Posted on 10/27/2005 7:20:09 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
"Typical slippery slope error. This isn't China. China has made the error of limiting one of the most basic human things, reproduction, and a mostly un-Christian and uninformed public act like animals in response. Educating people about these matters is the answer, not destruction of technology."
You have more faith in education - and humanity - than I do.
Oh please, your are so ignorant. This is my last response to you. SURGERY TO SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE AND SURGERY TO END ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE - yes, an embryo is a human life, are two different objectives. You are trying to rationalize away responsibility and guilt. IVF is a sin because it goes against the will of God by natural means. SELF-will in preference to God's Will.
So the answer is telling everyone what they can and can't do, on everything? It's not necessarily a liberal view to desire that the government not have a hand in EVERYTHING that goes on in human life. Quite the contrary...
I recently read that China has had a 13/10 male/female ratio for some time now and the results are higher crime, higher incidents of violence, more rapes and more molestation, more homosexuality. The report, if I recall correctly, was in the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong), April, 2005.
I didn't say I knew.. neither of us can prove when life begins. I'm not invoking God's will. A life may begin at conception.
I just don't claim that I know what God wants.
If I'm sinning I'm man enough to own up to it.
Thank you that this is your last response to me. IVF doesn't end a human life. If done right, all embryos are used.
And by natural of course you mean when we were born. However you seem to be concerned that God didn't account for technology.
If God saw technology as evil then we would have our apoclypse long ago.
I believe that all unbaptized infants will eventually "go to heaven," that is, meet God "face to face."
I believe that because they never sinned, they never denied their God who loves them and so, He will call them home.
What population growth? The U.S. is already experiencing native population decline and the U.N. currently projects that the global population will be decreasing by about 2050. The "Population Explosion" was a lie put forth by racist eugenicists.
How funny. So many have put career and financial advancement above child rearing. China and India requre population controls. And to think so many were crying out, how can the world hold so many people? Interesting stats. The world can hold tons more than it has....
Then why does God have a plan for miscarriage.
Can you tell me why these souls go straight to heaven without taking in one breath of oxygen? Without one heartbeat?
Are people who are born deaf suppose to remain deaf as acceptance of God's will?
If I'm sick of the flu should I remain home and stay in bed and have only chicken soup?
If I get cancer should I not have radiation therapy?
You need to think about these things.
"So the answer is telling everyone what they can and can't do, on everything?"
I don't believe I suggested that in any way, shape, or form.
Now answer a question for me, please: does abortion kill a human being?
And then you question me on the argument and expect me to answer? I don't think so.
You should consider taking a course in logic, one in rhetoric and finally one in basic medical care. Bed rest and chicken soup are exactly the correct treatments for the flu.
Storage of embryos is completely safe. And as the previous poster said, there are many people waiting to use them.
If a miscarriage is like a fatal car crash, IVF is like using live test subjects instead of crash test dummies.
There is a 50% thaw death rate, and a 70% implantation death rate.
When "all embryos are used," six or seven individual microscopic humans are hurled at the brick wall of these odds in the hopes that at least one will survive to birth.
GamaRobL, you are peddling utter falsehood to claim that IVF doesn't end a human life.
This ain't no upwardly mobile freeway...oh no this is the Road to Hell.
prolife ping
If there's no problem, as you assert, then why are we pushing 100 responses on this thread? Obviously not everyone agrees with you.
Remember that New York Times Magazine article by Amy Richards? She wound up with triplets after a wildly successful IVF procedure, and decided to "selectively reduce" two of them so she wouldn't have to move to Staten Island and give up her trendy Manhattan lifestyle, or have her remaining child "suffer" the knowledge that he had two unknown siblings living happy lives with other families.
Is there a "problem" there, in your view? Is it a "blessing" that she hired someone to reach into her womb and kill two of her unborn children, and wound up with a healthy son?
When people talk about the "slippery slope," this is exactly what they're referring to. The idea that tiny humans are disposable, expendable, starts in the petri dish and extends right into the womb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.