• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ethical Concerns Raised by Controversial New Embryo Study

nota bene said:
Just because I haven't commented doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned. I've never once expressed an opinion at DP on IVF.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Perhaps because there is a cognitive dissonance there that you cannot reconcile with your opinions on elective abortion?
 
nota bene said:
From the article linked in the OP:

"What this essentially does is use a woman's body as a petri dish," says Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at the University of Chicago. "And there's something about that that seems so profoundly disturbing."
Click to expand...

As I posted before Laurie Zoloth is anti-abortion advocate. Of course she finds women being used as a Petri dish "profoundly disturbing." My point was that although women getting paid for willingly producing a viable zygote or blastocoel disturbed her while unwilling unpaid women being forced into producing a child doesn't disturb her in the least. In fact she she advocates that unwilling unpaid women be used as incubators for live children.

Apparently neither Ms Zoloth nor you see the hypocrisy here.
 
Scrabaholic said:
You do want abortion made illegal.
Click to expand...

Please explain the relevance of this claim to what I said about IVF or embryonic research. Oh, and find a post--just one--in which I have stated what you claim. And good luck with that.
 
Lursa said:
Why is that? Perhaps because there is a cognitive dissonance there that you cannot reconcile with your opinions on elective abortion?
Click to expand...

I assure you that there is no cognitive dissonance. And if you and the other habitués of this forum ever decide to elevate the level of discourse, count me in. Since that will never happen, count me out.
 
nota bene said:
I assure you that there is no cognitive dissonance. And if you and the other habitués of this forum ever decide to elevate the level of discourse, count me in. Since that will never happen, count me out.
Click to expand...

I dont accept your assurance. You regularly remove yourself from discussion on this issue (female reproduction) when you run out of the means to argue. For example, that born and unborn can be valued equally.

But I do accept that you dont have an argument to use. And btw, my 'discourse' is nearly always on target and civil. If you expect more on the Internet, that's as realistic as imagining the elective abortion will be ended by law in America.
 
nota bene said:
The next step on the grotesque slippery slope...
Click to expand...
There is no "slippery slope" here.

The risks the women face are the same as traditional IVF, and apparently the new technique is less painful.

The researchers submitted the study for review to both the Ministry of Health of the State of Nayarit in Mexico, and the Western Institutional Review Board in the US. They did not try to bypass US standards for studies.

The women were informed about the procedure and the possible risks.

Inseminated eggs are often destroyed or used for research in labs.

Lots of people have no ethical problems with abortion. Obviously.

There are no plans to turn Mexico into baby farms for affluent Americans. The idea is to use the new technique in the US. I.e. the ethical issue is almost exclusively about the research.

Thus, the biggest issue is that of paying people in less-affluent nations to participate in research. This is not new, as Western companies have tested new medications, instruments and techniques on developing nations for a long time. That said, Punta de Mita does not appear to be a slum; it's an upscale tourist area, and the hospital in part caters to relatively wealthy foreign medical tourists. I haven't been there (obviously), and I won't say that all the participants are well-off or that there are no ethical issues whatsoever about this particular aspect. And of course, American women are compensated (too much, some say) for egg donation, and they would have been given similar compensation if the study was run in the US. But I can say that this is not new, and it is not clear that the economy in that part of Mexico is so bad that they payments are borderline coercive.

So, you may not like it, but there really isn't anything all that new here.
 
nota bene said:
Just because I haven't commented doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned. I've never once expressed an opinion at DP on IVF.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you have expressed an opinion or not is irrelevant. Your anti-abortion position has been well established by previous posts and pearl clutching over the dreadful things scientist and law makers are doing including your astounding support for that composer and editor of slanderers videos, David Daleiden. If you don't want comments that call you anti-abortion statements and sources into question don't post on topic of abortion.

There are intelligent and workable reasons for abortion to be regulated. You've never express support any of them.
 
nota bene said:
Please explain the relevance of this claim to what I said about IVF or embryonic research. Oh, and find a post--just one--in which I have stated what you claim. And good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Yes, good luck with finding anything in your 50,000+ posts since 'someone' has conveniently erased all your posts up to December 8,2019, However, if I remember correctly in posts prior to that date there was a good deal of maudlin emotionality expended protesting the abortion of any innocent little pre-born babies and only grudging confession that women who had been raped probably should not be required to give birth to the product of that rape.
 
weaver2 said:
Yes, good luck with finding anything in your 50,000+ posts since 'someone' has conveniently erased all your posts up to December 8,2019, However, if I remember correctly in posts prior to that date there was a good deal of maudlin emotionality expended protesting the abortion of any innocent little pre-born babies and only grudging confession that women who had been raped probably should not be required to give birth to the product of that rape.
Click to expand...

There are no erased posts. Just use the search function. Search her username and whatever topic you think she commented on.
 
nota bene said:
Please explain the relevance of this claim to what I said about IVF or embryonic research. Oh, and find a post--just one--in which I have stated what you claim. And good luck with that.
Click to expand...

nota bene said:
From the article linked in the OP:

"What this essentially does is use a woman's body as a petri dish," says Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at the University of Chicago. "And there's something about that that seems so profoundly disturbing."
Click to expand...

Scrabaholic said:
But there's nothing disturbing about using women as broodmares for the barren?? Please.
Click to expand...

It was about using a woman's body. If you want abortion to be banned and if you feel that women who do not want the child should give it up for adoption, then you are essentially using pregnant women who don't want to be as broodmares for the barren.
 
Scrabaholic said:
It was about using a woman's body. If you want abortion to be banned and if you feel that women who do not want the child should give it up for adoption, then you are essentially using pregnant women who don't want to be as broodmares for the barren.
Click to expand...

This is your antecedent/consequent setup, not mine. And now you introduce adoption into the discussion. I am well aware of your view on adoption and have no wish to discuss this either, particularly in a thread about the ethics of embryonic research.
 
nota bene said:
This is your antecedent/consequent setup, not mine. And now you introduce adoption into the discussion. I am well aware of your view on adoption and have no wish to discuss this either, particularly in a thread about the ethics of embryonic research.
Click to expand...

If your objection re: the ethics is women's well-being, safety, etc...then one's position on abortion (where embryos are also open to decisions) seems very relevant to me. I see parallels that need to be clarified from your perspective, if you would explain?
 
nota bene said:
This is your antecedent/consequent setup, not mine. And now you introduce adoption into the discussion. I am well aware of your view on adoption and have no wish to discuss this either, particularly in a thread about the ethics of embryonic research.
Click to expand...

I accept your concession.
 
nota bene said:
Just because I haven't commented doesn't mean that I'm unconcerned. I've never once expressed an opinion at DP on IVF.
Click to expand...

In the following post you did not sound concerned.

nota bene said:
So are you arguing that those who are pro-life should take on IVF clinics and their "pea-sized or smaller unborn"? Is this what you actually want?

And back to the thread topic, do you think Rep. Sims should be censured for his behavior toward his constituents?
Click to expand...
 
weaver2 said:
Yes, good luck with finding anything in your 50,000+ posts since 'someone' has conveniently erased all your posts up to December 8,2019, However, if I remember correctly in posts prior to that date there was a good deal of maudlin emotionality expended protesting the abortion of any innocent little pre-born babies and only grudging confession that women who had been raped probably should not be required to give birth to the product of that rape.
Click to expand...

I went back and tried a third time and the 40 page full complement of posts came up. The first two times only 12 pages would come up.
 
nota bene said:
The next step on the grotesque slippery slope: Creating embryos to experiment on, putting women's health at risk while paying them to have abortions if lavage doesn't work, conducting research in a foreign country so as to bypass American standards and requirements...expediency for the ethical loss. :(

Embryo Research In Mexico Raises Ethical Concerns : Shots - Health News : NPR
Click to expand...

There is no health risk, the surrogate women art not at risk, the zygotes used give couples a healthier baby are not at risk and the couples receiving the zygote are not at risk. The only person in this article who thinks this is disturbing is the anti-abortion advocate and head of the religion department at Univ. of Chicago who is not the least bit disturbed about telling women they have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term on her say so.

Why are her words about the process more relevant than the statements of the head of research and another researcher in the same field? This is a slippery slope of grotesque proportions only to one person. And that's the one you focus on.
 
nota bene said:
That's just it--poor young Mexican women were being exploited. Very difficult to turn down two months of wages, and I can also see the youthful certainty, despite hearing warnings, that nothing will happen to them.

I don't agree that creating new life simply to use it for experimentation is right, that the ends somehow justify the means.
Click to expand...

What's the alternative to the scientific experimentation?


What exactly is it that anti-abortionists want; an end to experimentation? The strides in medical science that have ended most of the diseases that killed millions of children every year were all based on experiments with living tissue, live animals, or fetal tissue. The flu vaccine that everyone depends on every year is tried out on living tissue every year. The advances in surgery are based on years of surgery that first failed in living animals. Genetics, infertility, in-utero surgery, immunization all require living tissue for experimentation.

How do you see medical science progressing without upsetting your weepy sensibilities about the little innocent human that could eventually come from the blastula, consisting of about 300 cells, being used in experimental implantation. What is it about this collection of cells that is more important than the lives of actual children living today.

If it ever came down to saving a blastula from experimentation and a medication, immunization needed to save your child you would not hesitate for one second in choosing the life of your child over that of the 300 cells in an experimental blastula. But if it is someone else's life or health or child , suddenly that living tissue, that zygote, embryo, blastula is a tiny unborn baby crying out for protection and protecting it is way more important than saving someone else's kid.

Do you not realize what you are saying to the world?
 
nota bene said:
The next step on the grotesque slippery slope: Creating embryos to experiment on, putting women's health at risk while paying them to have abortions if lavage doesn't work, conducting research in a foreign country so as to bypass American standards and requirements...expediency for the ethical loss. :(

Embryo Research In Mexico Raises Ethical Concerns : Shots - Health News : NPR
Click to expand...

How is this a slippery slope? What disaster is about to happen if Santiago Munne, reproductive geneticist at Overture Life, continues experimenting and improving infertility treatments.

How is finding better ways for infertile couples to become pregnant grotesque?

What is grotesque is that anti-abortion advocates have lobbied for and gotten passed laws that make infertility research and experimentation impossible in the US because of the restrictions in using fertilized eggs. This kind of ignorant meddling in science about which they know nothing is putting the US behind other countries in areas of biological research.
We are not only behind but big research facilities are leaving the US and taking money, knowledge and scientists with them.
 
Last edited:
weaver2 said:
How is this a slippery slope? What disaster is about to happen if Santiago Munne, reproductive geneticist at Overture Life, continues experimenting and improving infertility treatments.

How is finding better ways for infertile couples to become pregnant grotesque?

What is grotesque is that anti-abortion advocates have lobbied for and gotten passed laws that make infertility research and experimentation impossible in the US because of the restrictions in using fertilized eggs. This kind of ignorant meddling in science about which they know nothing is putting the US behind other countries in areas of biological research.
We are not only behind but big research facilities are leaving the US and taking money, knowledge and scientists with them.
Click to expand...

The ends are not justified by the means.
 
weaver2 said:
How is this a slippery slope? What disaster is about to happen if Santiago Munne, reproductive geneticist at Overture Life, continues experimenting and improving infertility treatments.

How is finding better ways for infertile couples to become pregnant grotesque?

What is grotesque is that anti-abortion advocates have lobbied for and gotten passed laws that make infertility research and experimentation impossible in the US because of the restrictions in using fertilized eggs. This kind of ignorant meddling in science about which they know nothing is putting the US behind other countries in areas of biological research.
We are not only behind but big research facilities are leaving the US and taking money, knowledge and scientists with them.
Click to expand...

I do see an aspect of this that is troubling...paying women with few resources to take possible risks with their health. That may be what Nota is focusing on.

That's why I asked her to distinguish such concerns from attempts to dissuade women in similar low resource circumstances to risk their health by keeping a pregnancy they cannot afford or a child they cannot support.
 
nota bene said:
The next step on the grotesque slippery slope: Creating embryos to experiment on, putting women's health at risk while paying them to have abortions if lavage doesn't work, conducting research in a foreign country so as to bypass American standards and requirements...expediency for the ethical loss. :(

Embryo Research In Mexico Raises Ethical Concerns : Shots - Health News : NPR
Click to expand...

"We may actually have here a technology that in the future may be very helpful for couples trying to complete their families at a lower cost, which is important," Racowsky says.
Click to expand...

The religious craqzies made IVF 2 years later than it could have been.

That you have squeemish responses does not surprise me.

Get over it.
 
nota bene said:
The next step on the grotesque slippery slope: Creating embryos to experiment on, putting women's health at risk while paying them to have abortions if lavage doesn't work, conducting research in a foreign country so as to bypass American standards and requirements...expediency for the ethical loss. :(

Embryo Research In Mexico Raises Ethical Concerns : Shots - Health News : NPR
Click to expand...

More fake right wing bull**** from the American Taliban

The study showed that embryos created that way appear to be as healthy genetically as embryos created through standard in vitro fertilization. Physically, the embryos appear to, possibly, even be healthier, the study found.

The research, published online in the journal Human Reproduction, suggests the approach could offer couples a simpler, less expensive way for some couples to have healthy children than is currently available via IVF, the scientists and others say.
Click to expand...

The horrors, trying to make improved methods for IVT that creates more children. The idiocy of thinking a ball of cell embryo is a human being.

That's as stupid as you can get

Why are right wingers so lazy? They just copy and paste something, then make a dumb comment showing they didn't even read the article, just the title. And what "slippery slope" are you talking about?

This is just yet another example of religious trying to shove their morals on others (and I'd hardly call what many christians believe as "morals)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom