Parents: IVF screening to detect abnormalities “saved us heartache”
After standard treatment at the US clinic, the couple had 13 IVF embryos to choose from. The doctors cultured the embryos for five days, took a few cells from each and sent them… for genetic screening. Tests showed that while most of the embryos looked healthy, only three had the right number of chromosomes….
Based on the screening results, the US doctors transferred one of the healthy embryos into [Marybeth] Scheidts and left the rest in cold storage. The single embryo implanted, and nine months later Connor was born….
“I think it saved us a lot of heartache,” Scheidts told the Guardian. “My insurance covered me for three cycles of IVF. We might have gone through all three without the doctors picking the right embryos. I would not have a baby now.”…
“It is hard to overstate how revolutionary this is,” said Michael Glassner, who treated the couple at the Main Line Fertility clinic. “This increases pregnancy rates by 50% across the board and reduces miscarriages by a similar margin. It will be much less expensive. In five years, this will be state of the art and everyone who comes for IVF will have it.”
In Britain, doctors are banned from selecting embryos for anything other than the most serious medical reasons. But as scientists learn more about genetic causes of disease, the urge to choose embryos to avoid cancer and other diseases later in life will intensify.
“You can start to have a very scary picture painted if you talk about height and hair colour and so on,” said Glassner. “We have to make sure this is used judiciously.”…
Scheidts still has two screened embryos in cold storage, but has not yet decided whether to use them. “We haven’t even thought about that. We’ll see how the first year goes.”
~ The Guardian, July 7
[Photo of father David Levy, mother Marybeth Scheidts, and son Connor Levy via The Guardian]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Embryos/Babies are not a commodity, and I resent them being treated as such in IVF. Pregnancy is not an entitlement. I feel couples should pursue only ethical treatments for infertility or adopt like my parents did.
I do not support IVF but that little bow-tied boy is adorable. LL <3
I was conceived using IVF: one of three embryos created, and the only one to survive to birth. The parents in the article seem to be a lot like my parents. They love their born child, and act as if their other children never existed.
That poor baby boy. He’s so tiny and beautiful, but one day he’ll find out what happened to him, and then he’ll have to live with that. I can barely cope with two dead siblings. It’s going to be even harder for that little boy.
Very sorry about that erstaz, but we are glad you made it! IVF was developed before I was born, but I know back then we were warned about all of these possibilities, but not enough listened. This indeed is turning human life into property. IVF should be illegal, and at least it should be required that every embryo be implanted and given a chance at life. I had an aunt and uncle who thought about IVF, but ultimately rejected it because of these concerns and adopted two children. They are still happy people…
This is why IVF is so insidious…. good people who want to be good parents, and don’t realize the evil they are flirting with.
So now we are reaching the point at which parents can create dozens of children, screen them for the eugenic traits, keep the perfect specimens, and kill the rest.
We are told that this is good, because the chosen embryos will have a better chance of survival.
“Scheidts still has two screened embryos in cold storage, but has not yet decided whether to use them. “We haven’t even thought about that. We’ll see how the first year goes.”
We don’t think about the evil that we do.
scary and sad
13 babies created just to get three “good” ones. And they haven’t decided whether to “use” two of the three.
Commodification of human beings, straight up.
Are they going to throw him away if they find out at age 3 that he is “abnormal” with something like autism?
They’ll just sue the IVF clinic and those that screened the embryos.
Sorry to hear that, ersatz. Using human life as a commodity is a dangerous practice. All you can do, though, is live the best life possible. I’m sure your siblings are in Heaven, watching over you. God bless!
It’s ludicrous to destroy one set of children via abortion while creating another (very expensive) set of children using IVF. I know the abortion advocates sometime hop on a thread like this and accuse us of not being pro-life if we don’t condone IVF, but it is obvious what’s wrong with it. I wish IVF would become illegal and all the future parents, instead of making new embryos, adopt and gestate the existing embryos. I bet we have enough in “storage” to help infertile women for years and years to come. Each conceived person deserves a chance. So, stop making children that you don’t even know if you want. Please.
They’ll just sue the IVF clinic and those that screened the embryos.
There would be no grounds. Chromosomal abnormality hasn’t been determined to be indicative of autism. Thank goodness. I hate to think what would happen to a lot of autistic children in utero should the human genome be explored sufficiently to determine a genetic cause of autism. :(
IVF: abortion on steroids.
Wanna know where this can go?
Watch the movie Gattaca.
The numbers don’t add up. They said the rest were in storage that makes 12 in storage but wait it’s only 2 in storage -so 10 dead babies don’t get counted and this means no heartache? How can anyone with a heart so casually dismiss 10 of your children?
OH this is so sad. :( As a society, we truly have come to a point where human beings (especially babies) are viewed as a commodity. This is just one more symptom of a deeper problem.
Hi mathlover.
I love math too! Hurray math!
That is all.
mathlover says:
July 9, 2013 at 1:29 pm
The numbers don’t add up. They said the rest were in storage that makes 12 in storage but wait it’s only 2 in storage -so 10 dead babies don’t get counted and this means no heartache? How can anyone with a heart so casually dismiss 10 of your children?
That’s how commodities work. We purchase what you want. We discard what you don’t want.
This couple wanted a healthy child. Insurance (that’s us) paid a lot of money for the IVF and for the genetic screening. Now they have their healthy baby.
In a year or two, this couple will start thinking about those children in frozen storage. They will approach the fertility clinic, and request another implantation. The clinic will ask them, “Would you prefer to have the boy or the girl?”
“We’ll see how the first year goes”…….and if it doesn’t go well?
Do they get a refund? A do over?
Saving yourself from heartache makes folks do crazy things.
And if you don’t think they are babies then I guess they aren’t babies. Magic.
In the last paragraph: “use them” – perfectly stated.
Struggling with infertility and then losing a baby in my 2nd trimester I know first hand the heartache they are wishing to avoid. It is devastating, but pretending that embryos aren’t babies doesn’t make it so. They have lost 10 babies with unique souls, and they don’t even know it. They will have to face that someday. I am so grateful for the time I had with my son even though his time was much too short and I know he is in heaven praying for me. People who struggle with infertility know how precious each child is so it is so sad that they are lured into IVF which does not recognize their children’s humanity.
IVF should be banned. Those struggling with fertility should be helped to get pregnant the old fashioned way and accept a baby the way God designed him or her. Little “defects” like Cleft lips can BE FIXED. There is no such thing as a PERFECT CHILD.
How bout this for math? Make abortion and IVF illegal. The resulting babies are adopted by infertile couples. No one dies those that want a baby have 1 (or more) God smiles!
“We’ll see how the first year goes”…….and if it doesn’t go well?” – then they probably won’t decide to have another pregnancy.
Scheidts still has two screened embryos in cold storage, but has not yet decided whether to use them. “We haven’t even thought about that. We’ll see how the first year goes.”
I hate to think what would happen to a lot of autistic children in utero should the human genome be explored sufficiently to determine a genetic cause of autism.
I hate to think of all the children in utero who may have genes predisposing them to mental illness, alcoholism . . . the list goes on and on.
I like to think that by the time they may be able to identify genes for things like mental illness and alcoholism they might also be able to remedy the situation.
Recent reports speak of swapping out certain maternal genes for ones which don’t contain defects.
and diabetes, Philliymiss. What happens if their son develops juvenile diabetes? Will they have him killed and start over?
The slippery slope which leads to eugenics. Heartbreaking. This all comes down to understanding when personhood begins. And in some circles, personhood would be defined as later on in life when they can reason. It’s a slippery slope as this leads to wondering if personhood begins at 3 months, 6 months, 2 years, or when they start school. It’s the greatest marginalization of the defenseless we have ever witnessed. When one believes personhood and soul begin at conception, it.is.all.very.clear. No confusion.
They are so happy with their son (who is adorable.) while not realizing the full magnitude of what they allowed to be done in order to “get” him. The Scheidts deliberately created 12 siblings to Connor, all of which were unique and irreplaceable even as “clumps of cells”. And when 10 of those siblings appeared imperfect, their parents consented to their disposal and resulting death. Now the remaining two siblings are left waiting to live or die by “how the first year goes”. It matters not whether the embryos have any semblance of awareness – the life and death of human beings is what it is.
And the Scheidts, desperate for a child, allowed it all to happen. It’s just so sad.
I find the pearl clutching, the wringing of hands, the gnashing of teeth and the invocation of mourning over the discarding of a few five day embryos bizarre.
Yes, Reality, we are well aware that the only human beings worth existing are the ones that you, personally, deem worthy of life. Hopefully you are never on the other side of that equation someday.
I would hazard a guess that the majority of folk who identify as ‘pro-life’ might state that they would never countenance an abortion. But if they were going through what the Scheidts and many others like them go through and someone told them they were ‘murdering babies’ because they disposed of a few faulty embryos prior to implantation, there would be some serious brow furrowing going on.
After my 20 week anatomy ultrasound scan of the baby currently in my womb, he or she was diagnosed with bilateral clubfoot. I’ve done a ton of research since then, and the cause of clubfoot remains a mystery. Scientists think it may have a generic component, since families with a history of clubfoot are more likely to have children with clubfoot, but in many cases (including ours) there is no family history of it whatsoever. If it is caused by a particular genetic mutation, that gene has not yet been identified.
So it’s possible that even with screenings such as this, an “imperfect” child could still slip through the cracks. Or, as phillymiss and Liz mentioned, the child could develop a disorder or disease after his or her birth such as autism or diabetes. What then? Will they throw their “imperfect” child in the trash like they did his siblings?
That baby is absolutely precious, but I find it chilling that his parents set about to create a “perfect” child and had no qualms killing his siblings because they were imperfect. It is eugenics, plain and simple.
“I would hazard a guess that the majority of folk who identify as ‘pro-life’ might state that they would never countenance an abortion. But if they were going through what the Scheidts and many others like them go through and someone told them they were ‘murdering babies’ because they disposed of a few faulty embryos prior to implantation, there would be some serious brow furrowing going on.”
Well, I doubt most of us would use IVF in an unethical manner like this in the first place, honestly.
(personally I don’t get why people get so upset about being infertile, there are thousands of children that need loving people to foster them either temporarily or permanently, but that’s besides the fact)
Maybe the genetic component is a real ‘sleeper’ and only emerges after long periods of no appearance JoAnna?
Do you seriously think that the majority of even ‘pro-life’ folk find a five day, pre-implantation embryo to possess anything like the siginificance of a developing fetus or a born child?
People trying to achieve a pregnancy through IVF just happen to have the opportunity to screen for defects at what they largely consider to be the time of conception. And given that they obviously have problems conceiving they are probably thankful for that.
I think that what they seek is a healthy child with a good chance of survival rather than a ‘perfect’ one.
Some people may think a kindergartner has more “significance” than a newborn, Reality. Does that mean people should be allowed to throw their newborns in the trash?
You are looking at this from a subjective, emotional standpoint when you should be looking at it from an objective, scientific one. The issue is not if five-day-old embryos are less subjectively, emotionally “significant” than a newborn (and thus are disposable on that basis).
The question is if five-day-old embryos meet the objective scientific criteria for what constitutes unique human organisms. Amazingly, both a five-day-old embryo and newborns meet that same criteria, thus they are both unique human beings.
Yes, the science. The science which tells us that an embryo has all the information needed to develop into a fetus, an infant, an adolescent, an adult. Hopefully.
Can an embryo see? Can it hear? Can it breath? Can it reproduce? Hm, that’s significant.
“Ladeeez and gentlemen…in this hand I have a human sperm. In this hand I have a human egg. Between them they have all that is needed to create a unique individual. They are as significant as you and I.”
My left kidney is a unique human organism. but I don’t find it anywhere near as significant as I find you, JoAnna, to be. Nor do I find an embryo in a dish to be anywhere near as significant as I find JoAnna. Emotionally or scientifically.
The Scheidts said “it saved us heartache”. Most people undergoing IVF would feel the same way. But that ‘subjective’, ’emotional’ stuff has no place does it.
Go visit an IVF clinic and tell everyone who goes there that they are ‘murdering babies’. Let me know how the ‘science’ works for you.
“My left kidney is a unique human organism.”
No it’s not. It’s an organ. Fetuses are not organs, nor are embryos, and not a single reputable scientist will back you on that.
Spoiler! (emoticon of tongue being poked out)
‘An embryo in a dish is indeed a unique human organism but I don’t find it to be anywhere near as significant as I find JoAnna. Emotionally or scientifically.’
Better?
Lol yes, better. Completely subjective, but not false. You do indeed see embryos as less significant humans than JoAnna is.
I disagree Jack. I find it scientifically significant that JoAnna can read and write, speak(presumably), chew, reproduce and ruminate on who to vote for.
So yes, an embryo is scientifically less significant than JoAnna.
(sorry JoAnna, it wasn’t my intention to keep citing your good self – I’ll find a different way to ‘example’)
And, Reality, you’re now back to subjective emotional decisions instead of objective scientific ones. You’ve also deemed people who are deaf, blind, or cognitively disabled as non-humans. (gee, where have I heard that before…?)
Quick biology lesson for you. According to 10th grade biology textbooks, an organism:
1. is made of a common set of chemical components
2. has genetic information with a universal code to specify proteins (DNA, RNA, etc)
3. converts environmental molecules into new biological molecules
4. extracts environmental energy and uses it to do biological work
5. regulates its internal environment (homeostasis)
6. replicates genetic information when reproduced
7. evolves through gradual changes in genetic information.
A human zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, etc. meets the above criteria. A kidney does not.
So, on an objective, scientific basis, an embryo is just as much a human being as I am.
When I started infertility treatments…a sister in medicine WISELY advised me of the ethical pitfalls…caused if one creates many fertilized enbryos.
Thus, we only did the lower fertility treatments that did not involve IVF. And only because of “Octo Mom” did doctors FINALLY start limiting the ### of fertilized embryos they created! Who needs 20 fertilized enbryos (oh wait. Maybe some embryonic research firms want them!!!)
I heard there are a few hundred thousand fertilized embryos out there. What is happening to them?
…and PS…when I finally asked the fertility doctor “Why didn’t you advise us about the moral dilemma of creatying so many embryos?”
the doctor stammered and had no real answer!
(This was the pre Octo Mom era when…you sometimes saw sad pics of several tiny white baby caskets carrying dead babies born to a mom who was unable to carry so many fertilized embryos to term!!!)
Reality, I find it funny that you used the criteria of; reading writing, speaking, chewing, reproducing, and ruminating on who to vote for. A newborn can do none of those things. In that criteria a newborn is the same as an embryo and fetus. So is a newborn is also of less significance to you than an adult? Can they also be discarded at will, because they are imperfect? I find it interesting that you use this criteria to determine they are less significant “scientifically.” So does that put newborns outside of the 95 confidence interval along with fetuses and embryos on the human significance scale?
I find the pearl clutching, the wringing of hands, the gnashing of teeth and the invocation of mourning over the discarding of a few five day embryos bizarre.
You think it’s “bizarre”? They’re human persons who were killed for being “imperfect” and “unwanted”. There’s nothing bizarre about mourning their deaths.
Do you seriously think that the majority of even ‘pro-life’ folk find a five day, pre-implantation embryo to possess anything like the siginificance of a developing fetus or a born child?
An embryo in a dish is indeed a unique human organism but I don’t find it to be anywhere near as significant as I find JoAnna. Emotionally or scientifically.
You don’t consider my siblings to be as “significant” or important as other people, just because they died when they were so young? Do you want to tell me that to my face?
abovemypaygrade,
http://www.nightlight.org/snowflake-embryo-adoption/
That’s a beautiful set of criteria for an organism JoAnna.
A mouse?
An elephant?
It doesn’t identify a human let alone a ‘person’.
Yes, a human embryo is as human as you are. But given the choice between saving a faulty embryo in a dish and saving you (if I had the capacity to do so), I know where my priorities would lie. As it would be for the vast majority of people.
Science is great for clarification and knowledge and stuff. It’s just a pity that the human species isn’t redolent of mindless automatons.
So like I said, go visit an IVF clinic and tell everyone who goes there that they are ‘murdering babies’. Let me know how the ‘science’ works for you. Cos no amount of science is gonna get you far there.
Indeed Reality, it is difficult to convince people who have given up reason and logic for emotionalism, of scientific facts.
Yet here you are jilly4ski, telling me that a faulty embryo in a dish is as significant as you are.
That’s bizarre logic. Extremist ‘reasoning’.
Good, Reality, I’m glad we can agree that five-day-old embryos are human beings (although I believe they are technically considered blastocysts at that point, and not embryos until implantation occurs).
Your analogy is nonsensical. If I was trapped in a burning building with an unconscious 50-year-old man & a newborn infant, and I could only save one, and I chose to save the newborn, would that mean that I devalue or dehumanize 50-year-olds? No. It means that in an emergency situation, I would try to save as many human beings as I could, and if that’s not possible, I’d use a triage decision-making process to save the ones I’m capable of saving.
As it says in this article (authored by Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk, Ph.D. who has a doctorate in neuroscience from Yale and did post-doctoral work at Harvard):
“If I were to grab the newborn out of the fire, that action says nothing meaningful about my thoughts on the moral value of human embryos trapped in the freezer, but speaks more to a snap judgment about foreseeable outcomes in a crisis or triage situation.” (Source: http://www.ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=307)
And then, of course, there are the Nobel prize-winning embryologists who have come to realize that embryos are human beings (and thus have stopped experimenting on them): http://mobile.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/10/shinya_yamanaka_s_nobel_prize_he_saved_embryos_not_just_stem_cell_research_.html
This article is of interest to the conversation at hand.
“I’m glad we can agree that five-day-old embryos are human beings” – did we? Are you William’s sister or something?
Well, the esteemed Rev may be a neuroscientist but he sure makes a mess of juggling fruit. He leaps from an orange and apple scenario to an orange and orange scenario and expects us to tag along.
What would you save JoAnna, a container of embryos or a set of triplets? What do you think would be most peoples response in a fire?
Shinya Yamanaka works in stem-cell research.
Science tells us that an embryo is an organism.
Science tells us that a human embryo is of the human species.
Science tells us that a human embryo usually contains all the info required to becoma a fetus, a baby, a child etc.
‘Significant’ is a subjective term, not a scientific term.
I don’t find an embryo to be as significant as any of us interacting on this site. We are ‘significantly’ more developed physiologically than an embryo.
Reality, the definition of a human being is: “an organism of the species homo sapiens.” You’ve acknowledged that an embryo is an organism of the species homo sapiens.
Your response to Fr. Pacholczyk’s article is glib, but as nonsensical as your original scenario. It sounds like you can’t come up with any coherent objections to his reasoning.
What would you save JoAnna, a container of embryos or a set of triplets? What do you think would be most peoples response in a fire?
I already answered that, above. In an emergency situation, I would try to save as many human beings as I could, and if that wasn’t possible, I’d use a triage decision-making process to save the ones I’m capable of saving.
“Shinya Yamanaka works in stem-cell research.” Yes. He used to experiment on embryos, until he became convicted of their inherent humanity. Then he developed a method of stem cell research that does not involve killing embryos and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.
Indeed JDC, and as the fine anti-choice activist states – ” The question here is which decision would cause the most suffering.”
“the definition of a human being is: “an organism of the species homo sapiens.” – that’s one.
“It sounds like you can’t come up with any coherent objections to his reasoning.” – actually it’s his reasoning which lacks coherence. His starting point is that an embryo is of the same value as a child or an adult. I disagree with his premise.
For me, for most people, deciding between the mother and the triplets would be heart rending. Deciding between some embryos and new-born baby significantly less so.
“I would try to save as many human beings as I could” – naturally.
There are two tables right in front of you, One has a few dishes containg embryos on it, the other a new-born baby. The fire is coming, you only have time to scoop and run from one table. What does your ‘triage decision-making process’ tell you?
I wouldn’t have much difficulty making that decision. I doubt many people would. And I think we’d probably make the same decision.
Fine work by Dr. Shinya.
” There are two tables right in front of you, One has a few dishes containg embryos on it, the other a new-born baby. The fire is coming, you only have time to scoop and run from one table. What does your ‘triage decision-making process’ tell you?
I wouldn’t have much difficulty making that decision. I doubt many people would. And I think we’d probably make the same decision.”
Of course everyone would save the baby, none of us want embryos to die, but if it’s absolutely impossible you try to prevent as much suffering as possible. It’s not inconsistent with a pro-life position to save the infant first if you leave no possibility for saving all of them. I would save a baby over adults too, doesn’t mean that I think adults are worth less than babies, it’s just that a baby’s death would cause more suffering overall and if I couldn’t save everyone I would choose to reduce suffering. But, if there were a way I’d save all of them.
I think that, given a similar dilemma, most people would save one newborn over a tiny city the size of a speck of dust (think “Horton Hears a Who!”). That doesn’t succeed in showing that the people on the speck of dust are less valuable, nor does it give us any reason to believe this is the case. Likewise, saving a newborn over a petri dish full of embryonic humans doesn’t tell us anything about the embryos.
So you agree, then, that an embryo fits the definition of a human being?
If the two tables are right in front of me, I would save all of them! As a mother of five, I am very adept at juggling other tasks and objects with a newborn in my arms.
Now, your turn: you’re in a burning building. In one room is a newborn. In another is a toddler. In another is an adult woman. You only have time to save one. Who do you save, and by saving that person are you making the judgement that the other two are non-humans unworthy of life?
“it’s just that a baby’s death would cause more suffering overall” – what if the baby was abandoned and in a vegetative state and the adult was one of the world’s most successful research scientists?
I think that a city full of people – no matter how small (think Men in Black) – is much more significant than a few embryos in dishes Navi.
“So you agree, then, that an embryo fits the definition of a human being?” – some peoples’ interpretations of some definitions may consider that it is so.
“If the two tables are right in front of me, I would save all of them” – so you don’t want to answer the question. That’s ok, I don’t need you to confirm what most of us already know.
A choice of three now! Like most people, I would go for the closest and most likely successful outcome. Otherwise people tend to dither and no-one gets saved.
“by saving that person are you making the judgement that the other two are non-humans unworthy of life” – no.
No, Reality, I’m asking about the objective, scientific definition of a human being: an organism of the species Homo sapiens. Does a human embryo fit that definition? Yes, or no?
I did answer the question. Luckily, my capabilities expand beyond the premise of your scenario. :)
“by saving that person are you making the judgement that the other two are non-humans unworthy of life” – no.
If this is the case, why do you assume that pro-lifers are making a value judgement about the humanity of embryos if they use the same criteria as you to save the newborn?
There isn’t a single objective, scientific definition of a human being. And even then whatever definition may be given is subject to subjective interpretation. Hence my response to William yesterday.
You didn’t read the question properly then – “you only have time to scoop and run from one table”, not ‘JoAnna has superpowers and can do more than anyone else.’
The significance that normal, rational, everyday folk apportion.
“There isn’t a single objective, scientific definition of a human being.”
Yes, there is. A human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens. Look at any dictionary or biology textbook. No competent scientist would argue with that definition.
But I’m more than happy to call your bluff – please prove that this definition is rejected by reputable scientists. Remember, we’re talking about a SCIENTIFIC, biological definition, not one based in philosophy or theology.
I reject your scenario, then, because it is not based on a rational premise. If the two tables are in front of me, and there are mo obstacles preventing me from grabbing either of them, then I am fully capable of grabbing both babies at once – especially if one is in a petri dish.
“A human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens. Look at any dictionary or biology textbook.” – show me.
“No competent scientist would argue with that definition.” – no, but the debate starts beyond the term homo sapien because people then introduce philosophy or theology or even just personal interpretation.
“I reject your scenario, then, because it is not based on a rational premise.” – it’s ok JoAnna, your answer is easily determined.
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+human+being
http://m.dictionary.com/definition/human+being
http://i.word.com/imedical/human
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_being
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/human-being
“Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7.
“[T]he embryo comes into existence at sperm-egg fusion … a human organism is fully present from the beginning, controlling and directing all of the developmental events that occur throughout life. This view of the embryo is objective, based on the universally accepted scienti?c method of distinguishing di?erent cell types from each other, and it is consistent with the factual evidence. It is entirely independent of any speci?c ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this de?nition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages? A neutral examination of the factual evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scienti?cally well de?ned “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the zygote stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species—human beings.” — Dr. Maureen L. Condic, Berkeley-educated neurobiologist and professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine
“The blastocyst form is not to be thought of solely in terms of the next succeeding stage in development. It is to be remembered that at all stages the embryo is a living organism, that is, it is a going concern with adequate mechanisms for its maintenance as of that time.” – http://www.ehd.org/developmental-stages/stage3.php
“Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote.” – Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998).
Your turn. Please show me several reputable scientific sources that state a human being is something other than an organism of the species Homo sapiens, without getting into a philosophical/moral/theological discussion. Pure science.
Link 1 – a google list, seriously? Do any of them contain the word ‘organism’?
Link 2 – doesn’t seem to go anywhere much
Link 3 – ditto – I don’t do that iPhone thingie
Link 4 – doesn’t mention the word organism. But it does mention a few other words which are subject to philosophy or theology or even just personal interpretation, as I stated.
Link 5 – ditto
Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7. – isn’t a scientific report. It’s political speak.
Dr. Maureen L. Condic, Berkeley-educated neurobiologist and professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine – “Indeed, this de?nition does not directly address the central ethical questions surrounding the embryo: What value ought society to place on human life at the earliest stages of development? Does the human embryo possess the same right to life as do human beings at later developmental stages” – thank you.
“the embryo is a living organism” – yay, we got one! We’ll all be in agreement and ok – as long as we stop there
Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998). – the beginning of a new human being.
“Please show me several reputable scientific sources that state a human being is something other than an organism of the species Homo sapiens” – why? If you had been paying attention you may have noticed that I didn’t claim it wasn’t. What I did say was things like “There isn’t a single objective, scientific definition of a human being. And even then whatever definition may be given is subject to subjective interpretation.” and “the debate starts beyond the term homo sapien because people then introduce philosophy or theology or even just personal interpretation.”
Because people like you and William will claim that all the other terms which are found in those definitions support what is your interpretation whilst I claim that they support mine.
I don’t have a problem with “a human being is an organism of the species Homo sapiens” if we do stick to pure science. But it was quite obvious by his nefarious approach that William intended to proceed onto some of the other words contained within various definitions in an attempt to muddy the waters, how about you?
Now tell me, with a baby in one arm and a stack of embryo filled dishes in the other, how did you open the door to get out?
I think that a city full of people – no matter how small (think Men in Black) – is much more significant than a few embryos in dishes Navi.
I’m well aware that’s what you think. Doesn’t really affect my point.
Reality: “There isn’t a single objective, scientific definition of a human being. And even then whatever definition may be given is subject to subjective interpretation.”
To my knowledge, there’s no single objective, scientific definition of you, either. What of it? And I’d think that’s pretty open to subjective interpretation too. What of it?
Are we discussing the “burning fertility clinic” popularized by Ellen Goodman? I have an extremely thorough and definitive, but lengthy response. Is it needed?
None of the definitions provided contradict the definition, Reality, even if they use the term “individual” instead of “organism.” An organism is an individual.
Re: Condic’a quote – precisely! We aren’t discussing the moral status of embryos, but the scientific one. However, if you agree that embryos are human beings, but still believe abortion is acceptable, then your default position is that some human beings are more worthy of life than others based on subjective, arbitrary criteria. History shows is, quite plainly, that world leaders who have thought that philosophy justified genocide. Is that the company you want to be in?
“Now tell me, with a baby in one arm and a stack of embryo filled dishes in the other, how did you open the door to get out?”
Simple. I use the same hand holding the sack to open the door (use two fingers to hold the sack and the other three fingers to open the door). I’ve certainly done it before with several sacks of groceries in one hand and a baby in the other.
Reality, I notice you haven’t replied to what I said. So maybe when you’re finished with your little burning-research-lab thought experiments, you’d like to answer my question: Are you really saying to me that my siblings are “insignificant” because they were so young when they died? Do you really think that their lives didn’t matter? Do you think that what happened to me and my siblings was okay, and should happen to other people?
Heck, I’ve deep fried pickles with a baby in one arm!
”I have an extremely thorough and definitive, but lengthy response. Is it needed?”
Sure, I’d love to see it.
Just to recap, the scenario is that a fire has broken out in a fertility clinic. There is a tank of 100 embryos that you can easily grab, or there is a 3 year old that you can grab and take out of the burning building. For whatever reason, you cannot save both. It misses the purpose of the thought-experiment to say that you could somehow save both or that something like this could never happen. The question is then- which one do you choose to save? The idea is that most people will choose to save the 3 year old, thereby “proving” that they don’t really think an embryo has the same value as a 3 year old. This line of thinking, though, is immediately problematic. It is simply absurd to deduce moral intuition and everyday ethics by considering a case of supererogation. That fact that someone might choose the 3 year old says nothing about their belief in the moral worth of the embryos. For example, consider a burning old folks home. You can only save the 3 year old or you can run and push a button which will bring down the “fire door” (or fire wall, whatever, I don’t know if such a thing exists but it’s conceivable) and save 100 old folks. If one chooses the 3 year, would they thus be saying that they don’t think old people are “really persons”? Or what if the 3 year old was your own son? Might one be justified in saving the 3 year old rather than 100 90-year olds? Certainly. Would one be justified in saving the 100 90-year olds rather than the 3 year old? Yes! Which brings me to the main point- since this is a supererogatory work, EITHER choice is morally acceptable. It proves absolutely nothing if one decides to choose a more developed person than several embryos. When one is making a choice about saving people’s lives and can only do so much, they must make decisions. It is very analogous to a triage situation. What kinds of things does one take into account when saving lives but can only save so many? Who is “the most important” (meaning either my child, or maybe the president of the US)? Who has the best chance of survival? Etc. The fact that the embryos cannot survive on their own is not relevant in terms of their moral worth intrinsically, but it CAN be relevant to the subjective choice that one makes when deciding whose life they are going to save. It makes perfect sense to choose to save someone who will have a long life over several people who will never grow. Notice though, you are choosing to SAVE SOMEONE”S LIFE over someone elses, given that you can only save one. You aren’t choosing to slice anyone up or let someone die.
Here is the main problem with the IVF thought-experiment. The person proposing the thought experiment needs to argue why one MUST choose to save more lives in this situation. It seems perfectly plausible to say “I would rather save a life that has more chance of growing to fruition” and so would choose the 3 year old over the embryos, since it is not at all clear whether they will ever be implanted. Or one might decide that they want to save the one who will feel the least amount of pain. Again, in a triage situation, if you have 100 people in a burning hospital who are all under total anesthesia and will completely unconscious the entire time vs one little girl who would suffer a miserable and painful death, you are not unjustified in saying that the criteria that you will go with when it comes to doing a supererogatory work is who will feel the most pain. Again, the proposer of the scenario must argue why the only moral option in this situation is to maximize the number of people you save, as opposed to some other criteria like pain, future of life, importance, etc. All of these criterion do not determine a person’s moral worth but they DO help to make decisions when you are FORCED to because lives are at stake.
But as I mentioned before, either choice is morally acceptable. Saving the embryos would be perfectly valid. Suppose the embryos you save are implanted and are born. 20 years later, they throw a party for you in honor of you saving them. Are they not correct? When you rescued those embryos, were they not the same beings as those who are throwing you the party? Are they not justified in believing that you did save them, and not just potentially them? The fact is that we were all once an embryo. We all began our lives as embryos, which is exactly what nascent human life should look like.
As a practical note, whenever I have seen this in the past, there is always a “bait and switch” on the part of the person proposing it. If you answer “I’d save the 3 year old”, they respond with “Ha! You’d actually choose 1 life over 100?” If you respond with “I’d save the embryos” they respond with “Ha! You’d actually let a 3 year old burn and suffer horribly to save some undeveloped cells?” So either answer you give is unacceptable because of course, the person proposing this doesn’t believe that the embryos are human persons of equal moral worth to the 3 year old. The problem is that this thought experiment is supposed to convince you of that. But the response to “I’d save the embryos” assumes without argument that the embryos do not have moral worth.
So the burning IVF fertility clinic simply does not do what it proposes to do, which is demonstrate that the embryo does not have the same moral worth as a 3 year old. We do not determine morality through supererogatory/triage situations, and either choice is morally permissible. The proposer of this scenario needs to argue why there is only one morally correct line of action to take, which will involve arguing why the embryo is not of the same moral worth as the 3 year old. But that is precisely what this thought experiment is intended to do. Thus, on any reading of the burning IVF scenario, it fails.
Thanks, Bobby! That was very well done. In fact, if I encounter anyone else using this argument, I may very well simply direct them to your comment.
Sure, please feel free to copy and paste it if needed, JDC, or anyone else for that matter. Back in 2007 or so, I got caught on the burning IVF scenario, and didn’t have a good response. I spent some time really reading about it and thinking about it, and I”m really glad taht it is completely and totally dead.
“To my knowledge, there’s no single objective, scientific definition of you, either. What of it? And I’d think that’s pretty open to subjective interpretation too. What of it?” – ah, you had to be there rasqual ;-)
“None of the definitions provided contradict the definition, Reality, even if they use the term “individual” instead of “organism.” An organism is an individual” – that’s why I didn’t say that they did.
“based on subjective, arbitrary criteria.” – no, it’s based on scientific criteria. As we are all aware though, most folk do subjectively assess a developing fetus as less significant than post-birth individuals.
“I use the same hand holding the sack to open the door” – what sack? I said “a stack of embryo filled dishes” – but that’s ok JoAnna, the real answer is even clearer.
“Are you really saying to me that my siblings are “insignificant” because they were so young when they died?” – no, just less significant. This isn’t going to be day three of people claiming I’ve said things that I haven’t is it?
“Do you think that what happened to me and my siblings was okay, and should happen to other people” – I don’t know what happened to you and your siblings other than they ‘died when they were so young’.
The burning building scenario is fundamentally flawed. It is predicated on the concept that people will apply the same level of equivalence to an embryo in a dish and a baby as they would apply to a baby and an adult. An honest observer would acknowledge that few people would hesitate very much in choosing between the embryos and the baby but would find the choice between a baby and an adult to be much more difficult. That’s why we see some people squirming uncomfortably and doing everything they can to avoid answering the question.
I would have no hesitation choosing the baby and leaving the embryos in dishes. When it comes to choosing between the baby and the adult it would be a significant dilemma and may well put all three of us at risk.
Oops, sorry, Reality, I misread your post – I read “sack,” not “stack.” My apologies!
I’d put the baby in a cradle hold, stack the petri dishes on top of the baby, and use one hand to open the door.
As Bobby (and Fr. Tad) said, however, it’s really an irrelevant scenario since, as you said yourself, the decision of whom to save in an emergency situation has no bearing on the moral worth of the people who were not saved. They’re still valuable human beings worthy of life even if it’s not possible to save them from a burning building.
“I’d put the baby in a cradle hold, stack the petri dishes on top of the baby, and use one hand to open the door.” – really? I would have thought you’d have a stroller in your pocket. It’s ok JoAnna, you have made your answer abundantly clear :-)
“it’s really an irrelevant scenario” – indeed, it’s one of those pre-loaded scenarios intended to lead to a predetermined outcome by using false presumptions.
Moral bearing or not, we all know what the vast majority would consider more significant and which way they would choose.
Actually, I almost always have a baby sling with me, especially if my newborn or older infant (when I have one) is nearby, so that’s not too far off. :)
Moral bearing or not, we all know what the vast majority would consider more significant and which way they would choose.
Apparently you haven’t been reading any of the above comments except your own, Reality.
Choosing who to save has nothing to do with the SIGNIFICANCE of a particular person. From Bobby Bambino’s comment above: We do not determine morality through supererogatory/triage situations, and either choice is morally permissible.
Of course you do JoAnna. And there’s that fire blanket in your handbag. And if there were simply too many dishes or additional babies you’d just pull that transporter device out of your back pocket wouldn’t you. It’s okay JoAnna, you’ve made your answer clear, there would never ever be a circumstance in which you would need to make a choice, unlike the rest of the planet.
“Choosing who to save has nothing to do with the SIGNIFICANCE of a particular person.” – which is why the choice between a baby and an adult is hard, why people would hesitate, would dither. But when the choice is between an embryo in a dish and a baby people wouldn’t hesitate because when it comes to an embryo in a dish the ‘who’ and the ‘person’ simply doesn’t stack up against the baby. And if someone said “yes I let the baby burn, but look, I saved these dishes of embryos!” I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
I’m acting within the parameters of the scenario you laid out, Reality.
I’d absolutely hesitate when faced with the choice of which human being to save, regardless if it was an embryo in a petri dish or a newborn or a toddler or a teenager or a 20-year-old woman or a 50-year-old man. But again, you really need to read what Bobby wrote, because he’s already responded to everything you’ve brought up:
The person proposing the thought experiment needs to argue why one MUST choose to save more lives in this situation. It seems perfectly plausible to say “I would rather save a life that has more chance of growing to fruition” and so would choose the 3 year old over the embryos, since it is not at all clear whether they will ever be implanted. Or one might decide that they want to save the one who will feel the least amount of pain. Again, in a triage situation, if you have 100 people in a burning hospital who are all under total anesthesia and will completely unconscious the entire time vs one little girl who would suffer a miserable and painful death, you are not unjustified in saying that the criteria that you will go with when it comes to doing a supererogatory work is who will feel the most pain. Again, the proposer of the scenario must argue why the only moral option in this situation is to maximize the number of people you save, as opposed to some other criteria like pain, future of life, importance, etc. All of these criterion do not determine a person’s moral worth but they DO help to make decisions when you are FORCED to because lives are at stake.
But as I mentioned before, either choice is morally acceptable. Saving the embryos would be perfectly valid. Suppose the embryos you save are implanted and are born. 20 years later, they throw a party for you in honor of you saving them. Are they not correct? When you rescued those embryos, were they not the same beings as those who are throwing you the party? Are they not justified in believing that you did save them, and not just potentially them? The fact is that we were all once an embryo. We all began our lives as embryos, which is exactly what nascent human life should look like.
As a practical note, whenever I have seen this in the past, there is always a “bait and switch” on the part of the person proposing it. If you answer “I’d save the 3 year old”, they respond with “Ha! You’d actually choose 1 life over 100?” If you respond with “I’d save the embryos” they respond with “Ha! You’d actually let a 3 year old burn and suffer horribly to save some undeveloped cells?” So either answer you give is unacceptable because of course, the person proposing this doesn’t believe that the embryos are human persons of equal moral worth to the 3 year old. The problem is that this thought experiment is supposed to convince you of that. But the response to “I’d save the embryos” assumes without argument that the embryos do not have moral worth.
“I’m acting within the parameters of the scenario you laid out, Reality.” – :-) actually, you’re acting within the parameters of ‘I’m not going to be forced to admit what choice I would make.’
Yes, lovely words from Bobby.Yes, there’s some validity to the ‘bait and switch’ and ‘either is a moral choice’ bits.
But lets face facts. The overwhelming majority of people would choose to save the baby because an embryo in a dish just doesn’t carry the same ‘who’ or ‘person’ significance as the baby. Most peoples ‘moral stance’ would be to save the life in front of them rather than those things in the dishes over there.
No, I’m acting within the parameters of your scenario. If you choose to change those parameters, I’ll act within those.
“Most peoples ‘moral stance’ would be to save the life in front of them rather than those things in the dishes over there.”
Incorrect. Most people would try to save all human lives that they could, and lament the lives they couldn’t save. If the parameters of your scenario changed so that it was truly only possible to save either the newborn or the embryos (let’s say that the embryos were in a cryostorage tank that wasn’t portable and would take a long time to open), then I’d save the newborn — not because I didn’t think the embryos were worthless or less human or undeserving of life or less significant, but simply because the newborn and I have a better chance of survival if I don’t have to take the time to try and open a cryostorage tank. Etc. Similarly, if the newborn was locked in a room for some reason and saving him/her involved physically breaking down the door, vs. grabbing the petri dishes off the table and running, I’d probably grab the petri dishes because saving the newborn would mean a greater chance of all of us being killed.
See how that works? And what “other people” would do/think really doesn’t matter, because what “other people think” isn’t the objective scientific criteria we use to determine if embryos are human beings/organisms of the species homo sapiens (which they are), nor is “what other people think” the basis we use for determine which human beings have rights (that’s why we have a justice system, imperfect as it may be).
If a Dachau was burning and the Nazi guards chose not to save the Jews, would you therefore argue that since Jews don’t carry significance in their eyes, it means that they shouldn’t have any rights, anytime, anywhere, to anyone, and therefore they aren’t human? That seems to be your claim with the burning IVF clinic scenario.
“See how that works?” – sure, you’ll construct any convoluted scenario possible to avoid admitting which actual choice you would make – all things being equal.
“what “other people think” isn’t the objective scientific criteria we use to determine if embryos are human beings/organisms of the species homo sapiens…..nor is “what other people think” the basis we use for determine which human beings have rights”
No, but it’s how people think and how they determine relative significance that would see the baby saved rather than the embryos.
“they shouldn’t have any rights, anytime, anywhere, to anyone, and therefore they aren’t human?” – not at all.
“That seems to be your claim with the burning IVF clinic scenario.” – then apparently you haven’t been paying attention. I have stated from the start that people just don’t attach much significance to embryos in dishes relative to babies or adults. In this IVF case the avoiding of heartache was considered more significant than the discarding of a few faulty embryos. As it would be for most folk. That is the reality.
“I have stated from the start that people just don’t attach much significance to embryos in dishes relative to babies or adults. In this IVF case the avoiding of heartache was considered more significant than the discarding of a few faulty embryos. As it would be for most folk. That is the reality.”
If your son and a stranger were in the situation that you described for the embryos and baby, you’d save your son every time. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t mean that you think that the stranger’s life is valueless or insignificant. It doesn’t change the stranger’s humanity or value because you chose someone you are close to over them.
With the baby vs embryos, pretty much everyone would grab the baby. Most people are going to save the crying, conscious baby from dying a horrible death than embryos that aren’t developed enough to feel pain. And like I said, I’d pick a baby over an adult almost any time. Doesn’t mean I think adults or embryos are less human than infants, it’s just my personal triage and doesn’t change the humanity or worth of anyone else.