3 ms·

It's immoral in the same way abortion is immoral. If you subscribe to idea that 1) human life is sacred and 2) life starts from the moment egg is fertilized, th

It's immoral in the same way abortion is immoral. If you subscribe to idea that 1) human life is sacred and 2) life starts from the moment egg is fertilized, then both abortion and IVF are immoral. The actual reason religious people are mad at IVF is undefensible in somewhat secular society -- i.e. creating life is domain of god, thus fertilizing those embryos in the first place is bad. But with IVF there is a straw to hang on -- it's never just one egg, it's one (or two) eggs used and the rest discarded after fertilization. Which you can kinda defend as murder.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> life starts from the moment egg is fertilized That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect.
- justrealist 3y ago
  When you really dig into it, nobody actually believes this. If there was a burning building with a cooler of 10 embryos and 1 baby, and they could only save one, every single one would grab the baby. But it's the only clean line they can draw about when human life becomes human life, so they nominally stick to it even though they don't hold by any of the logical consequences of doing so.
- Muromec 3y ago
  You can in theory hold such belief without being religious, but yes of course it is. The problem is -- you need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad. "Which is of course bad" - all these people thinking their personal opinions are universal, unwavering truths...
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    Or there never existed a "sacred act of creation" and its always been something we could apply science and reason to. Which is of course entirely natural.
- tivert 3y ago
  >> life starts from the moment egg is fertilized > That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. How so? From an entirely secular standpoint, it's the moment a distinct individual life starts (e.g. viable new organism with its own unique DNA). > I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect. And that's supposed to prove what? Someone else might believe a child who has not yet met some arbitrary developmental milestone as not deserving of any special respect. And that's not hypothetical, infanticide has been common in many cultures up to and including recent times.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> life starts from the moment egg is fertilized That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect.

justrealist 3y ago
When you really dig into it, nobody actually believes this. If there was a burning building with a cooler of 10 embryos and 1 baby, and they could only save one, every single one would grab the baby. But it's the only clean line they can draw about when human life becomes human life, so they nominally stick to it even though they don't hold by any of the logical consequences of doing so.
Muromec 3y ago
You can in theory hold such belief without being religious, but yes of course it is. The problem is -- you need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > otherwise sacred act of creation isn't sacred anymore, it's just a bunch of phenomena you can apply science to and reason about separetely. Which is of course bad. "Which is of course bad" - all these people thinking their personal opinions are universal, unwavering truths...
- lamontcg 3y ago
  Or there never existed a "sacred act of creation" and its always been something we could apply science and reason to. Which is of course entirely natural.
tivert 3y ago
>> life starts from the moment egg is fertilized > That is very much a religious idea and not something universally held. How so? From an entirely secular standpoint, it's the moment a distinct individual life starts (e.g. viable new organism with its own unique DNA). > I certainly don't believe a jar of fertilized embryos is deserving of any special respect. And that's supposed to prove what? Someone else might believe a child who has not yet met some arbitrary developmental milestone as not deserving of any special respect. And that's not hypothetical, infanticide has been common in many cultures up to and including recent times.