Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because of my own life, I do have a great deal of sympathy for women who want to be mothers but have been unable to do so my "normal" means.
As a carrier of muscular dystrophy, I chose to have a tubal ligation and adopt rather than risk having my own biological children. (This was way back in the 70's before prenatal testing could tell whether a fetus would have that disease.) So, although one would think that I would be more open-minded to "radical" reproductive procedures than most people, I agree with Teilhard regarding creating life in a laboratory, as well as issues of surrogate motherhood.
Although I am mostly pro-choice, I just think there are too many difficult ethical issues when it comes to questions of "whose child is it?"; and I also think that discarding embryos is a form of premeditated murder -- unlike most abortions, which are a result of "accidents" and therefore not planned. Very few women, if any, intentionally become pregnant with the intention of having an abortion later. The idea of creating potential humans only to end up killing the embryos just crosses what is a very thin line for me, as far as when I think that killing an embryo or fetus is acceptable and when it is not. I just think that it is wrong to intentionally create human embryos in full knowledge of the fact that some of those human lives will almost certainly end up being killed.
Anyway, as I said, this is a very difficult issue, and to repeat the phrase you used, Teilhard, I think so much of what we can do now to create human life has indeed opened a very large "can of worms".
Sounds like you are discussing the difference between murder and negligent homicide to me.
Surprisingly I side with the judge but not for the reasons they gave.
I believe that if a person has a serious health issues, it should not be propagated in ones off spring .
To do so is purely selfish, and not thinking of the future of that child, at all.
I just rather leave morality out of it as much as possible. You may favor marriage. Others may encourage age, health, or income requirements for prospective parents. All these factors could also contribute to the dismay of the offspring.
Because of my own life, I do have a great deal of sympathy for women who want to be mothers but have been unable to do so my "normal" means.
As a carrier of muscular dystrophy, I chose to have a tubal ligation and adopt rather than risk having my own biological children. (This was way back in the 70's before prenatal testing could tell whether a fetus would have that disease.) So, although one would think that I would be more open-minded to "radical" reproductive procedures than most people, I agree with Teilhard regarding creating life in a laboratory, as well as issues of surrogate motherhood.
Although I am mostly pro-choice, I just think there are too many difficult ethical issues when it comes to questions of "whose child is it?"; and I also think that discarding embryos is a form of premeditated murder -- unlike most abortions, which are a result of "accidental pregnancy" and therefore the abortions are not planned before the woman even conceives. Very few women, if any, intentionally become pregnant with the intention of having an abortion later. The idea of creating potential humans only to end up killing the embryos just crosses what is a very thin line for me, as far as when I think that killing an embryo or fetus is acceptable and when it is not. I just think that it is wrong to intentionally create human embryos in full knowledge of the fact that some of those human lives will almost certainly end up being killed.
Anyway, as I said, this is a very difficult issue, and to repeat the phrase you used, Teilhard, I think so much of what we can do now to create human life has indeed opened a very large "can of worms".
Really interesting take on traditional abortion vs. destroying embryos. I definitely see your point.
The whole realm of modern reproductive technological techniques is a can of worms I think we ought not have opened (IMHO) ...
Can't put our heads in the sand, though, can we?
It can and is happening ... this wasn't even the first case. According to the article, a dozen similar cases have been legislated around the country.
What is a little scary and unsettling to me is how quickly biology and technology have eclipsed regulation. We have companies like 23&me running $99 specials for DNA tests for "genealogy purposes." What's the legislative recourse/penalty if/when that highly personal information is misused?
All moral arguments aside - the judge made the right call. It was a binding contract, the woman was educated and of sound mind when she signed it, and it should be upheld.
Surprisingly I side with the judge but not for the reasons they gave.
I believe that if a person has a serious health issues, it should not be propagated in ones off spring .
To do so is purely selfish, and not thinking of the future of that child, at all.
Who gets to decide what is considered a serious heath issue?
Really interesting take on traditional abortion vs. destroying embryos. I definitely see your point.
I'm about as pro choice as it gets and it's always bothered me that all the wrath is pointed at poorer places like Planned Parenthood.
When embryos are created, they PURPOSEFULLY create too many and "discard" the ones not needed. WTF?! I aknowledge that this is an amazing procedure for those who benefit. I guess I'd just like to see ONE DAY of picketing these clinics about "life" and Jesus for every MONTH that poorer women's health clinics are harassing poorer vulnerable women outside these places.
I hate to say it, but this is another example of class privelage.
It can and is happening ... this wasn't even the first case. According to the article, a dozen similar cases have been legislated around the country.
What is a little scary and unsettling to me is how quickly biology and technology have eclipsed regulation. We have companies like 23&me running $99 specials for DNA tests for "genealogy purposes." What's the legislative recourse/penalty if/when that highly personal information is misused?
All moral arguments aside - the judge made the right call. It was a binding contract, the woman was educated and of sound mind when she signed it, and it should be upheld.
The frozen anonymous sperm donation industry has had some serious difficulties, too …
Persons born of such anonymous fathers sometimes legitimately want to know their own history and the courts have agreed … which sometimes makes rather a shock for the donors who were guaranteed anonymity ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I aknowledge that this is an amazing procedure for those who benefit. I guess I'd just like to see ONE DAY of picketing these clinics about "life" and Jesus for every MONTH that poorer women's health clinics are harassing poorer vulnerable women outside these places. 
