You can't even write about the issue without implicitly accepting that the embryos are living human persons. They are alive, then a guy drops them on the ground, then they are not. This manslaughter or murder, nothing else. IVF is immoral and is no different than killing off a child with Downs or even your dumber children.
I was referencing the legal case you based your post on. I wouldn’t accuse them of murder ex post, but if it was made illegal, then murder or manslaughter depending on intent, same as you would for the death of any other human person. “Embryo selection” is a euphemism for murdering the unwanted child. An accidental death of an implanted child would depend on the chances and intent - a bar would need to be set to define criminal negligence or unacceptable risk to the child.
1) I don't think IVF is remotely in danger. There is a class of people that don't like the religious and wish they were against IVF, but it just isn't true.
Only 16% of people that consider abortion always morally wrong also consider IVF always morally wrong. My experience with very Catholic friends (active weekly attenders) is that when they need IVF to get pregnant they just do it.
2) Going through IVF is hard. My friends went through IVF for twelve rounds to get one embryo. If that (and their only change to be parents) were destroyed by malice of gross negligence then something much more meaningful then "destruction of property" would have taken place.
3) The court mentioned that the law around fetus in artificial wombs is basically totally un-legislated right now and will need to be addressed.
"They are alive, then a guy drops them on the ground, then they are not. This manslaughter or murder, nothing else. IVF is immoral and is no different than killing off a child with Downs or even your dumber children."
I enter this as the number one evidence of the Bible-thumper problem.
My problem with IVF is when they delete embrios which basically is human life that die, Trump is like Paul he doesn't like abortion but also don't think is a matter of the federal government
Actually a death certificate might be a good idea. It has been very common throughout history to give stillbirths a grave. As for criminal investigations, if an elderly person with health problems finally passes away and there is nothing suspicious about it, is there a criminal investigation? If there is nothing suspicious, there is nothing to investigate.
I did not confuse stillbirths and miscarriages, I just suggested we should treat miscarriages similarly to how we treat stillbirths.
If a woman was a feminist who advocated for abortion legalization, that would be suspicious.
I am not sure as to exactly how common miscarriages are, but I have heard that they are common in comparison to infant mortality. I will have to do more research. Suspicion mostly has to do with social circumstances and motives.
Yes, I realize it's impossible to justify the use of logic within your worldview, but you at least seem like you try to use logic to justify your worldview itself so I'd imagine you'd be familiar with it.
The essence of the problem of course is a failure to define appropriately when “personhood” begins or is bestowed upon a fertilized egg. The problem exists on both ends of the reproductive process. For example, Singer would not even bestow personhood on a newly born infant. It is not simply a “Bible Thumper” problem.
In any event, a blastocyst (small clump of cells) is not a person in any sense that I can understand, and yet I do not consider myself to be pro-abortion. Somewhere in the middle is the meeting (decision) point.
Indeed, the States in general have met “in the middle”. We find most laws restricting abortion have cutoff points typically at 15 weeks. Before yes, after no. I myself, find that too late in the process, but also understand that this is a grand compromise of sorts and can live with it. Alabama perhaps not. On the other hand, that is why we have 50 States and allow such variation of opinion, and law, within.
IVF and abortion as they say is only a “bus ticket away”. Deal with it.
> For example, Singer would not even bestow personhood on a newly born infant. It is not simply a “Bible Thumper” problem.
That's the problem with atheist materialism. From its point of view humans are simply bags of chemicals, thus the only reason to grant any of them "rights" is vestigial Christian morality.
Atheists probably have the kill count advantage considering that communism is the deadliest ideology around, and it's explicitly atheist. If one wants to do per capita basis, it gets more difficult as one has to argue about all the various medieval religious wars, persecutions, forced conversions etc.
"Atheists probably have the kill count advantage considering that communism is the deadliest ideology around, and it's explicitly atheist."
My comment was in reference to people who profess to be religious, going way back before communism's birth. Just the number of people slaughtered in actions conducted by the United States in their hegemonic attacks is very significant. The bombing of Japan with atomic weapons and the bombing of civilians in Dresden. All the brutal killings by all sides in Europe during WWI, all countries professed to be religious.
Yes, state abortion bans will not decrease abortions, at least not in the medium term, both because blue states still allow them and because most abortions involve pills nowadays, which makes the whole exercise futile.
Yes, good catch. I was meaning to mention that. The “morning after” pill is why I particularly mention that the problem with abortion is one of “spectrum”. For those who believe life (personhood) begins at conception, you are forced to defend that clump of cells (blastocyst) whose termination is now perhaps the overwhelming number of abortions performed in the US.
I don’t have that problem, nor do I have a problem with condemning late term abortions on a “clump of cells” resembling a fully formed human capable of living outside the womb. Somewhere in the middle we must meet. Where is that dividing line and what reasoning is behind it?
I do not know if you are addressing this to me. Bible Thumpers may not be the only problem, but they are significant. See the comment from Kevin Daley below.
The topic/aspect you point to below *is* address quite explicitly. The question is not life vs death, or whether or not the blastocyst is “human”. It is whether or not we apply “personhood” or rights to this “clump of cells”—which may very grow into a being as we recognize/interact with in common daily life.
The Bible Thumper comment comes from the position taken, that the combination of sperm and egg immediately produces a human being with all the rights thereof. This is a religious perspective (not universal among religions either) and not biological nor historical. For example, a baby born into an ancient Roman household had to be accepted by the father who had the option of rejecting and abandoning the baby by the roadside.
There is a difference between an undifferentiated clump of cells, a three month old fetus, and a new born infant. One party refuses to accept this, the other acknowledges the conundrum and ponders where to draw the line wrt to termination.
Alabama is a state overloaded with Bible-thumping evangelicals. I don't believe the decision will set a precedent for the country. Maybe fifty years ago, but not now.
"I don't think it will set a precedent for most of the states. However, it could inspire the regulations to step in with federal regulations."
Yes, that is a possibility. That would be a travesty, not just for those couples who are not able to conceive the usual way, but for those who wish to use embryo selection to avoid the possibility of having children with a genetic abnormality or to select for specific traits.
I'm not religious, but IVF should be completely banned. All genetic modification of humans needs to be completely banned. Embryos are human beings and alive, and the modification of them for whatever purpose that could be good will ultimately be used in the worst ways ever imaginable. Ted Kaczynski was unimaginably right on this. I do not trust anyone in the world today with such technology. Look at how they've fucked up with mutating pathogens and editing them. They're not even smart enough to place these facilities in super remote regions to prevent release.
They are humans at a different stage of life. As our technology became more advanced we stopped killing and eating infants like Aboriginal Austrailians, to simply leaving them exposed in the wilderness to die. With abortion the the argument stayed the same basically "Oh you're not a human being because you're not an infant!" where as before it was "oh you're not a perfect baby" or "I'm not able to feed you" "You're not a human yet because we haven't give you a name/hasn't been X amount of time since birth."
It's kind of funny how this comment section is full of crazy American conservatives, for whom Emil isn't crazy conservative enough, even though Emil has adopted American conservative positions, like being against Roe vs. Wade, probably just to signal sympathy for American conservatives.
Roe vs Wade did not prohibit the US government or states from regulating reproductive matters, it only prohibited states from banning abortion during the first two trimesters, and states found ways around this by instead banning clinics with regulations. I don't know by what principle anyone thinks that the US shouldn't have a national policy on this, and that abortion should be left to the states alone, except for the principle that American states should have much more power, but almost no one believes that. The religious right certainly doesn't have a principled belief in greater state power, because they want a national abortion ban, and everyone who was in favor of keeping Roe vs. Wade knew that the religious right was going to go for a national ban after Roe was overthrown. Trump obviously couldn't care less about abortion on a personal level, but he is forced to serve the interests of his base, and the religious right is a key part of his base, so he does what they want, given the other constraints.
You can't even write about the issue without implicitly accepting that the embryos are living human persons. They are alive, then a guy drops them on the ground, then they are not. This manslaughter or murder, nothing else. IVF is immoral and is no different than killing off a child with Downs or even your dumber children.
No one really acts that way. Do you want to accuse parents of murder when they transfer 2 embryos at a time, and usually only 1 of them implants?
I was referencing the legal case you based your post on. I wouldn’t accuse them of murder ex post, but if it was made illegal, then murder or manslaughter depending on intent, same as you would for the death of any other human person. “Embryo selection” is a euphemism for murdering the unwanted child. An accidental death of an implanted child would depend on the chances and intent - a bar would need to be set to define criminal negligence or unacceptable risk to the child.
1) I don't think IVF is remotely in danger. There is a class of people that don't like the religious and wish they were against IVF, but it just isn't true.
https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/how-do-americans-feel-about-in-vitro
Only 16% of people that consider abortion always morally wrong also consider IVF always morally wrong. My experience with very Catholic friends (active weekly attenders) is that when they need IVF to get pregnant they just do it.
2) Going through IVF is hard. My friends went through IVF for twelve rounds to get one embryo. If that (and their only change to be parents) were destroyed by malice of gross negligence then something much more meaningful then "destruction of property" would have taken place.
3) The court mentioned that the law around fetus in artificial wombs is basically totally un-legislated right now and will need to be addressed.
I was born by IVF and my mom has pictures of the embryos that died, she kept 2 embryos me and my twin sister.
"They are alive, then a guy drops them on the ground, then they are not. This manslaughter or murder, nothing else. IVF is immoral and is no different than killing off a child with Downs or even your dumber children."
I enter this as the number one evidence of the Bible-thumper problem.
You thump your religion, I’ll thump my Bible. When discussing morality one must thump something.
It's clear that the "western world is entering a new world order where the two dimensions of" reverse racism"and "designer babies" intersect.
My problem with IVF is when they delete embrios which basically is human life that die, Trump is like Paul he doesn't like abortion but also don't think is a matter of the federal government
Human life dies every time you swallow your own spit.
No, human life begins since conception which mean the union of a spermatozoid and a ovule
"No, human life begins since conception which mean the union of a spermatozoid and a ovule."
When a woman has a miscarriage, is there a medical/criminal investigation? Is there a death certificate issued?
Try to be rational.
That is irrelevant to determine if what I say is true or not, Is like saying because the law recognize me as a bat I'm therefore that
If you think it is a human, why don't you work to get the law changed to require a medical/criminal investigation and death certificate?
And what tell you I wouldn't like to be that way?
Actually a death certificate might be a good idea. It has been very common throughout history to give stillbirths a grave. As for criminal investigations, if an elderly person with health problems finally passes away and there is nothing suspicious about it, is there a criminal investigation? If there is nothing suspicious, there is nothing to investigate.
"Actually a death certificate might be a good idea. It has been very common throughout history to give stillbirths a grave"
I wrote nothing of a stillbirth; I wrote miscarriage. They are not the same thing.
"If there is nothing suspicious, there is nothing to investigate."
We are talking about a young, healthy woman, not an elderly sick person. If you don't investigate, how do you know there is nothing suspicious?
I did not confuse stillbirths and miscarriages, I just suggested we should treat miscarriages similarly to how we treat stillbirths.
If a woman was a feminist who advocated for abortion legalization, that would be suspicious.
I am not sure as to exactly how common miscarriages are, but I have heard that they are common in comparison to infant mortality. I will have to do more research. Suspicion mostly has to do with social circumstances and motives.
Note that Emil didn't even include that among his list of steps for some reason.
I think because he's pro-abortio for eugenic reasons, I disagree with him in that but still is great in what he does
Being pro-abortion is one thing. Not even being able to follow the basic logic of one's opponent's argument is another.
"Being pro-abortion is one thing. Not even being able to follow the basic logic of one's opponent's argument is another."
'Logic'? Too funny.
> 'Logic'? Too funny.
Yes, I realize it's impossible to justify the use of logic within your worldview, but you at least seem like you try to use logic to justify your worldview itself so I'd imagine you'd be familiar with it.
A Bible-thumper using the word logic is an oxymoron.
The essence of the problem of course is a failure to define appropriately when “personhood” begins or is bestowed upon a fertilized egg. The problem exists on both ends of the reproductive process. For example, Singer would not even bestow personhood on a newly born infant. It is not simply a “Bible Thumper” problem.
In any event, a blastocyst (small clump of cells) is not a person in any sense that I can understand, and yet I do not consider myself to be pro-abortion. Somewhere in the middle is the meeting (decision) point.
Indeed, the States in general have met “in the middle”. We find most laws restricting abortion have cutoff points typically at 15 weeks. Before yes, after no. I myself, find that too late in the process, but also understand that this is a grand compromise of sorts and can live with it. Alabama perhaps not. On the other hand, that is why we have 50 States and allow such variation of opinion, and law, within.
IVF and abortion as they say is only a “bus ticket away”. Deal with it.
> For example, Singer would not even bestow personhood on a newly born infant. It is not simply a “Bible Thumper” problem.
That's the problem with atheist materialism. From its point of view humans are simply bags of chemicals, thus the only reason to grant any of them "rights" is vestigial Christian morality.
"That's the problem with atheist materialism."
Who the hell are you to speak for atheists?
Atheists can be moral people just as much, if not more so, than religious people.
Religious people have killed and maimed multitudes more people than atheists.
Atheists probably have the kill count advantage considering that communism is the deadliest ideology around, and it's explicitly atheist. If one wants to do per capita basis, it gets more difficult as one has to argue about all the various medieval religious wars, persecutions, forced conversions etc.
"Atheists probably have the kill count advantage considering that communism is the deadliest ideology around, and it's explicitly atheist."
My comment was in reference to people who profess to be religious, going way back before communism's birth. Just the number of people slaughtered in actions conducted by the United States in their hegemonic attacks is very significant. The bombing of Japan with atomic weapons and the bombing of civilians in Dresden. All the brutal killings by all sides in Europe during WWI, all countries professed to be religious.
> Atheists can be moral people just as much, if not more so, than religious people.
Sure, as long as they're still operating on the fumes of a religious morality.
"Sure, as long as they're still operating on the fumes of a religious morality."
Only an evil person would need to believe in an ass-kicking from a Sky Daddy to assuage 'sinful' proclivities.
Are you atheists even able to formulate a notion of 'sin' within your worldview?
"Are you atheists even able to formulate a notion of 'sin' within your worldview?"
I can not speak for all atheists, but I know morality...not out of fear, but from being a decent person.
Most religious people are the biggest hypocrites. They profess piety but commit or condone horrible acts against their fellow man.
Yes, state abortion bans will not decrease abortions, at least not in the medium term, both because blue states still allow them and because most abortions involve pills nowadays, which makes the whole exercise futile.
Yes, good catch. I was meaning to mention that. The “morning after” pill is why I particularly mention that the problem with abortion is one of “spectrum”. For those who believe life (personhood) begins at conception, you are forced to defend that clump of cells (blastocyst) whose termination is now perhaps the overwhelming number of abortions performed in the US.
I don’t have that problem, nor do I have a problem with condemning late term abortions on a “clump of cells” resembling a fully formed human capable of living outside the womb. Somewhere in the middle we must meet. Where is that dividing line and what reasoning is behind it?
"It is not simply a “Bible Thumper” problem."
I do not know if you are addressing this to me. Bible Thumpers may not be the only problem, but they are significant. See the comment from Kevin Daley below.
The topic/aspect you point to below *is* address quite explicitly. The question is not life vs death, or whether or not the blastocyst is “human”. It is whether or not we apply “personhood” or rights to this “clump of cells”—which may very grow into a being as we recognize/interact with in common daily life.
The Bible Thumper comment comes from the position taken, that the combination of sperm and egg immediately produces a human being with all the rights thereof. This is a religious perspective (not universal among religions either) and not biological nor historical. For example, a baby born into an ancient Roman household had to be accepted by the father who had the option of rejecting and abandoning the baby by the roadside.
There is a difference between an undifferentiated clump of cells, a three month old fetus, and a new born infant. One party refuses to accept this, the other acknowledges the conundrum and ponders where to draw the line wrt to termination.
The point is Kevin Daley's comment is standard Bible-Thumper dogma.
Alabama is a state overloaded with Bible-thumping evangelicals. I don't believe the decision will set a precedent for the country. Maybe fifty years ago, but not now.
I don't think it will set a precedent for most of the states. However, it could inspire the regulations to step in with federal regulations.
"I don't think it will set a precedent for most of the states. However, it could inspire the regulations to step in with federal regulations."
Yes, that is a possibility. That would be a travesty, not just for those couples who are not able to conceive the usual way, but for those who wish to use embryo selection to avoid the possibility of having children with a genetic abnormality or to select for specific traits.
Can you do an article comparing embryo selection Vs pre-embryo selection in terms of results?
What do you mean, pre-embryo selection? Gamete selection? https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/can-we-pick-the-best-sperm
Yes
I'm not religious, but IVF should be completely banned. All genetic modification of humans needs to be completely banned. Embryos are human beings and alive, and the modification of them for whatever purpose that could be good will ultimately be used in the worst ways ever imaginable. Ted Kaczynski was unimaginably right on this. I do not trust anyone in the world today with such technology. Look at how they've fucked up with mutating pathogens and editing them. They're not even smart enough to place these facilities in super remote regions to prevent release.
They are humans at a different stage of life. As our technology became more advanced we stopped killing and eating infants like Aboriginal Austrailians, to simply leaving them exposed in the wilderness to die. With abortion the the argument stayed the same basically "Oh you're not a human being because you're not an infant!" where as before it was "oh you're not a perfect baby" or "I'm not able to feed you" "You're not a human yet because we haven't give you a name/hasn't been X amount of time since birth."
FYI, Alabama just un-banned IVF: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/07/alabama-legislature-passes-ivf-fix-on-eve-of-katie-britt-sotu-gop-response/
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
"Theses on Feuerbach" (1845), Thesis 11, Marx Engels Selected Works,(MESW), Volume I, p. 15
It's kind of funny how this comment section is full of crazy American conservatives, for whom Emil isn't crazy conservative enough, even though Emil has adopted American conservative positions, like being against Roe vs. Wade, probably just to signal sympathy for American conservatives.
Roe vs Wade did not prohibit the US government or states from regulating reproductive matters, it only prohibited states from banning abortion during the first two trimesters, and states found ways around this by instead banning clinics with regulations. I don't know by what principle anyone thinks that the US shouldn't have a national policy on this, and that abortion should be left to the states alone, except for the principle that American states should have much more power, but almost no one believes that. The religious right certainly doesn't have a principled belief in greater state power, because they want a national abortion ban, and everyone who was in favor of keeping Roe vs. Wade knew that the religious right was going to go for a national ban after Roe was overthrown. Trump obviously couldn't care less about abortion on a personal level, but he is forced to serve the interests of his base, and the religious right is a key part of his base, so he does what they want, given the other constraints.
Hail Trump.
What do you think of departurism theory?
Which IVF startups are the most promising? Does anyone know? Thank you.