3 ms·

Attempting to procreate the normal way "kills" embryos all the time too, often without anyone even being aware, through miscarriages. It seems disingenuous to a

Attempting to procreate the normal way "kills" embryos all the time too, often without anyone even being aware, through miscarriages. It seems disingenuous to attribute all these negative externalities to IVF and not to making children "the old fashioned way".

AlgorithmicTime 1y ago
[dead]
smeej 1y ago
There's a big difference between "killing" and "allowing to die." I don't think we should ever be proud of our ability to kill humans even more efficiently than nature does, at any stage of development.
- tuckerman 1y ago
  I'm quite proud of humanity's ability to help build families where "nature" wasn't able to, I think it's quite beautiful and owe my son to IVF. > There's a big difference between "killing" and "allowing to die." I think this is subject to debate for a lot of people. For full persons (for whatever my definition of that is), I personally agree with you there is a (big) difference. For embryos, I don't really distinguish them because I see them both neutral morally. I do somewhat worry about the long term effects of the sorts of embryo selection discussed in TFA though (not from a moral position but from a "do we _really_ know what this is going to do to the gene pool long term?" position)
  - smeej 1y ago
    In general, I see a significant difference between "this happens because of me" and "this happens regardless of me," even when whatever happens isn't that big of a deal. The difference between 0 and 1 is significant, even on a scale from 0-1000, because one of the options is zero, not because the difference between the options is only 1.
paxcoder 1y ago
[dead]