So I think this article is relevant to the article we read last week, by Flower. Basically when does live begin? We all have our own opinion on that question. I have a few questions though about this article that left me confused.
One. I don't see the problem with IVF. If I have an understanding doesn't the procedure consist of taking an egg and sperm, fertilizing it out side the body, then placing the fertilized egg in the female? Why is this such a crime? I mean I guess the crime would be that the left over eggs that are not used are thrown away and to some people those eggs are considered humans. I can understand their view, but I think that its more important that a family is able to have children by IVF than it is to worry about the eggs that do not get used. That being said I obviously don't consider the eggs to be humans.
I think that I agree with the idea that is said in this article and I also think Flower introduced in his article as well. That is the cell goes through stages before there is a trace of DNA and any idea what parts in cell division are going to be what, meaning basically(at least to me) that this is not much of a human at this stage. But after those first few hours of cell division then more recognizable parts are starting to form. That is when I think more ambiguity starts to appear, but obviously not for everyone.
In this article it talks about splitting embryos- so what they say is you can split 8 cells into 4 which would make two different human beings? But if you put the cells back together soon enough it would just create one person?
Something else that caught my eye in this article was when they talked about human embryo loss in normal reproduction- what does this mean? That we are killing potential embryos? Even when we are taking precautions to avoid pregnancy?
On another note, I'm still struggling with Fortunes book, I am able to understand a few paragraphs but then I feel lost again..........we will see how the rest of the book goes, I think I will always struggle with his book.
I will say I did enjoy the chapter x about promises. my understanding was that promises can be made that you truly tend to keep, but you never know what might happen between the time you make the promise and the time that the promise comes true. Certain things can come up to interrupt a promise that you made. Basically its hard to keep a promise even with every intention to do so. Not having a full understanding of Fortunes book makes it difficult for me to blog my opinion on his views.
Side note: I was watching a television show that was talking about IVF and a couple that was going to utilize these resource. I found it very cool that I was able to understand what was going on and what was being said, I felt as if I was just following right along.. Because of this class I now how an understanding, of not only what IVF is and how it works, but also the political side as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I take it that you mean "embryos" where you say "eggs", i.e. the early preembryonic stages of development. I noticed that early on in the reflection you said you "don't consider the [embryos] to be human" and a bit later said "this is not much of a human at this stage" (which I think was the stage where the DNA in the newly fertilized egg had yet to be expressed and so the "genetic uniqueness" had yet to show up). I like your notion that the "ambiguity" of the embryo may show up at different stages (and differently for different people). This does seem to be the case...thus making things complicated yet again.
ReplyDeleteI understand that Fortun's argument can be complicated in places and that's a struggle to follow along at times. If we had more time we could move through it more slowly...and that would help. Oh, and I'm glad to hear you found the IVF show understandable. That's surely part of what we're after here...to be able to "tune in" more easily and completely when these techniques come into the public eye.