• 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!

Women should be betting embryo transplants

Blue Donkey said:
I am sure the Catholic Church would oppose it because of their belief that marital sex should always be natural. (They think IVF is immoral.)
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church can **** Off...
 
Tlrmln said:
I see. So you think it's a good idea to spend massive amounts of money on what would essentially be human experimentation, because the end result would be a "nice to have" alternative to what's already available?
Click to expand...
All medical advancement is derive, at some point, from human experimentation. If you want to disqualify "nice to have" then we need to get rid of plastic surgery for anything outside injury repair.

That aside, ZEF transplanting would allow for the ability of taking a ZEF that a mother wishes to save, but would otherwise due in her body, and place it in a surrogate or artificial womb, if that tech is viable. We're not limited to "nice to have" in the application of such methods/technology.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Embryo transplant (not even close to possible yet) is not a solution to abortion, the legal issues are the same. If a woman chose to give up the embryo, fine. If not, the govt cannot force her to give it up without her consent. All the same rights violated by banning abortion are in play. And the transplant would be much more invasive.
Click to expand...
That is not necessarily true. Given that such research will lead to better methods and such, we could find ourselves with a procedure that is better than current abortions methods for the removal of the ZEF, such that the difference of termination or not has no effect on the physical trauma to the woman. In such a case, then a father's rights can come into effect without violation of the mother's. But, and this has to be emphasized, the method has to be in place first. And please don't try to tell me that it can't happen. How many medical procedures do we have today that was claimed could be in the past? I'm not saying we'll see such in our lifetime. Only that should such procedures come about, it will change the whole basis of the argument.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
That is not necessarily true. Given that such research will lead to better methods and such, we could find ourselves with a procedure that is better than current abortions methods for the removal of the ZEF, such that the difference of termination or not has no effect on the physical trauma to the woman. In such a case, then a father's rights can come into effect without violation of the mother's. But, and this has to be emphasized, the method has to be in place first. And please don't try to tell me that it can't happen. How many medical procedures do we have today that was claimed could be in the past? I'm not saying we'll see such in our lifetime. Only that should such procedures come about, it will change the whole basis of the argument.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope...the govt has to have her consent to access that embryo. No medical procedure is without risk. It's about her bodily autonomy. And it cant even know about it, due to the 14th A and other due process/privacy Const. protections.

Re: if it's ever possible, I dont care. It may be but not in the near future. I usually dont even mention that because it has nothing to do with abortion, since my arguments are based on the law, not technology.
 
maquiscat said:
Strawman. What does that have to do with the validity of ZEF transplanting research?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Research will end up harming ZEFs. Some religious people think ZEF's are human beings with as much or more rights than existing women. That's what.

Furthermore, the very idea of ZEF transplants wa's proposed by the OP as a "more moral" alternative to abortion. It is the religious forwarding the notion that abortion is immoral.

You see, they get to argue for and against thing's in the same god's name. They're all over this issue, it's not a strawman.
 
maquiscat said:
Strawman. What does that have to do with the validity of ZEF transplanting research?

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Research will end up harming ZEFs. Some religious people think ZEF's are human beings with as much or more rights than existing women. That's what.

Furthermore, the very idea of ZEF transplants was proposed by the OP as a "more moral" alternative to abortion. It is the religious forwarding the notion that abortion is immoral.

You see, they get to argue for and against thing's in the same god's name. They're all over this issue, it's not a strawman.
 
D_NATURED said:
Research will end up harming ZEFs. Some religious people think ZEF's are human beings with as much or more rights than existing women. That's what.

Furthermore, the very idea of ZEF transplants wa's proposed by the OP as a "more moral" alternative to abortion. It is the religious forwarding the notion that abortion is immoral.

You see, they get to argue for and against thing's in the same god's name. They're all over this issue, it's not a strawman.
Click to expand...

Meh, the religious conveniently ignore all the frozen embryos from IVF, etc. that get thrown away....
 
Lursa said:
Nope...the govt has to have her consent to access that embryo. No medical procedure is without risk. It's about her bodily autonomy. And it cant even know about it, due to the 14th A and other due process/privacy Const. protections.

Re: if it's ever possible, I dont care. It may be but not in the near future. I usually dont even mention that because it has nothing to do with abortion, since my arguments are based on the law, not technology.
Click to expand...

Her right to bodily autonomy only extend to the removal of the ZEF from her body, not it's termination in and of itself. Right now, there is no difference, but if we are at a point that transplant is possible then likely the procedure for removal of the ZEF for both transplant and termination would be the same, differing only in whether termination is done or not. She is already consenting to the procedure in wanting the ZEF removed. Again the key here is that the procedure is the same for both.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Her right to bodily autonomy only extend to the removal of the ZEF from her body, not it's termination in and of itself. Right now, there is no difference, but if we are at a point that transplant is possible then likely the procedure for removal of the ZEF for both transplant and termination would be the same, differing only in whether termination is done or not. She is already consenting to the procedure in wanting the ZEF removed. Again the key here is that the procedure is the same for both.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand but I still see no way that the govt can identify her reproductive state nor violate her bodily autonomy against her will. It's not any different than the Const. protections that protect her now.

If you are saying the father has a right to decisions regarding the embryo after she has consented to its removal, then I agree. And again...see this as no solution to abortion. Once the father is (rightfully) involved, then there are custody and child support issues. If the woman doesnt want/cant afford a kid, and is going to undergo a medical procedure anyway...why would she open herself up to all that? Abortion is simpler and achieves her goal.
 
D_NATURED said:
Research will end up harming ZEFs. Some religious people think ZEF's are human beings with as much or more rights than existing women. That's what.
Click to expand...

First off, all initial research would be done on animals as if the current procedure. Then if they get to the stage where it is time for human testing, it will be with volunteers who are in need of such, such as trying to save the ZEF from an entopic (sp?) pregnancy.

Furthermore, the very idea of ZEF transplants wa's proposed by the OP as a "more moral" alternative to abortion. It is the religious forwarding the notion that abortion is immoral.
Click to expand...

Simply because an idea came about based upon one idea, doesn't mean it won't work based on another idea. Sure then OP intended it as a moral solutions, but why does that disqualify it as a solution for trying to save, at the parents' wish, a ZEF they don't want to lose?

You see, they get to argue for and against thing's in the same god's name. They're all over this issue, it's not a strawman.
Click to expand...

That is exactly why it is a strawman. I said, "hey this could end up working on a secular basis," and then you try to bring up religious issues. I'm not arguing against someone else's argument, so I am not making a strawman. I'm just putting forth a different twist on the potential procedure, for non religious reasons. To refute it on religious basis is to strawman my argument.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
I'm not sure I understand but I still see no way that the govt can identify her reproductive state nor violate her bodily autonomy against her will. It's not any different than the Const. protections that protect her now.

If you are saying the father has a right to decisions regarding the embryo after she has consented to its removal, then I agree. And again...see this as no solution to abortion. Once the father is (rightfully) involved, then there are custody and child support issues. If the woman doesnt want/cant afford a kid, and is going to undergo a medical procedure anyway...why would she open herself up to all that? Abortion is simpler and achieves her goal.
Click to expand...

The father is who I have been talking about in having the rights to the ZEF under the hypothetical, assuming she is getting it removed.. And as noted in the hypothetical, the procedure is the same, not simpler.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
The father is who I have been talking about in having the rights to the ZEF under the hypothetical, assuming she is getting it removed.. And as noted in the hypothetical, the procedure is the same, not simpler.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If there is an embryo outside the woman...then you saw what I wrote. What is your response?

And what is your response to my posit that if a woman will still be held responsible in some way for an embryo (kid she didnt want/couldnt support) later..why on earth would she undergo a live removal procedure when she can have an abortion?
 
Lursa said:
I'm not sure I understand but I still see no way that the govt can identify her reproductive state nor violate her bodily autonomy against her will. It's not any different than the Const. protections that protect her now.

If you are saying the father has a right to decisions regarding the embryo after she has consented to its removal, then I agree. And again...see this as no solution to abortion. Once the father is (rightfully) involved, then there are custody and child support issues. If the woman doesnt want/cant afford a kid, and is going to undergo a medical procedure anyway...why would she open herself up to all that? Abortion is simpler and achieves her goal.
Click to expand...

An embryo transplaint is a win-win if it is successful. A woman who can't stay pregnant long enough for her ZEF to become viable can essentially donate it to a woman who is able and willing to go thorugh the entire nine months and take care of a child for more than 18 years. Because we are talking about research, who pays for what does not have to be determined yet.
 
Blue Donkey said:
An embryo transplaint is a win-win if it is successful. A woman who can't stay pregnant long enough for her ZEF to become viable can essentially donate it to a woman who is able and willing to go thorugh the entire nine months and take care of a child for more than 18 years. Because we are talking about research, who pays for what does not have to be determined yet.
Click to expand...

It's only a win win if the woman wants it. If the woman does not want this procedure it is a lose lose
 
vegas giants said:
It's only a win win if the woman wants it. If the woman does not want this procedure it is a lose lose
Click to expand...

If the woman does not want it, she can simply not sign the consent form. Obviously they are not going to do it without a contract.
 
Blue Donkey said:
If the woman does not want it, she can simply not sign the consent form. Obviously they are not going to do it without a contract.
Click to expand...

And she can just get an abortion.....right?
 
maquiscat said:
Her right to bodily autonomy only extend to the removal of the ZEF from her body, not it's termination in and of itself. Right now, there is no difference, but if we are at a point that transplant is possible then likely the procedure for removal of the ZEF for both transplant and termination would be the same, differing only in whether termination is done or not. She is already consenting to the procedure in wanting the ZEF removed. Again the key here is that the procedure is the same for both.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The procedure wouldn't be the same. Bodily autonomy means she gets to decide what procedures she will or will not allow to be done on her body. Many early terminations are done by medication - no surgical procedure at all.
 
Scrabaholic said:
The procedure wouldn't be the same. Bodily autonomy means she gets to decide what procedures she will or will not allow to be done on her body. Many early terminations are done by medication - no surgical procedure at all.
Click to expand...

Embryo transplants can't happen without two signatures. She would have bodily autonomy.
 
Blue Donkey said:
An embryo transplaint is a win-win if it is successful. A woman who can't stay pregnant long enough for her ZEF to become viable can essentially donate it to a woman who is able and willing to go thorugh the entire nine months and take care of a child for more than 18 years. Because we are talking about research, who pays for what does not have to be determined yet.
Click to expand...

if women consent, sure. If they dont, it's no different than now. The govt cannot force her to give up an embryo.
 
Lursa said:
if women consent, sure. If they dont, it's no different than now. The govt cannot force her to give up an embryo.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trying to put the government into this? Medical research has nothing to do with legal responsilbities.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Why do you keep trying to put the government into this? Medical research has nothing to do with legal responsilbities.
Click to expand...

It seemed that this option was proposed as a solution to abortion. I have just been pointing out why it's really not.

If it's about reproductive medical research, it belongs in the Sex and Sexuality sub-forum.
 
Lursa said:
It seemed that this option was proposed as a solution to abortion. I have just been pointing out why it's really not.

If it's about reproductive medical research, it belongs in the Sex and Sexuality sub-forum.
Click to expand...

It is about a future alternative to abortion about medical research is done to verify its safey and effectiveness. Study first, then worry about who pays for what. End result: fewer embryos being aborted because of biological mothers having pregnancy problems.
 
Blue Donkey said:
It is about a future alternative to abortion about medical research is done to verify its safey and effectiveness. Study first, then worry about who pays for what. End result: fewer embryos being aborted because of biological mothers having pregnancy problems.
Click to expand...

It's not an alternative to abortion, for the reasons I've given.

It is an alternative to successful reproduction, period.

I have never heard of a woman who had to have an abortion for medical reasons when her unborn was still an embryo.

If it's a woman who has been told she cannot carry a pregnancy, then that is a fertility decision, if that option ever becomes available medically. It would become a PLANNED fertility option that a couple/woman makes with their Dr.

Not to mention, almost no one objects to abortion for medical reasons. This discussion, if you wont address the actual abortion issue, belongs elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom