown to have decreased rates of embryo implantation. In other words, they are murdering the fertilized eggs, i.e., human beings, that they create when they allow sperm to be placed in their vaginas while they are ovulating. At least, they are guilty of murder now that they KNOW their obesity substantially increases the rate at which embryos fail to implant, i.e., increases the rate at which tiny tiny human beings are allowed to die horrible deaths on the surfaces of tampons or in toilet bowls.

Of course, the Biblically mandated penalty for intentional murder is capital punishment. If you support capital punishment (I sure the hell don't) you might want to invest in the companies that manufacture the lethal chemicals. They'll need to make a lot more to kill all of these fat female infanticidal maniacs who can't stop eating ice cream all the time.

All this assumes that Bush is re-elected and allows conservative evangelicals to dicate his policies and Supreme Court appointments. That's not going to happen.

39

LL, Bush will be re-elected. I don't know what polls you've been looking at, but short of the Democrats trying to steal the election again, and this time having it somehow work, Kerry is headed for a loss, along with an additional two Senate seats for the Democrats.

I don't mean to say, though, that there's anything wrong with the Democratic Party. I think you guys over there are doing a great job in addressing the real needs of the country--you've just been unlucky lately. Keep running your hard-Left, 1970's-style liberals for the country's top posts--one day your time will come.

40

When I read the ad, I noticed right away the writers did two things: they made an appeal TO reason, and based their argumentation entirely on natural reason: no appeals to religion, except insofar as the concept of "personhood" is -- shall we have this debate? -- ultimately a "religious" concept.

Because there are two questions, which are usually conflated: are embryos and fetuses (and, inclusively, all the other categories of conceived-from-human-genetic-material-but-not-born beings whose technical terms I cannot not call to mind) HUMAN, and are they PERSONS?

The first, it seems to me, is a matter of science; the second, it seems to me, CANNOT be settled by science. What is a "person"? How do we decide? And -- importantly -- is it reasonable to leave this unresolved? Its certainly very convenient that it is SOMEONE ELSE's "personhood" that is left up to "personal choice." Or would anyone here speak up and say, "Yes, I am content to have MY personhood no longer protected by law." Any takers?

The question is acute: what is a person, and how do we decide? This is the question at issue in abortion, embryo-destruction (and, yes, I do mean to include in IVF and in contraception), and cloning; and it is disreputable to obscure this important question by canting shouts of "religious obscurantism!" "separation of church and state!"

My initial reaction once having read the ad, in its entirety, was to doubt those who reject the political implications of its reasoning will bother to respond to its reasoning.

Can't help noticing that DS's response aas precisely that: completely bypassed the content of the ad posted, and the reasoning it included.

Again, focus question: "What is a 'person'? How do we decide?"

41

... Deafening silence from the kill-the-babies-because-we-redefined-away-their-humanity liberals.

Nope; they simply will not engage with the a natural-reason argument (such as the ad provided); repeating cant and slogans about "religious intolerance" is so much easier.

Septimus