Euthanasia And Sanctity Of Life

DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m not defending anyone, I just think we should exercise caution when the Bible clearly commands something. If he were ridiculing the Bible or God, I’d call him a fool, but on an issue like IVF, in which even Southern Baptist Convention has taken a formal stance against, calling someone a fool seems very dangerous. I’m not God though, so if your conscience is clear, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Condemning someone who was seeking medical help for being able to have children on a subject the Bible is silent on is also very dangerous. The resident fool and racist cherry picks arguments just like ALAYMAN said to justify his untoward remarks..
 
biscuit1953 said:
Condemning someone who was seeking medical help for being able to have children on a subject the Bible is silent on is also very dangerous. The resident fool and racist cherry picks arguments just like ALAYMAN said to justify his untoward remarks..
Click to expand...
Here we go...

Does 'medical help' mean creating numerous human embryos in a lab to artifically increase the sample size of insertions of actual children (if a child enters the world at fertilization) to result in the likelihood of biological parenthood to compensate for a defective organ...

...or does it mean to treat the actual defect?
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
I’m not going to waste your time or seek a theological answer. I think enough ink has been spilled on this subject. I only have one question that simply requires a “yes” or “no” response.

Given what we now know about IVF, and given the stance that much of the Christian community has recently taken against IVF (such as the SBC), would you still recommend IVF to your son or niece or nephew today if they were struggling with pregnancy issues?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what we know now today that I did not know back then when I made that decision. Help me to understand what you think was different then that was not knowable, that's knowable now. Ransom address this somewhat in his answer already.

Having said that, to answer your question, I would counsel them to realize the numerous ethical and moral difficulties that lie ahead of them. Namely, assuming one believes life begins at conception and there are children being created that should not be destroyed, what will be done with those viable (potentially remaining) embryos. If they understood those implications, and they were in a similar context that me and my wife faced as we were approaching statistical aging difficulties, I would give them my blessing.
 
Ekklesian said:
Here we go...

Does 'medical help' mean creating numerous human embryos in a lab to artifically increase the sample size of insertions of actual children (if a child enters the world at fertilization) to result in the likelihood of biological parenthood to compensate for a defective organ...

...or does it mean to treat the actual defect?
Click to expand...
Would your genius mind deign offer advice for "treating the actual defect" for undiagnosed infertility?
 
How many human embryos die between fertilization and birth under natural conditions?
"It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed. A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilization and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5443340/

So even during natural intercouse many embryos die.
 
Ekklesian said:
It doesn't take a genious to understand that a defect must be indentified to be treated.
Click to expand...
This is why you can't be taken seriously. Identifying that there's a defect doesn't mean there's a treatment. Either you already know that and are ignoring those facts, or you should bow out of this conversation because it's over your head.
 
ALAYMAN said:
This is why you can't be taken seriously. Identifying that there's a defect doesn't mean there's a treatment. Either you already know that and are ignoring those facts, or you should bow out of this conversation because it's over your head.
Click to expand...
It's the whole argument, and that's what you're trying to avoid.
 
Ekklesian said:
It's the whole argument, and that's what you're trying to avoid.
Click to expand...
No, it's not an argument to say that there is a defect and you should wait until medical treatment allows natural conception. That's a deflection. Your argument is that the actual method (IVF) is immoral or unethical. That's a different argument.
 
biscuit1953 said:
How many human embryos die between fertilization and birth under natural conditions?
"It is widely accepted that natural human embryo mortality is high, particularly during the first weeks after fertilisation, with total prenatal losses of 70% and higher frequently claimed. A recent re-analysis of hCG study data concluded that approximately 40-60% of embryos may be lost between fertilization and birth, although this will vary substantially between individual women."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5443340/

So even during natural intercouse many embryos die.
Click to expand...
Might want to consider boarding this train at the station.
 
ALAYMAN said:
No, it's not an argument to say that there is a defect and you should wait until medical treatment allows natural conception. That's a deflection. Your argument is that the actual method (IVF) is immoral or unethical. That's a different argument.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. Now you're just playing dice with kids' lives, if kids enter the world at fertilization.
 
Last edited:
Remember folks this is the fool™ who believes a child conceived by rape deserves to die just like he believes Jewish Rabbis should be forbidden to teach “on pain of loss of life and limb.”
 
Ekklesian said:
Well, yeah. Now you're just playing dice with kids' lives, if kids enter the world at fertilization.
Click to expand...
You see this is why I said there's no point in talking to you, because you're going in circles. Remember the point that I made about playing dice by just simply having sex naturally knowing that the end result is going to be death of embryos that wouldn't implant? That is the end of the logic to your reasoning skills.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You see this is why I said there's no point in talking to you, because you're going in circles. Remember the point that I made about playing dice by just simply having sex naturally knowing that the end result is going to be death of embryos that wouldn't implant? That is the end of the logic to your reasoning skills.
Click to expand...
K
 
ALAYMAN said:
I'm not sure what we know now today that I did not know back then when I made that decision. Help me to understand what you think was different then that was not knowable, that's knowable now. Ransom address this somewhat in his answer already.

Having said that, to answer your question, I would counsel them to realize the numerous ethical and moral difficulties that lie ahead of them. Namely, assuming one believes life begins at conception and there are children being created that should not be destroyed, what will be done with those viable (potentially remaining) embryos. If they understood those implications, and they were in a similar context that me and my wife faced as we were approaching statistical aging difficulties, I would give them my blessing.
Click to expand...
I respect that. I may not necessarily agree with you, but I respect your decision.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You can appeal to the forum crowd for support, but his point hits you right between the eyes. You have argued for aborting children conceived by rape.
Click to expand...
@Ekklesian - I agree. You must answer for this. Although I don’t agree with IVF because I find it questionable, what you have suggested is beyond questionable.
 
DrHuk&Duck said:
@Ekklesian - I agree. You must answer for this. Although I don’t agree with IVF because I find it questionable, what you have suggested is beyond questionable.
Click to expand...
K. the lives lost so one might have a biological kid are less than the life lost so one won't have to parent her daddy's offspring.

Noted. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Ekklesian said:
K. the lives lost so one might have a biological kid are less than the life lost so one won't have to parent her daddy's offspring.

Noted. Thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
Keep digging that hole, you continue making yourself look like, well I won't repeat what's already been aptly said to describe your method(s) of argumentation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top