What is IVF, and is it ethical?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- You’re in a conversation and someone says, “IVF makes it possible for couples to have children. Why would anyone be against that?”
What would you say?
In vitro fertilization, or IVF, is the process of uniting egg and sperm in a laboratory, rather than through sexual intercourse. Typically, IVF is pursued either by couples struggling with infertility, or by couples, including same sex couples, who hire a surrogate to carry a pregnancy.
But is it ethical?
Remember to subscribe to our Channel to be notified when we release a new video!
*NOTE: Images are not to scale and are for illustrative purposes only.
Donate Here: WhatWouldYouSay...
Website: WhatWouldYouSay...
ColsonCenter.org
Breakpoint.org
Comment Policy: We encourage civil discussions. Please keep bad language, personal attacks, off-topic comments, and general bad behavior off our site.
THANK YOU for bringing this up! More couples need to know the issues of IVF before they start going that route.
Former preschool teacher, I LOVED my "problem", can't sit still, need to wiggle, need to hop, need to run, need to figure it out boys. But I knew hardly any of the other teachers felt the same so when I had my own boys I knew I was homeschooling them. I wasn't going to gamble with their self confidence and self worth and it has been so rewarding to see them learn
Thank you for making this video! It is very well made and will be a good, quick resource to show others.
interesting video, I learned a lot!
well done
great video ty
This inversion of basic function of IVF to create life to mean that it is in fact to end life is a really bad take. IVF can be abused for sure, but most hopeful parents have been deceived into waiting by the world and are now too old to naturally have kids. IVF is their last hope.
They pay with the lives of many children to have just one child.
@@EvanG529 But is just not true, is it? If people need IVF to conceive, doctors only help them have a child. If all potential was there to begin with, they wouldn't need IVF in the first place.
@@PetarStamenkovic you're strawmanning, you're just evading the point, the questions is not whether or not there is potential or whether or not it helps them have kids, the point is that emrbyos are discarded in this process, based on something like even "gender", come on now, the morality is what's in question not the practicality
@@maran.ath4 I may be wrong, so please correct me if I'm wrong- but, to the best of my knowledge IVF is used mostly by older couples who wish to conceive, but can't. IVF is not their first choice. It is their last. If their embryos could survive on their own, they wouldn't need IVF. If this is the case, to call discarded embryos that doctors removed as "killing babies," is just wrong and cruel on top.
Now I'm sure that some percentage of IVF is used for wicked purposes, like discarding girls or surrogacy, or I can't imagine for what all. This is then abuse of this technology, morally speaking. And the question before us is- is banning this tech for all, justified just to prevent all possible misuses?
@@PetarStamenkovic that's not true that it's used "mostly" by older couples who wish to conceive but can't, check the statistics from the HFEA and other certified sources show it's mostly around the 30s and also with same sex couples, it's not primarily used by old couples who have issues. People use IVF for selective birthing in many cases too.
Also no one is calling for the banning of the tech? The video just highlights the "immorality" of the practice, especially given it's usecases.
Whether or not it's "killing" babies is arguable, and we could go back and forth all day and not agree, because it seems nowadays people have what they accept as babies and what they don't....
if a pregnant woman in her first trimester is murdered then people always bring up the baby to show how bad the perpetrator is, for knowing this woman was pregnant and still murdered her, these are usually the same people who will argue a baby is not a baby in the earlier stage of conception when it's suitable for medical purposes
Thank you for the clear concise factual responses. Your channel was shared with me by a friend
3:44 This is so disturbing.
Truth
First, does a period result in the loss of a human life? Do all the millions of sperm that don’t make it result in death? The ethical conundrum is in the entirely arbitrary idea of when life begins and when it is “human”. To say that a zygote (which these are, they are not embryos until they enter the uterus) is a human and entitled to all the rights as such is, I won’t say problematic but certainly controversial. Your moral system here is simply arbitrary. Is it murder for a couple, who knows that they will probably struggle to have a child to pursue a pregnancy that leads to a miscarriage? They had probable reason to assume that would be the outcome, so they LET a human life die. IVF on the other hand is down to a science with high rates of success. There is no arbitrary system of discarding zygotes, in fact there is an entire grading system for the zygotes’ quality. Would it not too be murder for them to force these eggs to be brought to term only for them to be disabled and live short lives? Eugenics is ethically dubious, but only when it was run by nuts who thought that being anything but white was a genetic disorder. This form is ensuring the best results for future success. Again, if we live in the system of ethics espoused here, is it not too murder to lose all the potential human lives if we didn’t practice IVF? Would it not be murder if ALL of those zygotes lived and there were not enough resources for them to actually survive and thrive? Keeping the zygotes for scientific testing, moreover, has yielded incredible results in stem cell research, which is helping aid new medical developments and cancer treatments. Would it not be murder or assault to let those ppl who would otherwise be aided by stem cell research to not have access to it? The truth is, not everything is murder and death is actually the quintessential “quality control” of life, some things just are not meant to be or and we lucky few are just the ones who happen to exist here and now.
Buddy, periods aren't fertilized eggs. Nor are sperm.
@@noahjenkins5507ofc not 🤦♂️ I’m just asking how far does this go. If a fertilized egg is a human life, and it needs sperm and it needs eggs, should we not then preserve EVERY sperm and EVERY egg? Would it not be akin to starving a fully-grown human? You would be depriving a future human of its ability to live, which by this ethical worldview is held with the same weight as starving a fully grown adult, it seems
@@adensabin-white9095 you're still shifting the post, your argument is based on falsities too, you are basing it off of simply sperms and simply fertilized eggs, but that's not what this is, this has been fertilized, they are not together, yet you compare them to simply eggs and simply sperm, but they are not.
@@adensabin-white9095 It goes as far back as individual personhood is established. A sperm and an egg (separately) are not individual life. They are just cells. A sperm and an egg (again separately) are not "future humans." They are the ingredients for a future human but are not themselves future humans. Think of it this way: A (chicken) egg, some cups of flour, quart of milk, etc. are not, taken individually, a future cake. I wouldn't go to Publix and ask the clerk for "what is to be a cake" when I mean to ask her what aisle the milk is kept. Instead, what would be called a future cake would be when these ingredients are combined to form the new identity of cake batter. We can call this cake batter a future cake because being a cake is now in its nature. It is what, in principle, it is to become. Likewise a fertilized egg, in its nature and in principle, is meant to become a future human.
To your first point, no there's an important and obvious difference between gametes, and zygotes.
Secondly, a zygote typically at least had the right to attempt entry to the uterus.
Thirdly, fertility issues are natural, and attempting to conceive a child through natural means, in spite of them is no less ethical than attempting to nurture a born child with a terminal illness.
Your fourth point attempts to address a problem created by IVF itself, and needs not be answered from an anti-IVF point of view. Still it's extremely dubious to attempt an evaluation of a single cell zygote's viability, and any considerations to thet end would essentially boil down to eugenics, which you admit is an ethical grey area at best.
Your assertion thet not practicing IVF "murders" the potential lives of children who would have been created through IVF, only highlights your fundamental misunderstand of the system of ethics you claim to address. A zygote in our understanding is not a potential human life, but a human life thet could potentially be gestated, born, grow up, and die of natural causes. The millions of sperm, and ova, and the countless trillions of possible combinations are potential human lives, and only deserve human rights upon fertilization.
To your final point, about medical advancements, gained through stem cell research, no one denies thet such discoveries can, and are being made thus. The question is whether it's ethical to use unborn humans for experimentation, regardless of outcome. Some things are not worth the cost. We may differ about whether, or not such testing is ethical, but do not mischaracterize the opposition as "[murdering] or [assaulting] [the people] who would otherwise be aided by stem cell research".
IVF would have to be performed only in the way described at 2:46 to be ethically condonable.
I agree that surrogacy, eugenics (such as selecting sex), and allowing gay couples to have children are all very harmful for children or society.
However, if the embryo doesn't have the structures required to feel pain then I just don't see the problem in discarding or freezing them.
Capacity to feel pain is a poor criterion for human worth.
Drawing the line at "Life begins at pain" would deprive many happy adults and children of life due to a disorder known as CIPA: Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of the nervous system which prevents the feeling of pain (wikipedia). I don't think that pain sensation should be used as criteria for deciding who has rights and who doesn't.
@@AdamDavisEE Exactly, i was gonna say the same thing, does it mean it's okay to torture someone who has CIPA, simply because they can't feel it?, once people start looking for reasons to indulge their own selves, they start blurring so many lines just to get what they want.
@@AdamDavisEE
Youʼre being technical there, but i believe their point was that treating a fertilized egg like a fully sentient human is pushing it a bit.
Also, the idea that life begins at conception is a bit misleading.
Human life began when God breathed into Adamʼs nostrils, and it hasnʼt stopped since. Both sperm & egg are alive when they come together to form the new individual. At no point in this process is there an interruption of life.
@@Crich_Leslie See my response above to @adensabin-white9095
Wrong.