Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

Fertilizing ova, no.  Disposing of unfertilized ova, no.  Disposing of fertilized ova that could not be implanted, maybe.  Fertilizing ova that die before implantation, maybe.

We will have to wait and see.

I saw a YouTube family who had problems with infertility.
They did IVF.

They got several healthy embryos all at once.
Doctors implanted one, and they gave birth to a child.
Then they went back to the same embryos and implanted two.
They got two children (two boys, considered fraternal twins).

The cool thing is that one of the twins looks more like a twin of the first child.

If you think about it, they were all conceived at the same time.
They're all fraternal twins, technically, (or identical), even though they don't necessarily gestate together.

It's possible that two identical twin embryos could be implanted at different times.
Therefore, identical twins could be born years apart.
One or both of the identical twins could also be gestated with a different (non-twin) sibling.

Very cool.

oh okay, but I think in this case the clinic would have to keep paying for it and not the parent, because it's the clinic that accidentally fertilized too many embryos so it's on them to keep paying then, if it was their accident.

They aren't accidentally fertilised.
It's a necessary part of the process.
They fertilise several eggs at once, in hopes of using the most healthy.
Sometimes they don't implant properly so they have to use others.
It's easier to use the ones that were already retrieved instead of getting new eggs.
Even if the first implants do work, the extras are kept for subsequent children.
The problem is when they don't want any more pregnancies.
Sometimes the parents divorce, or one of them dies, and then what?

Oh I see. So if it's necessary, will the justice system charge the clinic knowing they can just plead necessity and probably win in those grounds?

Necessity of what?
It's never necessary to destroy unused embryos.
The parent might want them destroyed, but if they aren't allowed I'm sure it won't happen.
I guess those embryos stay in a dish until the end of time.
Maybe they can populate a post-apocalyptic world? / jokes

Oh I meant necessity in that there are going to be leftover fertilized embryos.

But I see what you mean. I guess they will have to keep them forever frozen then if disposal becomes illegal?

I don't know what the rules are.
They are the personal property of the parent(s).
You'd assume after both parents are dead, maybe they get handed down generations?
Maybe they have to leave a clause in their Will?

Bioethics are complicated and contentious at the best of times.
This will be very interesting from a legal and ethical POV.

What if the company goes out of business, for one thing?
Do they just trade embryos around to other companies?
Who decides which company or how that's done?

Those are great points. I guess if the government wants to declare any disposal of fertilized embryo, murder that means they have to come up with programs to keep them all alive?

In those days they were called test-tube babies. The public believed they embryos were hatched in test-tubes like plankton.

I'm actually surprised the pro-life people don't better understand bioethics if they spent all this time attacking legislation around abortion. I listen to their arguments and it's mostly poorly articulated.

Actually our bodies are not our own. You can't do anything to your own body that might cause harm to yourself. The moment you inject yourself with dangerous drugs, cut yourself or inflict pain on yourself it's deemed that you are risk of causing yourself harm and will be involuntarily interned in a psychiatric facility.

You can't experiment on your own cells that involve taking your body cells and growing it in a lab as you will be thrown in jail

You can't try and clone yourself from a single cell and implant it in somebody else as you will be thrown in jail

If you knowingly take one drop of your own body (blood, saliva or semen) and touch somebody else it's considered assault

In the 1950s it was considered illegal to experiment on IVF from humans but it was permitted on animals. When the first viable mammalian embryo was implanted in 1959, bioethical rules changed on the premise medical research labs could work toward assisting infertile couples leading to the birth of Louise Joy Brown in 1978 the world's first IVF baby.

So when you put this in perspective it's strange for Americans in 2022 to place the whole IVF industry in jeopardy as this was sorted back in the 1950s?? when you look at the new legislation it' quite clear they are "literally" throwing the baby with the bath water when they make it illegal to terminate an embryo.

This assertion involves the metaphysics of pregnancy. ^

I wish I could link you to notable contemporary moral philosophers including:

Elselijn Klingma
- The Parthood View: "The fetus does not sit inside its mother like a yoghurt in a fridge (known as The Containment View). Instead, the foetus is part of the pregnant organism like a tail on a cat."


and

Fiona Woollard
- The Conclusive Body-Ownership Thesis: "Each person owns her own body. Her title to her body defeats all other types of title to that body, except (possibly) titles based on legitimate, autonomous transfer on the part of the person whose body it is. It follows that owning one’s own body is a key aspect of moral standing for embodied persons ...

If I do not own all persistent parts of my body, my body ownership is weaker than the body ownership of most persons. This threatens my moral standing. So, the combination of The Parthood View and the view that the pregnant person does not own their foetus, implies that the pregnant person, and indeed all those who may become pregnant, do not have the same full moral standing as others." (Woollard, "Yes Sir, That's My Baby", 2019)


I have PDF copies of their papers but I don't know how to attach PDF.
Here are two relevant links about each philosophy.

1)

https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-a ... m=fulltext
Abstract: "Were You Part Of Your Mother?" Elselijn Klingma MIND Volume 128 Issue 511, July 2019


2)


"Yes Sir, That's My Baby! The Metaphysics of Pregnancy and Bodily Ownership" Fiona Woollard, St Andrew's Philosophy Society, 2022

But it was said before on here that IVF didn't start until 1978, after roe vs. wade if that was correct?

But it was said before on here that IVF didn't start until 1978, after roe vs. wade if that was correct?

Human IVF, rather than animal studies. ^

Oh okay. Well it seems that right now the states that are against abortion have no problem with leftover embryos from IVFs, unless people are really scared that is going to change, even though the states haven't said anything yet?