NationStates Jolt Archive

so i'm sure you all know what in vitro fertilization is, correct? a number of a woman's eggs are fertilized with a man's sperm and then implanted in her or a surrogate. usually there are a lot more eggs fertilized than are implanted and allowed to grow, so say there are 7 eggs and you end up with one kid.

now, for those of you who are against abortion, do you support in vitro fertilization?
if so, how can you support this procedure as it eliminates potential lives in the same way abortion does?

I'm pro-choice, so I see vitro fetilization as the same, a choice a woman, her doctor and her family should make.

There's a differance between being against abortion and being pro-choice. You don't need to condone abortion because you're pro-choice...

There's a differance between being against abortion and being pro-choice. You don't need to condone abortion because you're pro-choice...

No there's not. If you're prochoice, then you don't care. Silence always helps the oppressor, never the oppressd.

Pro-choice: Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

No where does it say that you have to support abortion. I don't like drugs (cigarettes, alcohol) but that doesn't mean I want to illegalize them.

I would need more information on invitro fertilization -- your description is very condensed.

There's a differance between being against abortion and being pro-choice. You don't need to condone abortion because you're pro-choice...

well, i figured it would be a nicer way of saying for people who are anti-choice, as pro-life is a poor way to describe many of them... but then yeah, i don't think anyone is particularly like "yay, abortions for all!" but yeah, sorry about that.

here's some stuff from an in vitro clinic... http://pacificinvitro.com/primer.htm

i'll try to find some more info.

Although I am a hard core conservative I am also a woman, therefore I am pro-choice.

You cannot possibly tell a woman that she should have an abortion just because of how you feel about the issue of "killing" an unborn child. That child is a part of her body and it is her choice alone what to do, to have an abortion or not. Yet I think abortion should be considered with the greatest care instead of people taking advantage of by women who just have an abortion to escape responsibility and then go get pregnant again. Do it for the right reasons.

As for in vitro, I don't see anything wrong with it. Not every couple who wants children is as fortunate as people who have three and four kids. I don't see a problem with couples using this method to have children if they honestly have run out of options. Or they could always adopt. :)

Invitro is good. Also it sometimes results in multiple foetuses. Those that don't survive can go straight to science.

Invitro is another way of creating life. So, I don't see why the anti-abortionists would be against it.

Invitro is another way of creating life. So, I don't see why the anti-abortionists would be against it.

Because the left over fertilised eggs get thrown out? You know? The ones that COULD survive and grow, if they had a womb to grow in?

Or is ok to throw one or two (or seven, as the case with Invitro may well be) ok, as long as you walk out of the clinic with one of them inside you?

Does that mean you can abort one twin, as long as you carry the other to term?

The excess eggs that are discarded from Invitro are just as viable as any other (with that margin of ones that aren't... but that would be similar to non-invitro fertilised eggs, and so isn't relevent)

Most of the anti-abortion folk I've met claim that life starts the instant the egg is fertilised... so technically they *should* be against invitro... all those fertilised eggs/potential fetuses/'babies' being thrown out... and abortionists approve? Wow.

I figure anything that creates or allows life is good. The lost eggs are unfortunate but it's economics, for life to have a chance several eggs is how it must be (as I understand it). I am anti-abortion because the state needs to take proper responsibility for children parents don't want. I'm for implantation and surrogacy since it will create life. As for the lost life some people seem to make a big deal out of, it's biological that that's the way it has to be.

What do you think? :confused:

As I'm pro-choice I'm only quessing. But a true Christian could say: If you can't get pregnant "naturally", it's against God's will and to try other methods is therefore against God's will. Suffer, suffer, the brighter crown you'll get...

I figure anything that creates or allows life is good. The lost eggs are unfortunate but it's economics, for life to have a chance several eggs is how it must be (as I understand it). I am anti-abortion because the state needs to take proper responsibility for children parents don't want. I'm for implantation and surrogacy since it will create life. As for the lost life some people seem to make a big deal out of, it's biological that that's the way it has to be.

What do you think? :confused:

But... it's creating life and then killing it willingly... that's the exact same thing as abortion.

GASP! Don't tell me that pro-lifers only oppose abortion because there's blood involved? Where are all the 'life starts at conception' arguers? The life that's lost isn't biological. The eggs that are thrown out aren't just eggs... they're fertilised eggs... you know, as in they'll become a baby? They have everything they need to become a baby except some woman willing to give up an organ (womb) for them...

Just like in abortion?

Invitro - Why isn't it as bad as abortion?
1. Many eggs are fertilised, although only one will be implanted.
2. The perfectly viable, fertilised eggs (conception!) that aren't implanted are thrown out... killed, etc.

It seems to me you started this thread as an excuse to make fun of anti-abortionists. Now I'm all for that in moderation but it might explain why there don't appear to be any pro-lifers in here saying "abortion is wrong, rarara". They aren't all stupid you know. Only the ones that follow blindly, or to seem like a caring person. Quite a lot of them really believe this stuff, and therefore are presumably against invitro.

of course a lot of the religious ones might be against invitro for the same reasons as they are against abortion - ie it's gods right to create a life and take it away, not ours. Same sort of arguments used against GM.

You can't argue with religion, but the people who are only thinking of it from a moral perspective probably either haven't really thought about it or actually do disagree with invitro for the reasons you mentuioned.

It seems to me you started this thread as an excuse to make fun of anti-abortionists. Now I'm all for that in moderation but it might explain why there don't appear to be any pro-lifers in here saying "abortion is wrong, rarara". They aren't all stupid you know. Only the ones that follow blindly, or to seem like a caring person. Quite a lot of them really believe this stuff, and therefore are presumably against invitro.....

While I respect your ability to speak so calmly, I don't see this thread in quite the same light. I see it as simply pointing out the ludicrous disparity between 'life begins at conception' and 'throwing out fertilised eggs is ok'
If anti-abortionists disagree, all the have to do is say so - it would prevent them looking like they don't understand the hypocrisy being suggested.
And since more than one person has posted here saying they're anti-abortion but pro-In Vitro, I think it's a very valid thread.

While I respect your ability to speak so calmly, I don't see this thread in quite the same light. I see it as simply pointing out the ludicrous disparity between 'life begins at conception' and 'throwing out fertilised eggs is ok'
If anti-abortionists disagree, all the have to do is say so - it would prevent them looking like they don't understand the hypocrisy being suggested.
And since more than one person has posted here saying they're anti-abortion but pro-In Vitro, I think it's a very valid thread.
exactly. if anti-abortionists are being made to look foolish in this thread, it is only because they are holding foolishly contradictory views. an anti-choice person who supports invitro procedures is a hypocrite, plain and simple, and if they advertise their hypocricy they will look silly without any intervention from others.

But... it's creating life and then killing it willingly... that's the exact same thing as abortion.

GASP! Don't tell me that pro-lifers only oppose abortion because there's blood involved? Where are all the 'life starts at conception' arguers? The life that's lost isn't biological. The eggs that are thrown out aren't just eggs... they're fertilised eggs... you know, as in they'll become a baby? They have everything they need to become a baby except some woman willing to give up an organ (womb) for them...

Just like in abortion?

Invitro - Why isn't it as bad as abortion?
1. Many eggs are fertilised, although only one will be implanted.
2. The perfectly viable, fertilised eggs (conception!) that aren't implanted are thrown out... killed, etc.

I'm sorry but this is one of the sillyest things I have ever heard. Abortion is the ending of a life that could be carried to term whereas in-vitro is mass fertilisation to create life. Two very differant things. As for the blood thing thats very funny, but they won't become a baby if they dont have a womb to grow in dude. For your last point I think youve missed the point of in-vitro fertilisation.

I'm sorry but this is one of the sillyest things I have ever heard. Abortion is the ending of a life that could be carried to term whereas in-vitro is mass fertilisation to create life. Two very differant things. As for the blood thing thats very funny, but they won't become a baby if they dont have a womb to grow in dude. For your last point I think youve missed the point of in-vitro fertilisation.
it seems like you just made the case for pro-choice, to me...

"they won't become a baby if they don't have a womb to grow in." therefore, there is nothing about the fetus itself that makes it a baby, since it will NOT be a baby without the womb. therefore it is the womb that determines the baby-ness of a fetus. therefore, any fetus that is abortion is not a baby, since its baby-ness was only embodied by the womb that held it, and once that womb is removed from the equation it is not a baby.

it seems like you just made the case for pro-choice, to me...

"they won't become a baby if they don't have a womb to grow in." therefore, there is nothing about the fetus itself that makes it a baby, since it will NOT be a baby without the womb. therefore it is the womb that determines the baby-ness of a fetus. therefore, any fetus that is abortion is not a baby, since its baby-ness was only embodied by the womb that held it, and once that womb is removed from the equation it is not a baby.

Yes I am pro choice but I do not believe that choice extends to the ending of a human life once it has grown past a point. I believe you make a good point and I must agree with the ideas behind abortion. But there is still an inherit differance between ending the existance of a foetus and implanting a fertilised egg even at the expense of other fertilised eggs. See in one case life results, in the other only the end of life.

Yes I am pro choice but I do not believe that choice extends to the ending of a human life once it has grown past a point. I believe you make a good point and I must agree with the ideas behind abortion. But there is still an inherit differance between ending the existance of a foetus and implanting a fertilised egg even at the expense of other fertilised eggs. See in one case life results, in the other only the end of life.
actually, in many cases the invitro fertilization will be unsuccessful. thus there will be only the ending of life. so does that mean that the cases when the fertilization is unsuccessful are abortion, but when it succeeds it's not abortion?

2. The perfectly viable, fertilised eggs (conception!) that aren't implanted are thrown out... killed, etc.

actually, i think that they can be used for research. well, except of course in places that have banned stem-cell research, which i would think could still be a use for the fetuses that were aborted. unless they're too differentiated...

exactly. if anti-abortionists are being made to look foolish in this thread, it is only because they are holding foolishly contradictory views. an anti-choice person who supports invitro procedures is a hypocrite, plain and simple, and if they advertise their hypocricy they will look silly without any intervention from others.

that was the point of the thread in a way. to serve as a way to point out that it's silly to believe that life begins at coneption when it happens in the fallopian tubes, but not when it does so in th labratory. i'm surprised that anti-abortionists haven't picked up on it.