5 ms·

In the US would this be considered abortion by pro-life activists?

blargthorwars 1y ago
I'm prolife. Perhaps. You're destroying one human in this process. Some of us are a bit more comfortable with IVF-like processes because the intent is to foster human life rather than take it, just as it's acceptable to cause an abortion in the process of saving a mother.
- hylaride 1y ago
  > Some of us are a bit more comfortable with IVF-like processes because the intent is to foster human life rather than take it, just as it's acceptable to cause an abortion in the process of saving a mother. But that (fostering human life) is also not a settled debate if the laws in some states are any indication. But debate is hard in jurisdictions where minority opinion can hold sway (like in Florida where a referendum hit 57% for enshrining a right to abortion). While I'm resolutely pro-choice and don't consider a fertilized cell to be "human", (before I continue I want to be clear, I 100% support these types of procedures in the article) there is eventually going to be a grey area where debate needs to happen before we hit Gattaca-style dystopian editing. PS This is not meant to argue against your view per se, which I disagree with but respect. I mean to illustrate how very quickly this gets messy and rational debate flies out the window. But that's the same with anything political in today's climate... :-/
- N1ckFG 1y ago
  Afaik it's a misconception that MRT necessarily involves the destruction of an embryo. The spindle transfer method transplants the mother's egg's DNA into the donor's egg before fertilization, so only one embryo is ever created. The UK trials exclusively used the older pronuclear transfer method, where two embryos are created and the donor's is destroyed, because the journey to full regulatory approval took about a decade and embryos are currently safer to freeze and thaw than eggs. In a hypothetical scenario where MRT became as widely available as IVF, this would not need to be the case for new patients.
- sneak 1y ago
  Being anti-abortion (what you call pro-life) doesn’t also automatically mean that you share the belief that human life and the associated rights thereof begin at the instant of fertilization. It seems you mean to imply that you are against the destruction of a fertilized viable embryo, but then the rest of your message seems to suggest that it isn’t that important.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- perching_aix 1y ago
  > You're destroying one human in this process. How so? They're removing the pro-nuclei before they fuse (which is when a new human, specifically their first sovereign cell and their DNA, would be formed). So even if you consider life to start at conception, this is precisely just before that still, meaning there's no human being destroyed here - unless I misunderstand the biology going on (or the article is not correct).
  - opello 1y ago
    > The eggs from both the mother and the donor are fertilised in the lab with the dad's sperm. The article seems clear. Another comment [1] suggested it should be possible to do as you suggested but I certainly do not know the science in this space. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44617740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44617740 > The spindle transfer method transplants the mother's egg's DNA into the donor's egg before fertilization
    - perching_aix 1y ago
      The article uses the colloquial definition of fertilization, i.e. that fertilization is a moment, specifically the moment the sperm enters the egg. In literature, fertilization is a ~24 hour long process instead, which kicks off when sperm meets egg, and finishes when a zygote is successfully created [0] inside. The sperm entering the egg is relatively early on during that. The article further refers to "donor" and "parent" embryos. This is also not correct as far as I undestand, eggs turn embryos once the fertilization process completes, and a zygote is present. [1] Even this could be considered misleading as there's also an "embryo proper" which forms about a week later still, but I wanted to keep to the reference frame of the GP. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
      - opello 1y ago
        That's very interesting, thank you for the context. I imagine I learned some amount of this long ago and have lost it to disuse. I also think I agree with the majority of your analysis after reading your references as well as [1] and [2]. And I apologize for my uninformed quoting of a line from the article and appreciate the education. I found [2] particularly informative because it outlines a multi-stage process through which an embryo goes, the earliest of which is fertilization as you described. My reading in the article, and perhaps relying too much on the artwork, seems to put the process described there at stage 1b-1c since the pronuclei looks to be in the process of fusing. My conclusion in cross-referencing [1] is that your "embryo proper" is around stage 4-5 and would have been implanted? > They're removing the pro-nuclei before they fuse (which is when a new human, specifically their first sovereign cell and their DNA, would be formed). I wish I'd had the context to appreciate this before my earlier reply. :) I also enjoyed reading parts of [3] and imagine there is probably better information nearly 60 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_stages [3] https://publicationsonline.carnegiescience.edu/publications_online/developmental_stages.pdf https://publicationsonline.carnegiescience.edu/publications_...
bpodgursky 1y ago
Only the extreme fringe is willing to go to bat against IVF. Maybe 10%.
- basisword 1y ago
  I think it's higher than that. The Catholic Church is against IVF. Although not all its followers will stick to all its teachings a significant number will.
  - olddustytrail 1y ago
    It's not dogma, it's just advice. And I think the vast majority of people would just ignore it. Frankly, advice on having children from celibate men doesn't need special consideration from women. I say this as someone who was at least raised Catholic and still has an affection for the faith.
    - svieira 1y ago
      It is in fact dogma that IVF is forbidden to Catholics (see Humanae Vitae #12 and the Catechism #2376) https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume... https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_6/iii_the_love_of_husband_and_wife.html https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/secti...
      - olddustytrail 1y ago
        Neither of those are dogma.
        mousethatroared 1y ago
        Strictly speaking no, dogma has a very specific definition and refers to things of a theological nature like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which 90% of American Catholics wouldn't get right (most would answer that it refers to the virgin conception of Jesus). That doesn't mean the Church's teaching isn't final and binding.
karel-3d 1y ago
There is a gamut of what is pro-life, pro-lifers themselves don't agree with each other on IVF. (the same as with pro-choicers and third trimester abortions for example)

I'm prolife. Perhaps. You're destroying one human in this process. Some of us are a bit more comfortable with IVF-like processes because the intent is to foster human life rather than take it, just as it's acceptable to cause an abortion in the process of saving a mother.

hylaride 1y ago
> Some of us are a bit more comfortable with IVF-like processes because the intent is to foster human life rather than take it, just as it's acceptable to cause an abortion in the process of saving a mother. But that (fostering human life) is also not a settled debate if the laws in some states are any indication. But debate is hard in jurisdictions where minority opinion can hold sway (like in Florida where a referendum hit 57% for enshrining a right to abortion). While I'm resolutely pro-choice and don't consider a fertilized cell to be "human", (before I continue I want to be clear, I 100% support these types of procedures in the article) there is eventually going to be a grey area where debate needs to happen before we hit Gattaca-style dystopian editing. PS This is not meant to argue against your view per se, which I disagree with but respect. I mean to illustrate how very quickly this gets messy and rational debate flies out the window. But that's the same with anything political in today's climate... :-/
N1ckFG 1y ago
Afaik it's a misconception that MRT necessarily involves the destruction of an embryo. The spindle transfer method transplants the mother's egg's DNA into the donor's egg before fertilization, so only one embryo is ever created. The UK trials exclusively used the older pronuclear transfer method, where two embryos are created and the donor's is destroyed, because the journey to full regulatory approval took about a decade and embryos are currently safer to freeze and thaw than eggs. In a hypothetical scenario where MRT became as widely available as IVF, this would not need to be the case for new patients.
sneak 1y ago
Being anti-abortion (what you call pro-life) doesn’t also automatically mean that you share the belief that human life and the associated rights thereof begin at the instant of fertilization. It seems you mean to imply that you are against the destruction of a fertilized viable embryo, but then the rest of your message seems to suggest that it isn’t that important.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
perching_aix 1y ago
> You're destroying one human in this process. How so? They're removing the pro-nuclei before they fuse (which is when a new human, specifically their first sovereign cell and their DNA, would be formed). So even if you consider life to start at conception, this is precisely just before that still, meaning there's no human being destroyed here - unless I misunderstand the biology going on (or the article is not correct).
- opello 1y ago
  > The eggs from both the mother and the donor are fertilised in the lab with the dad's sperm. The article seems clear. Another comment [1] suggested it should be possible to do as you suggested but I certainly do not know the science in this space. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44617740 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44617740 > The spindle transfer method transplants the mother's egg's DNA into the donor's egg before fertilization
  - perching_aix 1y ago
    The article uses the colloquial definition of fertilization, i.e. that fertilization is a moment, specifically the moment the sperm enters the egg. In literature, fertilization is a ~24 hour long process instead, which kicks off when sperm meets egg, and finishes when a zygote is successfully created [0] inside. The sperm entering the egg is relatively early on during that. The article further refers to "donor" and "parent" embryos. This is also not correct as far as I undestand, eggs turn embryos once the fertilization process completes, and a zygote is present. [1] Even this could be considered misleading as there's also an "embryo proper" which forms about a week later still, but I wanted to keep to the reference frame of the GP. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_fertilization [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo
    - opello 1y ago
      That's very interesting, thank you for the context. I imagine I learned some amount of this long ago and have lost it to disuse. I also think I agree with the majority of your analysis after reading your references as well as [1] and [2]. And I apologize for my uninformed quoting of a line from the article and appreciate the education. I found [2] particularly informative because it outlines a multi-stage process through which an embryo goes, the earliest of which is fertilization as you described. My reading in the article, and perhaps relying too much on the artwork, seems to put the process described there at stage 1b-1c since the pronuclei looks to be in the process of fusing. My conclusion in cross-referencing [1] is that your "embryo proper" is around stage 4-5 and would have been implanted? > They're removing the pro-nuclei before they fuse (which is when a new human, specifically their first sovereign cell and their DNA, would be formed). I wish I'd had the context to appreciate this before my earlier reply. :) I also enjoyed reading parts of [3] and imagine there is probably better information nearly 60 years later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_stages [3] https://publicationsonline.carnegiescience.edu/publications_online/developmental_stages.pdf https://publicationsonline.carnegiescience.edu/publications_...

bpodgursky 1y ago

Only the extreme fringe is willing to go to bat against IVF. Maybe 10%.

basisword 1y ago
I think it's higher than that. The Catholic Church is against IVF. Although not all its followers will stick to all its teachings a significant number will.
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  It's not dogma, it's just advice. And I think the vast majority of people would just ignore it. Frankly, advice on having children from celibate men doesn't need special consideration from women. I say this as someone who was at least raised Catholic and still has an affection for the faith.
  - svieira 1y ago
    It is in fact dogma that IVF is forbidden to Catholics (see Humanae Vitae #12 and the Catechism #2376) https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume... https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/section_two/chapter_two/article_6/iii_the_love_of_husband_and_wife.html https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_three/secti...
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      Neither of those are dogma.
      - mousethatroared 1y ago
        Strictly speaking no, dogma has a very specific definition and refers to things of a theological nature like the dogma of the Immaculate Conception which 90% of American Catholics wouldn't get right (most would answer that it refers to the virgin conception of Jesus). That doesn't mean the Church's teaching isn't final and binding.

karel-3d 1y ago

There is a gamut of what is pro-life, pro-lifers themselves don't agree with each other on IVF. (the same as with pro-choicers and third trimester abortions for example)