Saving People

[dairygirl4u2c]

half of all people in fertilized egg form die before implantation, because they never get the grip needed to become implanted.
(or something like that..)

so should the prolife cause focus its efforts on trying to save these people?
what if they knew a pretty decent method to help promote implantation?
(such that it wasn't a problem)

it's a natural effect for them to die, so i think all should be able to agree it's not necessarily (as per knowing what the truth of the matter is) wrong to not save them.

but wouldn't it be virtuous to try to save them?
and in sense, wouldn't it be wrong to say that if it's virtuous to try to save them, that it's wrong to not try to save them?

if it's not wrong ot not try to save them..... is it actually wrong to want ot save them?

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it's not wrong to not try to save them.... is it wrong to try to save them?
to want ot save them? (you're wanting something against 'natural law' it could be argued)

shouldn't this area of ethics be explored if half of all people die before they even get implanted?

why isn't it even being considered?

isn't it wrong to not even consider it? not even consider saving half of the population?

what if the method was able to distinguish eggs that were good but not getting implanted from those that were bad?

etc etc

[dairygirl4u2c]

if it's wrong to desire and to try to save them....

isn't it at LEAST the right thing to do to pray for them?

just in case there is a limbo waiting for them, or just in case, whatever the case cause who knows?

i can't see how anyone could object to wanting to pray for half the population that dying.

isn't it a virtue then>

so in a sense, isn't it wrong to not want to or to not pray for that half of people that die?

[rizz_loves_jesus]

It's the same as saving someone from a heart attack or an aneurysm. Saving someone from a natural cause of death doesn't mean necessarily going against nature, it's using our brains like God intended us to. Of course it would be virtuous to try to save a newly conceived human being from death.

[CatherineM]

The church allows for the use of fertility drugs that produce more eggs than natural, so I don't see why this would be a problem. My sister in law had trouble with implantation that had to do with the pH, and once they figured it out (this was 35+ years ago), they came up with some solutions, and they eventually had two kids.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if it's virtuous to try to save them, why isn't anyone trying to?

it's like thinking "meh, i'm not going to try to save uncle Joe or anyone else who tends to have heart attacks or who die of cancer, cause they die naturally anyway"

that's almost wrong, isn't it, to not try to save them, if saving them is a virtue, at least in some sense (would you seriously say it's not wrong, in at least some sense, to try to save the people from heart attacks or cancer??)?

and instead of focusing so much on cancer and heart disease, shoudln't we be focusing more on getting those people implanted given they're such a huge segment of the peopluation?
are we just narrow minded for focusing on those we have come to care about and know, and to hell with half the populatiopn?
how does anyone go about justifying these inconsistencies? i'd really like to know the answer to this. i'm guessing people are just going to ignore the issue.
(and if the sciencie isn't uncertain, shouldn't it at least be looked into etc?)

i'm not sure it's obvious or not, but i'm being sort of ironical, cause i'm skeptical about the personhood of the newly conceived egg.

Edited December 5, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[rizz_loves_jesus]

The problem is, we don't know when eggs are fertilized. Most women are well into their first or second trimester before they find out. I'm sure there are scientists researching this (for more accurate pregnancy tests and stuff.) Once they get to the point where they are able to tell when human beings are conceived, they'll be able to start working on saving them from problems with implantation.