The idea may have been if the first group of fetuses were carried to birth and then adopted, there would have been less need to do IVFs? To that, the parents of the 2nd group would probably reply that biology is nine tenths selfishness and one better accept it and shut the f**k up.
No one is telling you to shut up. But your right to speak doesn't include a right to demand I be an audience for you. Wanting your kids to be your own offspring doesn't strike me as selfishness any more than discarding fertilized eggs strikes me as evil and, no, I don't need to hear out your weird opinions on the subject..
There is such a thing as sarcasm. Just to make my own posture clear, a degree of selfishness is quite healthy and moral, as described by the great moral philosopher Adam Smith..
It's not "abortion" as such. And it's not my "opinion" of IVF. It's just how IVF works:
1. Fertilize a bunch of eggs (i.e., conceive a bunch of fetuses).
2. Select the one you like.
3. Throw out (i.e., kill) the rest.
The ratio of fetuses (i.e. lives) in step 3 compared to step 2 is about 13:1. Thirteen die to get you your one.
Of course, the IVF industry doesn't use the terms in parentheses because it might result in people getting an accurate idea of how the industry works.
P.S. Those thirteen killed for each IVF baby are not counted in abortion statistics. Presently they compose and extra million or so feticides in the US, so if they were included in abortion stats, the reported abortion rate would double. Since IVF conception is steadily going up, IVF feticides will dwarf the 'classic' abortion rate before long.
I see. The тАЬin IVFтАЭ bit needed highlighting. But for less fertilized-egg-dedicated people than you (the vast majority) the тАЬevilтАЭ of discarding them isnтАЩt as obvious as you apparently assume it ought to be, so the lack of interest isnтАЩt as mysterious as you implied it was.
As to "mysterious", I said that was IMPLIED by "few seemed interested". Actually it is completely unsurprising and un-mysterious that few ARE interested. Not "seemed". No one is faking their disinterest. And saying "discarding unfertilized eggs" instead of "killing fetuses" isn't "obscure". It's the latter that attempts to conflate what most regard as different things, obscuring meaning. Everyone understands perfectly well that IF you regard fertilized eggs as ensouled that destroying some is "killing". Not insisting on describing it ther way you want to doesn't obscure anything.
Not sure how you know this. Just as it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it, it could be that those desirous of children via IVF have a very strong incentive not to look too closely at exactly how it works. And it's safe to say that one's children are usually a bigger incentive than one's money, so if the former statement is true, the latter statement is very true.
No, it's not obscure. It's straight up false. The eggs are not unfertilized. They are fertilized and have begun manifesting life. There would be nothing to choose from otherwise.
> "Everyone understands perfectly well that IF you regard fertilized eggs as ensouled that destroying some is 'killing'."
Doesn't seem that way, but if you say so...
> "Not insisting on describing it ther way you want to doesn't obscure anything."
No, I don't object to your description. It's perfectly OK by me to regard a fertilized egg as a fetus and an individual who is being killed. But I don't think that anyone who doesn't object to doing that is failing to do so because anything has been obscured from them. And insisting on calling it "killing a fetus" is a tendentious conflation with things like impaling a skull with scissors and sucking out the brains before cutting up and removing a corpse. Calling "discarding fertilized eggs" just "discarding fertilized eggs" may make it easier for some to not think about it in the terms you prefer, but it's accurate and neutral and obscures nothing. No one is being misled.
Fetuses in a petri-dish are not lives, because without replacing them into the womb they would never develop into salient human beings. In fact, one doesn't need to kill them - just keeping them developing in the petri-dish after 6 days instead of putting them into deep-freeze ensures that they will no longer be able to implant.
Given the mass slaughter, I hope you're right, but I can't say your definition is very reassuring.
Lots of alive things don't develop outside very specific circumstances. Indeed, most alive things never under any circumstances develop into "salient [sentient?] human beings", so by that definition practically nothing is alive.
You're right, barnabus is wrong. If you don't arrange to feed a fetus it won't survive but that has no bearing on whether it is alive right now. But I don't feel any compunction about killing a fertilized egg. I just don't.
Maybe the interest would increase if you made your point less obscure. What is the connection between the abortion rate and your opinion of IVFs?
The idea may have been if the first group of fetuses were carried to birth and then adopted, there would have been less need to do IVFs? To that, the parents of the 2nd group would probably reply that biology is nine tenths selfishness and one better accept it and shut the f**k up.
No one is telling you to shut up. But your right to speak doesn't include a right to demand I be an audience for you. Wanting your kids to be your own offspring doesn't strike me as selfishness any more than discarding fertilized eggs strikes me as evil and, no, I don't need to hear out your weird opinions on the subject..
There is such a thing as sarcasm. Just to make my own posture clear, a degree of selfishness is quite healthy and moral, as described by the great moral philosopher Adam Smith..
I don't think that what you said qualifies as "sarcasm".
Again, no one said you ought to shut up. That's just a miss.
It's not "abortion" as such. And it's not my "opinion" of IVF. It's just how IVF works:
1. Fertilize a bunch of eggs (i.e., conceive a bunch of fetuses).
2. Select the one you like.
3. Throw out (i.e., kill) the rest.
The ratio of fetuses (i.e. lives) in step 3 compared to step 2 is about 13:1. Thirteen die to get you your one.
Of course, the IVF industry doesn't use the terms in parentheses because it might result in people getting an accurate idea of how the industry works.
P.S. Those thirteen killed for each IVF baby are not counted in abortion statistics. Presently they compose and extra million or so feticides in the US, so if they were included in abortion stats, the reported abortion rate would double. Since IVF conception is steadily going up, IVF feticides will dwarf the 'classic' abortion rate before long.
I see. The тАЬin IVFтАЭ bit needed highlighting. But for less fertilized-egg-dedicated people than you (the vast majority) the тАЬevilтАЭ of discarding them isnтАЩt as obvious as you apparently assume it ought to be, so the lack of interest isnтАЩt as mysterious as you implied it was.
I didn't use the words "evil" or "mysterious".
I merely describe IVF less obscurantistically than the industry itself does.
E. Nier used "evil" any you AGREED with it.
As to "mysterious", I said that was IMPLIED by "few seemed interested". Actually it is completely unsurprising and un-mysterious that few ARE interested. Not "seemed". No one is faking their disinterest. And saying "discarding unfertilized eggs" instead of "killing fetuses" isn't "obscure". It's the latter that attempts to conflate what most regard as different things, obscuring meaning. Everyone understands perfectly well that IF you regard fertilized eggs as ensouled that destroying some is "killing". Not insisting on describing it ther way you want to doesn't obscure anything.
It's true I agreed with Eugine Nier.
> "No one is faking their disinterest."
Not sure how you know this. Just as it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it, it could be that those desirous of children via IVF have a very strong incentive not to look too closely at exactly how it works. And it's safe to say that one's children are usually a bigger incentive than one's money, so if the former statement is true, the latter statement is very true.
> "saying 'discarding unfertilized eggs' instead of 'killing fetuses' isn't 'obscure'."
No, it's not obscure. It's straight up false. The eggs are not unfertilized. They are fertilized and have begun manifesting life. There would be nothing to choose from otherwise.
> "Everyone understands perfectly well that IF you regard fertilized eggs as ensouled that destroying some is 'killing'."
Doesn't seem that way, but if you say so...
> "Not insisting on describing it ther way you want to doesn't obscure anything."
So you don't object to my description?
I misspoke when I said "unfertilized".
No, I don't object to your description. It's perfectly OK by me to regard a fertilized egg as a fetus and an individual who is being killed. But I don't think that anyone who doesn't object to doing that is failing to do so because anything has been obscured from them. And insisting on calling it "killing a fetus" is a tendentious conflation with things like impaling a skull with scissors and sucking out the brains before cutting up and removing a corpse. Calling "discarding fertilized eggs" just "discarding fertilized eggs" may make it easier for some to not think about it in the terms you prefer, but it's accurate and neutral and obscures nothing. No one is being misled.
Fetuses in a petri-dish are not lives, because without replacing them into the womb they would never develop into salient human beings. In fact, one doesn't need to kill them - just keeping them developing in the petri-dish after 6 days instead of putting them into deep-freeze ensures that they will no longer be able to implant.
Given the mass slaughter, I hope you're right, but I can't say your definition is very reassuring.
Lots of alive things don't develop outside very specific circumstances. Indeed, most alive things never under any circumstances develop into "salient [sentient?] human beings", so by that definition practically nothing is alive.
You're right, barnabus is wrong. If you don't arrange to feed a fetus it won't survive but that has no bearing on whether it is alive right now. But I don't feel any compunction about killing a fertilized egg. I just don't.