NationStates Jolt Archive

Spectre of babies from unborn girls (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/01/wegg01.xml)

Women seeking fertility treatment could one day be offered donor eggs grown from the tissue of an aborted foetus, researchers said yesterday.

In an experiment that raises the prospect of babies with "unborn mothers", ovarian tissue was removed from seven dead foetuses and kept alive in a laboratory for four weeks.

The egg-producing follicles in the tissue continued to develop normally but did not reach the stage at which they released a healthy egg cell.

One of the scientists working on the experiment said the study could help solve the worldwide shortage of donor eggs for fertility treatment and medical research.

Although the research raises a host of ethical dilemmas, the use of eggs from foetuses is not banned in Britain.

But clinics are unlikely to be given permission to carry out the procedure within the foreseeable future.

Preliminary results from the experiment were presented in Madrid to the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction.

A team of Israeli and Dutch researchers collected ovarian tissue from seven foetuses aborted between the 22nd and 33rd weeks of pregnancy.

Six of the foetuses were aborted after doctors diagnosed severe medical problems, including one with a genetic disorder.

The other came from a mother with a serious psychiatric illness who felt unable to look after the baby.

Immature "primordial" egg-producing follicles appear in a female foetus around the 16th week of pregnancy.

The team took slices of ovarian tissue from the foetuses and cultured them in a solution of hormones and bovine calf serum for four weeks.

Some of the cells developed from the immature primordial resting stage to the secondary growth stage.

Before follicles are ready to produce eggs, they must go through many more stages of development.

Scientists have yet to create conditions in the laboratory to take follicles to ovulation.

Dr Tal Biron-Shental, of the Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, Israel, who was involved in the study, said: "If you could mature them, you could use them for IVF donations. But there is a lot of ethical questions. Since these are still preliminary results we do not have answers to this yet."

Several teams of scientists around the world use ovarian tissue from foetuses for research. Many are working on ovarian tissue transplants for girls and young women facing chemotherapy that could make them sterile.

Prof Roger Gosden, a specialist in ovaries at the Jones Institute of Reproductive Medicine, Virginia, said that egg donation from foetuses raised questions of consent. He also questioned whether foetal donations were necessary or feasible.

"It is interesting material to study but it is very very rare and when it is obtained people have to be very sensitive to the ethics," he said.

"I do not think you need it because you can obtain biopsy ovarian material from women, with their consent, who are undergoing gynaecological procedures."

Dr Franoise Shenfield, a lecturer in infertility at University College London and an expert in medical ethics, said that society was not ready for unborn mothers.

"We have to be extremely careful before research is done into this," she said. "From a research point of view, these eggs could be valuable, but most people would be disturbed. They are already disturbed about abortion anyway.

"I would be very troubled by this, not only for ethical reasons but for psychological reasons, because what is the public going to think about where these eggs have come from?"

Nuala Scarisbrick, of the anti-abortion group Life, said: "This is macabre. It is sickening and disgusting, even by the low standards of reproductive technology."

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority said: "We do not consider the use of tissue from this source to be acceptable for infertility treatment."

WTF! NO REALLY WTF!? >_<


Can you see this parent-child conversation:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child, fertilize them and then put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is a dead aborted 6 or 7 month old unborn child."

I don't have words to describe my thoughts and feelings about this..... I.. :|

Morally, ethically, legally.. this is fucking outrageous!



P.S. a cookie to whomever recognizes at least two of the major (sad) ironies in this idea.

I don't see a problem with it, but it's not for the squemish. However, abortion itself is wrong.

Any fake fertility, especially IVF should be banned.

Given that you appear to be anti-abortion you're obviously going to be against this. On the hand it could be argued that the foetus is going to be aborted anyway, so if out of the process another family can gain some benefit why not?

I dont see a problem with it.

"The team took slices of ovarian tissue from the foetuses and cultured them in a solution of hormones and bovine calf serum for four weeks"

Well, not only would the child come from an aborted fetus, but bovine calves are also involved. Woo! *wonders what bovine calf serum tastes like*

Yep, that whole idea is sick and I do not really see the benefit of it at all...

Yep, that whole idea is sick and I do not really see the benefit of it at all...

It is sick, yes. However, it is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to have the procedure done or not. Abortion is wrong because you're murdering an innocent child. However, with this, you are simply putting a dead child to the best use possible. What's wrong with that?

"The team took slices of ovarian tissue from the foetuses and cultured them in a solution of hormones and bovine calf serum for four weeks"

Well, not only would the child come from an aborted fetus, but bovine calves are also involved. Woo! *wonders what bovine calf serum tastes like*

Yep, that whole idea is sick and I do not really see the benefit of it at all...

Erm, allowing infertile parents to have children they wouldn't otherise be able to have given the shortage of egg donors?

It is sick, yes. However, it is up to the mother to decide whether she wants to have the procedure done or not. Abortion is wrong because you're murdering an innocent child. However, with this, you are simply putting a dead child to the best use possible. What's wrong with that?

I look at it differently, but come to the same result. The aborted fetus is just a bit of tissue at that point, not a murdered child, but if it is possible to help a woman who WANTS to bear a child to have one, while not requiring another woman who doesn't to do the same, what is the harm? It is, ultimately, the woman's choice as to what she wants to do with her own body, and if science can help support those choices, all the better.

However, with this, you are simply putting a dead child to the best use possible. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, but I think there were less twisted ways to accomplish the same thing, and...

"Before follicles are ready to produce eggs, they must go through many more stages of development.
Scientists have yet to create conditions in the laboratory to take follicles to ovulation."

After all, there are easier ways to get a child if you really want one.

That is pretty gross who would want a baby made out of dead babies. Babies in general are gross, dead ones especially, now a baby made out of dead babies. Yeah really ew.

Oh no, worthless tissue that is going to be thrown out is being used for productive purposes! Call the fucking government, I'm sure they will put a stop to this on immoral grounds.

I don't have a problem with that. :) Long live science, rationalism, empiricism, and the march of progress!

How many sterile women are there anyway? Why spend money on this?

Nothing, but I think there were less twisted ways to accomplish the same thing, and...

"Before follicles are ready to produce eggs, they must go through many more stages of development.
Scientists have yet to create conditions in the laboratory to take follicles to ovulation."

After all, there are easier ways to get a child if you really want one.

Doesn't mean they won't in the future, everything was at the experimental stage once.

What some couples want is unfertilised eggs that can be fertilised by the man (I suppose so there is a genetic connection with the couple) and also possibly for the woman to be pregnant (I'm guessing here, but they could want to feel a greater bond with a child than they'd get through adoption).

On another note, the article mentions the growing of such organs for transplanting into sterile women. Do you object to that use (And how much difference between the two is there really?)

I personally am not against it and would protest any attempt to ban it, but i DO think it would be better to just deliver the baby to begin with and give it to the new mother. unless the aborters health was in danger of course.

Can you see this parent-child conversation:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child, fertilize them and then put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is a dead aborted 6 or 7 month old unborn child."

...

Morally, ethically, legally.. this is fucking outrageous!

I do not really understand how such a conversation would be any more difficult than the one you would have to have with an adopted child. I understand than many would be squeamish about the procedure, especially anyone who is religious. At the same time, regardless of any ideas of the soul or spirituality, the baby is dead. The morality of abortion is another issue, but a fetus that has already been aborted? It's really no different from organ donation, the only difference is that the one doing the donating is too young to decide for itself so the parent has to decide. It is really no different than a parent deciding to allow a three year old child's organs to be donated. Perhaps disturbing to some, but if it doesn't bother the parent...

How the conversation might have been resolved a bit more diplomatically:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors take the eggs from a baby someone else didn't want and put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is the one you have always known, we just had to get a little bit of help from someone else too."

-Ralock

It sickens me, yes. But I also agree that this would be beneficial for infertile couples. :)

Oh no, worthless tissue that is going to be thrown out is being used for productive purposes! Call the fucking government, I'm sure they will put a stop to this on immoral grounds.

Precisely. Thank you for infusing something non-stupid in a thread which is otherwise replete with the inane. Seriously, that people are even responding to an OP that contains "cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child" is a testament to the imbecilic....

How many sterile women are there anyway? Why spend money on this?

According to wiki, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertile

15% of couples (can't comment on accuracy of figures) 40-60% because (at least partially) of the woman. I make that about 0.3% of women in couples (plus all the ones that aren't). That's what, about 1 million in the USA (not counting those not part of couples). And a lot more around the world.

That's pretty cool, and a significant medical breakthrough. But that's still friggin' awesome, hopefully one day people will be able to donate ovarian tissue when they die to created babies.

Meh, if the foetuses are going to be aborted anyway, then we might as well have something good come out of it.

I personally am not against it and would protest any attempt to ban it, but i DO think it would be better to just deliver the baby to begin with and give it to the new mother. unless the aborters health was in danger of course.
Come to think of it, that would make a lot more sense. I guess they have their reasons though, and I'm not against this proposal.

Why spend money on this?
Because the sterile women want it and will pay for it.

Anyone who's pro-life should be applauding this. Finally, a way to bring the dead back to life. Those who are pro-life should be dancing in the streets at this grand news. ;)

I think they've justified abortion. Again. :)

Oh no, worthless tissue that is going to be thrown out is being used for productive purposes! Call the fucking government, I'm sure they will put a stop to this on immoral grounds.
Agreed ... though on the efficency side I would like to see these sorts of sterile mothers maybe look at adoption before this sort of procedure rather then jump strait to this.

Not that I find anything wrong with the procedure just the fact that there are so many un adopted kids that the already borne need as much help as they can get.

Agreed ... though on the efficency side I would like to see these sorts of sterile mothers maybe look at adoption before this sort of procedure rather then jump strait to this.

Not that I find anything wrong with the procedure just the fact that there are so many un adopted kids that the already borne need as much help as they can get.Actually there is a great shortage of healthy babies up for adoption. Why do you think American and Canadian couples who can't have kids pay thousands and thousands of dollars to adopt children from other countries (mostly east asian) ?
Anyway, there's an appeal to be able to go through a pregnancy yourself even though the egg is not yours. Surrogacy is also on the rise.

Actually there is a great shortage of healthy babies up for adoption. Why do you think American and Canadian couples who can't have kids pay thousands and thousands of dollars to adopt children from other countries (mostly east asian) ?
Anyway, there's an appeal to be able to go through a pregnancy yourself even though the egg is not yours. Surrogacy is also on the rise.

Every studey we have ever done for our stats department shows between a 72 percent to 80 percent adoption ratio.

You have new information that shows we have a higher ratio?

And that being said even if your statement is true there are plenty of "unhealthy" babys that need caring for too. If there is a medical condition that will cost the parents money maybe we could look at subsidizing the healthcare for them. We would be paying for it anyways if they were just in foster care till age 18

Every studey we have ever done for our stats department shows between a 72 percent to 80 percent adoption ratio.

You have new information that shows we have a higher ratio?

And that being said even if your statement is true there are plenty of "unhealthy" babys that need caring for too. If there is a medical condition that will cost the parents money maybe we could look at subsidizing the healthcare for them. We would be paying for it anyways if they were just in foster care till age 18
I don't know about the statistics. What I do know is that the upper-middle class couples who want to adopt want babies, not older children, and they want healthy kids. They aren't being philanthropic when they decide to adopt - they are fulfilling their wish to raise a family. And they will pay alot of money to get the kid they want (witness the industry of egg donors, where the donors are chosen on the basis of physical and intelectual attributes, and sperm banks that supply information about the race and other attributes of their donors to customers).

I see no problem with it except it sounds icky. Icky is not a reason to ban something.

I've never been for abortion.
But thats because I think people should be more responsible rather than just having sexual relations with no drawbacks.

This idea just seems.. wrong. The idea of using dead fetuses is unsettling, but even more than that is the fact that there are a lot of children up for adoption that could just as well be used in their place. I understand its not a "cute little baby" all the time... but, shouldn't we be more concerned with the people that are already born?

Just my two cents.

Think of the applications in delayed pregnancy!

Suppose you're pregnant. But you're not ready to for whatever reason. But you don't want to kill the baby. So you abort the fetus, then DNA and ovarian tissue is harvested. Sort of a baby doggy bag. Then whenever you are ready, an egg from your original child can be used along with the original DNA to recreate your original baby.

Delayed Birth! :D

Think of the applications in delayed pregnancy!

Suppose you're pregnant. But you're not ready to for whatever reason. But you don't want to kill the baby. So you abort the fetus, then DNA and ovarian tissue is harvested. Sort of a baby doggy bag. Then whenever you are ready, an egg from your original child can be used along with the original DNA to recreate your original baby.

Delayed Birth! :D

OK, now <i>that</i> is fucked up.

Think of the applications in delayed pregnancy!

Suppose you're pregnant. But you're not ready to for whatever reason. But you don't want to kill the baby. So you abort the fetus, then DNA and ovarian tissue is harvested. Sort of a baby doggy bag. Then whenever you are ready, an egg from your original child can be used along with the original DNA to recreate your original baby.

Delayed Birth! :DI don't see the point of doing this. If you're using your aborted fetus's eggs, you'd have to extact the DNA that in the egg and then inject DNA from other diploid tissue to create a replica of that child's genome.
That being the case, you may as well use your egg, or any other egg, and simply save a bit of the tissue from the fetus and use that for the DNA.

To clarify, the fetus's eggs are the only cells in the body that do NOT contain the felus's own full compliment of DNA, since they are the products of meiosis and recombination. To get a replica, you'd have to use diploid DNA from another cell.

Anyway, the technology definately does not exist to use non-gametic, 2N dna in an egg to create a viable zygote.

I don't see the point of doing this. If you're using your aborted fetus's eggs, you'd have to extact the DNA that in the egg and then inject DNA from other diploid tissue to create a replica of that child's genome.
That being the case, you may as well use your egg, or any other egg, and simply save a bit of the tissue from the fetus and use that for the DNA.

To clarify, the fetus's eggs are the only cells in the body that do NOT contain the felus's own full compliment of DNA, since they are the products of meiosis and recombination. To get a replica, you'd have to use diploid DNA from another cell.

Anyway, the technology definately does not exist to use non-gametic, 2N dna in an egg to create a viable zygote.


Well, as the original article said, there's a shortage of eggs. Also, there are definite issues with human cloning, but I have a hunch that using the egg and DNA from the same source could greatly increase the chances of a successful clone. *nod*

I don't know about the statistics. What I do know is that the upper-middle class couples who want to adopt want babies, not older children, and they want healthy kids. They aren't being philanthropic when they decide to adopt - they are fulfilling their wish to raise a family. And they will pay alot of money to get the kid they want (witness the industry of egg donors, where the donors are chosen on the basis of physical and intelectual attributes, and sperm banks that supply information about the race and other attributes of their donors to customers).

True but thats the point of my original posts, the hopes that people will maybe be a little bit more philanthropic rather then selfish.

I can wish for people to make more of those sort of decisions while not disparaging them their right to make other decisions.

Sounds like a good use of dead baby corpses to me.

Better than eating them, at least.

Well, as the original article said, there's a shortage of eggs. Also, there are definite issues with human cloning, but I have a hunch that using the egg and DNA from the same source could greatly increase the chances of a successful clone. *nod*No no. It's either a clone, or it isn't. Using the DNA in the egg of the fetus means you need another set of haploid DNA to mate it with - what DNA would you use for that? Theres only one type of haploid cell in a female feltus, the egg. Even fusing two eggs and creating a zygote that way would not result in a clone because of recombination and independant assortment of chromasomes.

Basically, using the egg of someone doesn't make the resulting progeny a clone - obviously.


True but thats the point of my original posts, the hopes that people will maybe be a little bit more philanthropic rather then selfish.

I can wish for people to make more of those sort of decisions while not disparaging them their right to make other decisionsHoping people will be more philanthropic is very well and nice. It won't solve anything. Typical adopters (older, rich couples, basically) want a healthy, undamaged infant that they've followed from the earliest possible stage of existance when they're raising a family.

No no. It's either a clone, or it isn't. Using the DNA in the egg of the fetus means you need another set of haploid DNA to mate it with - what DNA would you use for that? Theres only one type of haploid cell in a female feltus, the egg. Even fusing two eggs and creating a zygote that way would not result in a clone because of recombination and independant assortment of chromasomes.

Basically, using the egg of someone doesn't make the resulting progeny a clone - obviously.

You use DNA from the fetus, of course! The eggs cultured in the fetus' ovaries only have half the DNA. No good, as you said. But the fetus itself has a full set of DNA You extract the DNA, and replace the partial DNA in the egg with the fetus' DNA and bingo. You have the beginnings of the same fetus! :)

wow cool.

You use DNA from the fetus, of course! The eggs cultured in the fetus' ovaries only have half the DNA. No good, as you said. But the fetus itself has a full set of DNA You extract the DNA, and replace the partial DNA in the egg with the fetus' DNA and bingo. You have the beginnings of the same fetus! :)
Hypothetically. The fact is, that the fusion of two compliments of gametic (haploid) DNA prompth developmental and hormonal signals (I really don't know anything about the topic, so that's as far as I can say) that simply injecting some DNA from a liver cell, or a brain cell, wouldn't prompt. We don't know how to make zygotes from regular cells. that's why people go into all the trouble of sperm banks, and egg donation and whatever. The DNA has to be FROM the gametes for proper fusion and development to happen.

(as far as I know)

*Goes to search NCBI*

Hypothetically. The fact is, that the fusion of two compliments of gametic (haploid) DNA prompth developmental and hormonal signals (I really don't know anything about the topic, so that's as far as I can say) that simply injecting some DNA from a liver cell, or a brain cell, wouldn't prompt. We don't know how to make zygotes from regular cells. that's why people go into all the trouble of sperm banks, and egg donation and whatever. The DNA has to be FROM the gametes for proper fusion and development to happen.

(as far as I know)

*Goes to search INCB*


Or stem cells. :)

Precisely. Thank you for infusing something non-stupid in a thread which is otherwise replete with the inane. Seriously, that people are even responding to an OP that contains "cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child" is a testament to the imbecilic....
In an experiment that raises the prospect of babies with "unborn mothers", ovarian tissue was removed from seven dead foetuses and kept alive in a laboratory for four weeks.

The egg-producing follicles in the tissue continued to develop normally but did not reach the stage at which they released a healthy egg cell.
Though a little oversimplified and kind of a generalization. Exactly what part of my statement was inaccurate or "imbecilic," please do tell?

hey, at least the potential lives of these unborn kids aren't being wasted by tossing them in the bin.

Or stem cells. :)no, not or stem cells. products of meiosis only.

True but thats the point of my original posts, the hopes that people will maybe be a little bit more philanthropic rather then selfish.

I can wish for people to make more of those sort of decisions while not disparaging them their right to make other decisions.

Hoping people will be more philanthropic is very well and nice. It won't solve anything. Typical adopters (older, rich couples, basically) want a healthy, undamaged infant that they've followed from the earliest possible stage of existance when they're raising a family.

I tend to agree with Kreitzmoorland here. And going a bit farther, is it even a good idea to suggest people should raise maladjusted, delinquent, diseased or otherwise undesireable children simply because it is nice? If one feels this way, they should be encouraged to do as they beleive best. But to say spending years of their life taking care of a child that may never be successful is a moral responsibility? That seems to be a bit much.

I tend to agree with Kreitzmoorland here. And going a bit farther, is it even a good idea to suggest people should raise maladjusted, delinquent, diseased or otherwise undesireable child simply because it is nice? If one feels this way, they should be encouraged to do as they beleive best. But to say spending years of their life taking care of a child that may never be successful is a moral responsibility? That seems to be a bit much.

Yes ... I do ... They are going to have grow up one way or another and people being philanthropic about it and taking on that hard task can give them a household to live in.

Note I am not saying that people do not have the right to find other ways to make their household theirs ... I can just hope that some people feel up to the task and not let these kids rot in the foster care system.

I don't have a problem with IVF, it just helps couples have kids. This situation is different however, and I think its a gross breach of several important moral and civil rights boundaries.

First, the wishes of the "unborn mother" are not respected and there is no way consent can be given by anyone. It essentially seems like raping a dead woman, or maybe more accurately, raping a dead baby for the purpose of creating and then 'kidnapping' a child.

Further more, the baby won't be the couples own biological creation, and what right do such parents have in leading their surrogate/false children on, having them believe they are their biological parents.

This seems like a huge breach of civil rights if there ever was one. Others will no doubt further add to the morality angle of it, which is more sensitive no doubt

OK people seem to be misunderstanding some fundamental points of this issue. So I'll deal with the many ethical, moral and legal issues of this later.


1. It's not "just organ donation."

this =/= consented organ donation
this =/= organ donation only
this =/= organ donation
this = non-consented, non-life/healthsaving organ/egg theft and forced reproduction


2. You can not take the eggs or sperm for the purpose of reproduction (IVF,ect) or any other reason, even from signed organ donors, without express individual consent to do so.


3. The problem isn't lack of female organ donors or lack of viable female egg donors, it's a lack of female egg donors. You see, organ donation =/= egg donation. That's the problem they have now. So they've come up with this as a way to get around the fact that most women do not want to donate their eggs. If people who can object, do so. Then go after those who can not. (With the nice little added psychological, legal and propagandical bonus of dehumanizing the unborn even further.)

How many sterile women are there anyway? Why spend money on this?

Because there is a commericial basis for it. Infertile couples would pay princely amounts to conceive. Depending on your definition of infertility (total or partial) there are about 6 million infertile women trying to conceive, then there are about 1/3 of that number of infertile men. Countless others could be, but never find out since they don't intend on having childern.

I personally am not against it and would protest any attempt to ban it, but i DO think it would be better to just deliver the baby to begin with and give it to the new mother. unless the aborters health was in danger of course.

"Six of the foetuses were aborted after doctors diagnosed severe medical problems, including one with a genetic disorder.

The other came from a mother with a serious psychiatric illness who felt unable to look after the baby."

It takes a very strong/special person to knowingly adopt a baby with serious medical conditions.

OK people seem to be misunderstanding some fundamental points of this issue. So I'll deal with the many ethical, moral and legal issues of this later.


1. It's not "just organ donation."

this =/= consented organ donation
this =/= organ donation only
this =/= organ donation
this = non-consented, non-life/healthsaving organ/egg theft and forced reproduction

2. You can not take the eggs or sperm for the purpose of reproduction (IVF,ect) or any other reason, even from signed organ donors, without express individual consent to do so.


3. The problem isn't lack of female organ donors or lack of viable female egg donors, it's a lack of female egg donors. You see, organ donation =/= egg donation. That's the problem they have now. So they've come up with this as a way to get around the fact that most women do not want to donate their eggs. If people who can object, do so. Then go after those who can not. (With the nice little added psychological, legal and propagandical bonus of dehumanizing the unborn even further.)
You're totally ignoring the fact that you cannot get individual consent from an aborted fetus for the simple fact that it's not, by definition, a functioning human being.

After this, are you planning to go around medical research labs demanding that they get express individual consent from their lab rats and monkeys before they start experimentation?
No?
Why not? Those animals have far more right to a pleasant existance than an aborted parasitic lump of tissue that just happens to share similar DNA structure to you.
At least I think they do.

And how exactly is this 'forced' reproduction? Are they forcibly aborting the fetus in order to perform this procedure? Are they forcibly inserting these eggs into a woman against her will and forcibly making her pregnant?
No? Thought not. Just wanting to use oh-so-typical emotive language to support your crusade cause rationality has never been a strongpoint of the anti-abortion sect.

1. It's not "just organ donation."

this =/= consented organ donation
this =/= organ donation only
this =/= organ donation
this = non-consented, non-life/healthsaving organ/egg theft and forced reproduction


Hi stupid! Welcome to the wide, wide world of parents getting to pick what happens to their kid's organs, not a dumbshit bible quoter!

You're totally ignoring the fact that you cannot get individual consent from an aborted fetus for the simple fact that it's not, by definition, a functioning human being.
Accepted medical ethics (and possibly law in some places) do not regard the donation of an ovum or sperm for the purpose of reproduction, as being the same as organ donation. They are two completely different things. Express individual consent for organ donation does not equal any consent at all for ovum or sperm donation. That's not something anyone could give unauthorized, thus unwarranted proxy consent for in the place of the person donating!

To put it simply, if the person can't or doesn't consent to something like this, then you don't do it. It isn't like an organ donation.


After this, are you planning to go around medical research labs demanding that they get express individual consent from their lab rats and monkeys before they start experimentation?
No?
Irrelevant. We're not talking about lab rats or monkeys.


Why not? Those animals have far more right to a pleasant existance than an aborted parasitic lump of tissue that just happens to share similar DNA structure to you.
At least I think they do.
rofl Despite the inanity of your argument I guess i'll reply.

On what legal or ethical grounds do you base your assertion that any animal should ever have more rights or right to something more then a human?


And how exactly is this 'forced' reproduction? Are they forcibly aborting the fetus in order to perform this procedure? Are they forcibly inserting these eggs into a woman against her will and forcibly making her pregnant?
They are using her eggs to create a child which is biologically hers, without her consent.

Reproduction =/= pregnancy.


No? Thought not. Just wanting to use oh-so-typical emotive language to support your crusade cause rationality has never been a strongpoint of the anti-abortion sect.
roflmao.. Coming from your average neo-leftist sheep. People who would value an animal over a human. Or who believe that an unborn child magically comes into existence, becomes alive and human at the second of birth. *poof* :rolleyes:

rofl Despite the inanity of your argument I guess i'll reply.

On what legal or ethical grounds do you base your assertion that any animal should ever have more rights or right to something then a human?
You seem to be ignoring the imperative word. :rolleyes:

This is monstrous. I understand that rationally, it's turning an unwanted lump of tissue into an opporunity for motherhood, but I'm unsure that the ends justifies the means. I've always felt that life begins at conception, with the creation of a new diploid cell from the haploid egg and sperm. Thus the idea of aborting a pregnancy for any reason makes me uneasy (after all, what'd the little bugger ever do to you? he or she hasn't even had a chance yet, man!), although I can sometimes understand why it's done, just as I can understand the desire to strike down another human being (although, generally, THEY'VE done something to make you angry that is actually their fault). I know that women who have abortions think carefully about their decisions, and that they feel it to be for the best. On the other hand, while I generally have little respect for corpses, something about using them to bring about life frightens me. I'm not worried about the consent of the aborted foetus - its dead and doesn't need the eggs anymore anyway. No, what concerns me is the Mad Scientist overtones of raising life out of death - perverting the cycle of life, giving rise to aberrant offspring whose biological mothers are unborn, mutilated corpses.

I'm willing to be fair about this, though. I'm perfectly willing to admit the right of the mothers and doctors to create these abominations, as long as I have the right to hold them at gunpoint, plant bombs in the facilities, and otherwise discourage the practice. They, of course, have the right to shoot me full of lead to keep me from interfering with their proceedings, although I would hope that my friends aren't all too sissy to avenge my death... and the cycle goes on.

Wow, I rambled. In short, I oppose this because the idea of a child having an unborn mother scares the living daylights out of me.

Utilitarianism vs. compassion, basically.

I'm unsure where I stand, frankly, because I can support either side in a discussion, but I don't really feel strongly attracted to either side.

:|

2. You can not take the eggs or sperm for the purpose of reproduction (IVF,ect) or any other reason, even from signed organ donors, without express individual consent to do so.
"Individual"? A sperm cell has more life than an aborted foetus. If anyone, it's up to the woman that did the abortion to decide. Like with organ donations, the family has the final decision.

3. The problem isn't lack of female organ donors or lack of viable female egg donors, it's a lack of female egg donors. You see, organ donation =/= egg donation. That's the problem they have now. So they've come up with this as a way to get around the fact that most women do not want to donate their eggs. If people who can object, do so. Then go after those who can not. (With the nice little added psychological, legal and propagandical bonus of dehumanizing the unborn even further.)
Egg-extraction is a dangerous procedure, where the donating woman can become infertile herself. No wonder so few people who want babies are willing to risk that. Also you can hardly say that because so few people are donating their eggs, that most are strongely opposed to it. It's just that people are not very informed about it or just don't want to "take the step", like many people don't give blood, because they can't be bothered.

Accepted medical ethics (and possibly law in some places) do not regard the donation of an ovum or sperm for the purpose of reproduction, as being the same as organ donation. They are two completely different things. Express individual consent for organ donation does not equal any consent at all for ovum or sperm donation. That's not something anyone could give unauthorized, thus unwarranted proxy consent for in the place of the person donating!
And again, we will remind you: That ball of tissue is not a functioning person. It doesn't have a brain to give consent.
Also, you seem not to know what you're talking about. Frankly, even I can barely understand a word you said there. WTF do sperm donations have anything to do with organ donations, and for that matter what do those have to do with this? :confused:

To put it simply, if the person can't or doesn't consent to something like this, then you don't do it. It isn't like an organ donation.
No, it isn't, so the medical ethics of organ donation don't apply - something that you don't seem to realise, despite having said it yourself.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about lab rats or monkeys.
But it's the same thing, isn't it? That little fetus is just like a lab rat or a monkey. Do they talk? Have you ever seen a monkey give written consent to a scientist to use itself as a test subject for experiments? Well?

rofl Despite the inanity of your argument I guess i'll reply.

On what legal or ethical grounds do you base your assertion that any animal should ever have more rights or right to something more then a human?
:confused:

They are using her eggs to create a child which is biologically hers, without her consent.
Where did the article mention anything about whether or not the women gave consent? :confused:

Reproduction =/= pregnancy.
:confused: Explain.

roflmao.. Coming from your average neo-leftist sheep. People who would value an animal over a human. Or who believe that an unborn child magically comes into existence, becomes alive and human at the second of birth. *poof* :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You are disgustingly arrogant. When did anyone say that we "valued animals over humans"? WTF?
Um, no. A fetus is alive and human from day one. It isn't a fully developed human being. That =/= inhuman.

WTF! NO REALLY WTF!? >_<


Can you see this parent-child conversation:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child, fertilize them and then put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is a dead aborted 6 or 7 month old unborn child."

I don't have words to describe my thoughts and feelings about this..... I.. :|

Morally, ethically, legally.. this is fucking outrageous!



P.S. a cookie to whomever recognizes at least two of the major (sad) ironies in this idea.


I fail to see the problem. Or the cause for moral outrage.. :confused:

no, not or stem cells. products of meiosis only.

You're right. I'm confusing two different things. Still, I think it's plausible to implant DNA into an empty egg, Hasn't that been done before with other organisms?

Hi stupid! Welcome to the wide, wide world of parents getting to pick what happens to their kid's organs, not a dumbshit bible quoter!
I must have missed this post before.

A few problems:

1. This is not the same thing as giving away your kid's organs. *see above

2. I don't believe in any type of religion, their gods or their bibles.

So your arguments, much like your logic.. Fails.
Have a nice day, dolt.

You're right. I'm confusing two different things. Still, I think it's plausible to implant DNA into an empty egg, Hasn't that been done before with other organisms?I think only if that DNA was from other gametes. I know a hedgehog or something was made from fusing two eggs, but that's still a fusion of two gametes, which leads to a very particular hormone cascade, which leads to development. I don't see how regular diploid DNA could take the place of a fusion event. But I really don't know, you'd have to do a literature search.

The "ick" factor strikes again against science.

WTF! NO REALLY WTF!? >_<


Can you see this parent-child conversation:

"Well John, we think you're old enough to learn the truth now. You see, your mother is sterile, meaning she couldn't have children on her own. So we had a few doctors cut the eggs out of some murdered unborn female child, fertilize them and then put them into your mother so you could be created. Your real mother is a dead aborted 6 or 7 month old unborn child."

I don't have words to describe my thoughts and feelings about this..... I.. :|

Morally, ethically, legally.. this is fucking outrageous!



P.S. a cookie to whomever recognizes at least two of the major (sad) ironies in this idea.

Okay, just in case nobody's stabbed you for this crap already -- elective abortion, which is pretty much the only abortion getting bitched about, doesn't go past the first trimester.That's three months. An abortion done at 6 or 7 months would be to save the life of the mother, or to remove a fetus that could not survive birth anyway. That's at the discretion of a doctor, not the pregnant woman.


And let's not use the word "murder" where it doesn't belong, deal?


I do agree that this is very weird, but hell, I think implanting microchips in children and animals is really weird too.