5 ms·

I'll just note that if modern bioethics precautionary principles were applied in the 1970s, we would probably never have gotten human IVF treatments — nobody wo

I'll just note that if modern bioethics precautionary principles were applied in the 1970s, we would probably never have gotten human IVF treatments — nobody would have ever gotten the green-light to try it on a person. As someone who has a family because of IVF, I am very thankful that researchers were allowed to roll the dice on that one, and see that it turned out well.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
This puts the cart before the horse. If we have very good reason to believe we may be doing something immoral, it behooves us to be cautious. Also, this is not a question of precaution, but a known objectively gravely immoral act. There is no risk here that we might be doing something wrong using IVF. We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. That we may have obtained some outcome that is desirable does not justify the illicit means. That is, applied to your case, while it is not wrong for your family to exist per se, the means by which they were brought into existence was definitely illicit.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Why?
- Enginerrrd 3y ago
  >There is no risk here that we might be doing something wrong using IVF. We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Sorry but... what? What about that is immoral, or... even questionable?
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  >> We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Can you expand? Are you making the claim that normal ivf is either immoral or illicit? Based on religious grounds, or actual discussable morality? There are many ethical discussions to be had about research and potential genetic manipulation, but I'm not aware of any general "we" that believes IVF is immoral, other than orthodoxly religious. I'm eager to be enlightened otherwise!
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    As an atheist, I can say that I have misgivings about it myself. At minimum, the true need for IVF is quite small compared to its demand, where it is used as a crutch by people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives.
    - richie_adler 3y ago
      > people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives Who would those be?
    - NikolaNovak 3y ago
      Can you elaborate on the poor decisions, and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? More generally - It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, so I'd be genuinely eager to hear more!
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
        The biggest, would be waiting too long to attempt procreation. No one should be having kids in highschool, but if you're in your late 40s and only getting around to it at that point... waited too long. Questionable lifestyles with all their ill health implications would be a close second. I don't know that I could give you dozens of distinct reasons, but I bet I could fill out a top 5 pretty easy. > and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? Let's be objective here. If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that, then though it may not be ideal it is acceptable. Though far too late for the victims, those who were forcibly sterilized decades ago would have qualifed. Someone with some congenital issue maybe. Possibly those who have suffered peculiar accidents (more likely for men than women?). > It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, If we're talking about people I care about, relatives of mine or not, I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. The only thing that gives me pause is that, generally speaking, I don't care about any of you. This will make it easier to think of the vast bulk of humanity as things, rather than people.
- jkeisling 3y ago
  I’m not sure who the “we” is in your statement, “we do know with certainty that IVF is immoral”. As evidenced by the entire rest of the thread, this opinion is hotly contested. If you believe IVF is morally wrong, please at least explain why. As it stands, you’re simply condemning families and researchers as evil and holding future research to an arbitrarily high, nebulous ethical bar with no explanation.
  - lainga 3y ago
    I hesitate to put words into the mouths of others, but this sibling comment by the GP poster may explain their position https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694140
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Let me translate for you: "We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral." is essentially "I know I'm 100% right and everyone who disagrees is wrong." Seriously, why even bother engaging with people like that who have made it exceedingly clear they are uninterested in listening. In the words of the always incisive Barney Frank, "I'd rather have a debate with a dining room table."
- almatabata 3y ago
  I can see the first attempt being immoral as we did not know how the first kids born using that method would turn out. In certain circumstances like using an IVF on older women in their menopause you could also qualify it as immoral due to higher risks to the kids. But unless you have certain religious beliefs where you cannot allow any human interference in the process, i do not see where you see the immorality of the procedure.
- shwaj 3y ago
  How do we know it’s gravely immoral? I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Otherwise, what is immoral about a couple using their own sperm and egg to conceive a child that they otherwise would not have had? I suppose you could say there are many children who need to be adopted, but that reasoning also applies to the decision to have children without IVF.
  - anon291 3y ago
    > I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Alternatively, an interpretation of Aristotelianism and Platonism. There's this weird presumption that religious people mainly use texts, despite the fact that the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, often ignores texts when even considering many modern moral qualms. There seems to be a real desire to reduce modern religions to some kind of magic cult, despite the fact that a lot of modern religions give great weight to secular philosophy. In particular, the Catholic objection to IVF is rooted chiefly in Aristotle's concept of the telos, which is pretty secular. Any text in the Bible that goes along with that is just icing on the cake, not really the main objection.
    - shwaj 3y ago
      Interesting. Can you elaborate on the relevance of the telos here?
      - anon291 3y ago
        Tried responding earlier but HN is in the habit of blocking me. Basically... The telos of sex is reproduction. To separate reproduction from sex renders sex meaningless, and thus irrational from an aristotelian perspective. The typical objection is that sex is also for pleasure. However, Aristotle considers base pleasures like sex not worth pursuing. Now another typical objection here is that this could mean that ivf should be pursued while we don't have sex. This is I suppose where some religion may come in since Christianity typically sees sex within marriage as a good to be pursued. Nevertheless, I've not heard any modern argument that says we should eliminate sex and sexual desire and pursue only ivf. So basically, separating sex from reproduction renders sex meaningless and irrational.
- justrealist 3y ago
  [flagged]

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

This puts the cart before the horse. If we have very good reason to believe we may be doing something immoral, it behooves us to be cautious. Also, this is not a question of precaution, but a known objectively gravely immoral act. There is no risk here that we might be doing something wrong using IVF. We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. That we may have obtained some outcome that is desirable does not justify the illicit means. That is, applied to your case, while it is not wrong for your family to exist per se, the means by which they were brought into existence was definitely illicit.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Why?
Enginerrrd 3y ago
>There is no risk here that we might be doing something wrong using IVF. We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Sorry but... what? What about that is immoral, or... even questionable?
NikolaNovak 3y ago
>> We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral. Can you expand? Are you making the claim that normal ivf is either immoral or illicit? Based on religious grounds, or actual discussable morality? There are many ethical discussions to be had about research and potential genetic manipulation, but I'm not aware of any general "we" that believes IVF is immoral, other than orthodoxly religious. I'm eager to be enlightened otherwise!
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  As an atheist, I can say that I have misgivings about it myself. At minimum, the true need for IVF is quite small compared to its demand, where it is used as a crutch by people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives.
  - richie_adler 3y ago
    > people who only came to need it after making poor decisions most of their lives Who would those be?
  - NikolaNovak 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on the poor decisions, and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? More generally - It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, so I'd be genuinely eager to hear more!
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      The biggest, would be waiting too long to attempt procreation. No one should be having kids in highschool, but if you're in your late 40s and only getting around to it at that point... waited too long. Questionable lifestyles with all their ill health implications would be a close second. I don't know that I could give you dozens of distinct reasons, but I bet I could fill out a top 5 pretty easy. > and what/who gets to evaluate or define a "true need"? Let's be objective here. If, through no fault of your own, you are sterile and childless and if technology makes it possible to effectively reverse that, then though it may not be ideal it is acceptable. Though far too late for the victims, those who were forcibly sterilized decades ago would have qualifed. Someone with some congenital issue maybe. Possibly those who have suffered peculiar accidents (more likely for men than women?). > It's rare to see a truly and honestly non-religious opposition to reproductive aids, If we're talking about people I care about, relatives of mine or not, I would want those children to have a true and genuine human experience. "Mommy couldn't bother to get around to making you before her ovaries shriveled up, and so Dr. Frankenbaby cooked you up in a test tube and gestated you inside GMO-gestation livestock" isn't that. The only thing that gives me pause is that, generally speaking, I don't care about any of you. This will make it easier to think of the vast bulk of humanity as things, rather than people.
jkeisling 3y ago
I’m not sure who the “we” is in your statement, “we do know with certainty that IVF is immoral”. As evidenced by the entire rest of the thread, this opinion is hotly contested. If you believe IVF is morally wrong, please at least explain why. As it stands, you’re simply condemning families and researchers as evil and holding future research to an arbitrarily high, nebulous ethical bar with no explanation.
- lainga 3y ago
  I hesitate to put words into the mouths of others, but this sibling comment by the GP poster may explain their position https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694140 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37694140
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Let me translate for you: "We know with certainty that IVF is gravely immoral." is essentially "I know I'm 100% right and everyone who disagrees is wrong." Seriously, why even bother engaging with people like that who have made it exceedingly clear they are uninterested in listening. In the words of the always incisive Barney Frank, "I'd rather have a debate with a dining room table."
almatabata 3y ago
I can see the first attempt being immoral as we did not know how the first kids born using that method would turn out. In certain circumstances like using an IVF on older women in their menopause you could also qualify it as immoral due to higher risks to the kids. But unless you have certain religious beliefs where you cannot allow any human interference in the process, i do not see where you see the immorality of the procedure.
shwaj 3y ago
How do we know it’s gravely immoral? I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Otherwise, what is immoral about a couple using their own sperm and egg to conceive a child that they otherwise would not have had? I suppose you could say there are many children who need to be adopted, but that reasoning also applies to the decision to have children without IVF.
- anon291 3y ago
  > I’m guessing according to some interpretation of some religious text? Alternatively, an interpretation of Aristotelianism and Platonism. There's this weird presumption that religious people mainly use texts, despite the fact that the largest denomination of the largest religion in the world, Catholicism, often ignores texts when even considering many modern moral qualms. There seems to be a real desire to reduce modern religions to some kind of magic cult, despite the fact that a lot of modern religions give great weight to secular philosophy. In particular, the Catholic objection to IVF is rooted chiefly in Aristotle's concept of the telos, which is pretty secular. Any text in the Bible that goes along with that is just icing on the cake, not really the main objection.
  - shwaj 3y ago
    Interesting. Can you elaborate on the relevance of the telos here?
    - anon291 3y ago
      Tried responding earlier but HN is in the habit of blocking me. Basically... The telos of sex is reproduction. To separate reproduction from sex renders sex meaningless, and thus irrational from an aristotelian perspective. The typical objection is that sex is also for pleasure. However, Aristotle considers base pleasures like sex not worth pursuing. Now another typical objection here is that this could mean that ivf should be pursued while we don't have sex. This is I suppose where some religion may come in since Christianity typically sees sex within marriage as a good to be pursued. Nevertheless, I've not heard any modern argument that says we should eliminate sex and sexual desire and pursue only ivf. So basically, separating sex from reproduction renders sex meaningless and irrational.
justrealist 3y ago
[flagged]